Hi,
My distant memories tell me that I took up Parker's book in the hope of
finding there something essential & important about the concept of
continuity in CSP's work. I was quite disappointed in finding out that
the book was about continuity between the phases of theorizing in the
writings of CSP.
This way of putting the question I do find somewhat trivial and
'seminary minded'. Something CSP abhorred, being a laboratory minded
philosopher himself.
Of course there must be a continuity in what one and the same person
writes, IF he/she proceeds logically. Not just hopping from one theme
and question to another. Of course there also must be changes, IF the
person in question truly makes some progress.
It is not that I found Kelly Parker's book disappointing as such. I
found it mislabelled. Which is something the publisher should get the
blame rather than Parker.
Best,
Kirsti
Clark Goble kirjoitti 13.6.2016 20:34:
On Jun 13, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Jerry LR Chandler
<[email protected]> wrote:
The recent mention by Clark of Parker’s book, “Continuity…”
re-opens the question of how Parker categorized CSP’s writings.
Of particular interest is Parker’s division of the three periods
of meanings:
Fig. 6.2: 1865-1885
Fig. 6.3: 1885-1902
Fig. 6.4: 1902-1914
I don’t have time to delve into all this as it’s honestly been a
long time since I last read his book. So I’m going by distant memory
here.
While I loved the book, I remember my few qualms to be over how he
mixed views from various periods of Peirce’s thought in key places.
In particular in some places he makes use of the very early Peirce
where his more neoplatonic tendencies are manifest in his reworking of
Kant. However in other places he makes use of texts from later
periods. However my memory just isn’t good enough to recall exactly
where this was a problem. I also vaguely recall him agreeing to my
critiques in a few points. But I’d not want to hang a criticism on
such a distant memory.
How do Parker's separation of the forms of CSP logics relate to FS's
views of Natural Propositions?
Can one find an illation between Parker’s reading of CSP and
FS’s reading of CSP’s propositional functions?
I’d want to reread both before delving into that question. It’s a
good one and hopefully someone else can chime in.
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
