> On Oct 25, 2016, at 2:38 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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?
The CP was a fantastic work by Harvard in the day. Up to that point people typically had to go to Harvard and go through the collections to read most of Peirce. (Derrida famously had to go to Harvard for a year to read much of Peirce back in the 50’s) The CP enabled people to actually get the lesser known (and arguably more important) works of Peirce. So it’s been a huge benefit but has the limits of being that first work and organized somewhat thematically. The Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition is arguably much better. But it’s not yet as widely available, so far as I’m aware isn’t in an electronic edition yet, and is only up to volume 6 which deals with his writings from 1886-1890. Since for most of us it is his post mid 90’s work that is most valuable that means we’ll have to wait a while to use the series or stick with the EP.
----------------------------- 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 .
