> On Jan 9, 2017, at 4:44 PM, jacob longshore <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, I think you're right about that. Peirce's definitions of "generals" are > framed in terms of parts of a whole (and thereforefinite), whereas > "universal" would apply to an infinite number of possible entities. This > distinction he holds throughout his career. >
I’m not sure the part to whole relation entails finitude depending upon what one means by that. Consider a square. You can cut it in half and have two parts but each part is still continuous in the Peircean sense even if we might say they have finite area. Again the discussion of Cantor and Dedekind is useful here. In particular Peirce’s modal realism in his mature phase of the late 1890’s onward pretty well requires possibilities as continuous of a sort.
----------------------------- 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 .
