Dear list: Then for what reason is CP if it is simply an "arbitrarily jumbled topical arrangement of the Collected Papers"? To arrange papers with solely that purpose appears silly to me. Perhaps something is being missed or ignored.
For example, what if our purpose is to find a resolution to a battle of names (*c.f.*, *Cratylus*, 438d-439b). How are we to refer to the sections of interest or ought we to reference the entire essay, of which there may be different versions? That is, is it not simpler to say: CP 5.189 is better than CP 6.469 and better than CP 5.402? I suppose we could simply google phrases, nowadays... All the best, Jerry Rhee On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > On Oct 25, 2016, at 11:53 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > CG: I usually prefer to quote from EP 2 or RLT rather than CP for reasons > like this. (It’s just a pain to figure out the dates - although perhaps > that’s me) > > > It is not just you--I have come to despise not only the arbitrarily > jumbled topical arrangement of the Collected Papers, but also the need to > find just the right footnote in order to determine the date of any > particular passage, which is often associated with an earlier paragraph > than the one of interest. Those dates are not entirely reliable, either. > A good example of the problems that can arise is a fairly recent (and very > interesting) paper on "A Neglected Argument" that still dated CP 6.486-491 > to 1910, despite the EP footnotes explaining that this is actually the > *first *(unpublished) additament that Peirce wrote in 1908; and treated > CP 6.492-493 as part of the original article written in 1908, even though > the accompanying footnote states plainly that it is "From an unpaginated > fragment, c. 1896." > > > I just wish RLT was available electronically as a PDF or ePub/Mobi. Right > now I always have to go to my hard copy. > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
