Solving problems with definitions and defining is the nominalistic way
to proceed.
I do not work in the way of presenting definitions. - I work with doing
something, with a (more or less) systematic method. - Just like in a
laboratory.
I have done strict experimental work. And strict up to most meticulous
details!
Since then, I have been studieing tests. With just as keely meticulous
aattitude.
Definitions I do abhorre.
If you are looking for definitions, you'll be certainly going amiss with
CSP. - So I will not offer you any.
CSP does mention ATOMOS, once. Referring to Ariatotle and the ancients.
Best,
Kirsti
Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 17.1.2017 16:12:
Kirsti, List:
KM: Just as well as a continuous line (in CSP's view) doesn not
consist of points, it does not consist of segments, continuous or
not so. A truly continuous line cannot be segmented without
breaking the very continuity you are trying to capture. - It
presents just the same geometrical problem as do points.
You are correct, "segment" was probably a poor choice of word on my
part.
KM: You seem to be captured (along with nominalistic ways of
thinking) by the notion of individual as ATOMOS (cf. Aristotle).
What specific "nominalistic ways of thinking" do you detect in my
posts? How would you define an "individual" from a Peircean
standpoint?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[2]
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:04 AM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote:
Jon S.
Not only is continuity the most difficult problem for philosophy to
handle, it is also the most difficult problem for mathematics to
handle.
Taking into consideration the view of CSP that we always have to
start with math, then proceed to phenomenology, and only after this
try to handle logic (in the broad sense or in ny more restricted
sense), it follows that some (not yet definable) mathematical ideas
should be developed. - Such may not as yet exist!
Viewing Moore's collection of mathematical writings of CSP & his
introductions there seems to prevail a basic misunderstanding of the
relation between continua and continuity.
Just as well as a continuous line (in CSP's view) doesn not consist
of points, it does not consist of segments, continuous or not so.
A truly continuous line cannot be segmented without breaking the
very continuity you are trying to capture. - It presents just the
same geometrical problem as do points.
One has to start with (geometrical) topology. A topic SCP says so
little about e.g. in Kaina Stoicheia. - He only states that it must
come first. And followed by perspective, and only after these any
kinds of measuring.
But what kind of topology? - And how and why the simplest math must
come before phenomenology & be followed by (a special kind of)
phenomenology?
Definitely not Husserlian, according to CSP.
But there are grounds in the writings of CSP to assume that
Hegelian dialectics, with the three moments, are not such a far
catch.
You seem to be captured (along with nominalistic ways of thinking)
by the notion of individual as ATOMOS (cf. Aristotle).
True continuity involves time. (And vice versa: time involves
continuity.) They are like RECTO and VERSO in CSP's Existential
Graphs.
Or a jacket with a lining. Most jackets do have a separable inside
cloth but even if it is taken away, there always remains a RECTO and
VERSO. As well as both taken together: the jacket!
With this there comes triadicity.
Keen to hear your response,
Kirsti
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
-----------------------------
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 .
