Ben,
Are there omitted parts in your quotes? Marked by -?
Best, Kirsti
Benjamin Udell kirjoitti 15.1.2017 20:05:
Jon A.S., Kirsti, list,
Regarding Peirce about reflected-on qualities as generals, I was
basing that on the same text as contains CP 1.427 quoted by Jon
A.S.
That is "§2. Quality" http://www.textlog.de/4282.html [1] [3] in
"The
Logic of Mathematics; An Attempt to Develop My Categories From
Within," an MS from circa 1896.
From CP 1.422:
[....] In other words, it is concrete things you do not believe in;
qualities, that is, generals — which is another word for the same
thing — you not only believe in but believe that they alone
compose the universe. [....]
From CP 1.425:
[....] When we say that qualities are general, are partial
determinations, are mere potentialities, etc., all that is true of
qualities reflected upon; but these things do not belong to the
quality-element of experience. [....]
Best, Ben
On 1/15/2017 11:47 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
Kirsti, List:
Not surprisingly, I have found that Peirce was exactly right when
he
stated, "Of all conceptions Continuity is by far the most difficult
for Philosophy to handle" (RLT:242). I think that the light bulb
finally came on for me when I stopped focusing on a line as
consisting of potential vs. actual points, and instead recognized
that it consists of continuous line segments all the way down. This
reflects the distinction that I just mentioned in my response to
Jon
A. between the singular (point) and the individual (continuous line
segment). A true singularity--determinate in every conceivable
respect--would be a _dis_continuity, and hence is only an ideal.
As you noted, it is important to keep in mind that the points or
line segments do not _comprise _ the continuum; the latter is the
more fundamental concept. Hence Peirce changed "the question of
nominalism and realism"--rather than, "Are generals real?" it
became, "Are any continua real?" (RLT:160) In that sense, I
disagree with your subsequent post directed at Ben--a quality _is_
general, because it is a continuum; it just has a different _kind _
of generality/continuity from a habit or law. In fact, Peirce
explicitly contrasted the degenerate or negative generality of a
quality as permanent or eternal possibility with the genuine or
positive generality of a law as conditional necessity (CP 1.427).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
[2]
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 8:46 AM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi > wrote:
Jon A.S.
First: see my recent response to Jon Awbrey.
Second: In developing his theory of true continuity, CSP used the
basic geometrical notions of a line and a point. (According to his
architecture of sciences, which presents not just an architecture
of sciences, but more so a method for proceeding with any
questions).
CSP grew dissatisfied with the ancient view as well as the Kantian
view of continuity. The latist view of CSP was that there are no
points in true continuity, neither does it consist of points,
however small, however near to each other.
BUT, as a methodological advice, he wrote that it is admissible to
separate of point in the continuity in question, IF it is done
with a deliberate aim & a readyness to leave from separation to
unification as soon as possible.
In separating any point within the continuum in question,
continuity gets violated. But this violation may and can be
mended. - The point, thus sepateted, must be re-posioned into the
contunuity it was originally pointed out.
To understand all this, it is necessary to truly understand the
essence of ordinal (nin contrast to cardinal) mathematics,simplest
arihmetics, in the philosophy of CSP.
The Fist, the Second, the Third.... Then at least a little bit new
Fist, Second, Third...
CSP came to the conclusion that his categories beared a
resemblance with the three moments by Hegel. - After having been
mocking Hegel's Logic (with good reasons!)
What, for Peirce ( and me), is universal is change, chance
(spontaneity) and continuity. But, mind you, all together.
From exlusion of existent individuals (points in a line) does not
follow that existent individuals do not matter. - it just follows
that from any collection og existent indivuals ( collection of
points) it is not possible to construe a continuum. - However hard
it may be tried.
Continuity as an abstraction does not amount to understanding real
continuity. With figments of your imaginations you can do (almost)
anything with a whim of your mind. But even then there is the
ALMOST. The 'not quite', a residual.
Well. You asked about the relation between universal and general.
But from the viewpoint of taking existent individuals as the
starting point. - Which is wrong.
It presents a nominalistic starting point. - Are generals real?
was the formulations CSP gave for the basic philosphical
disagreement in the Middle Ages between the Thomists and the
Scotists. - Since then, the nominalistic view has absolute taken
the upper hand. - It rules our minds, from the first grade at
school onwards.
I truly appreciate your posts to the list. A very good
understanding they present, with due accuracy. - Very seldom met
qualities, very seldom...
With appreciation,
Kirsti
