Kirsti, List: What you wrote on Tuesday: "Definitions I do abhorre."
What I wrote on Thursday: "You say now that you are not denying the usefulness of definitions, but you said before that you abhor definitions." What you wrote today: "I definitely never said that I "abhorr definitions"." All of these comments are copied directly from the messages threaded below. Needless to say, I am even more confused now, and still wondering what exactly you find "nominalistic" about my "ways of thinking." Regards, Jon On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 7:26 AM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote: > Sorry Jon. Again. - I definitely never said that I "abhorr definitions". > If you do not regocnize an intrepretation here, compared to what I wrote, > I'm afraid there is nothing to discuss. - We are not on anything like a > same page. > > Kirsti > > Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 19.1.2017 16:25: > >> Kirsti, List: >> >> Just to clarify, Alan is my middle name; I go by Jon. >> >> What makes you think that I am missing that "crucial aspect"? I >> provided this quote very early in the thread. >> >> But here it is necessary to distinguish between an individual in the >>> sense of that which has no generality and which here appears as a >>> mere ideal boundary of cognition, and an individual in the far wider >>> sense of that which can be only in one place at one time. It will >>> be convenient to call the former singular and the latter only an >>> individual … With reference to individuals, I shall only remark >>> that there are certain general terms whose objects can only be in >>> one place at one time, and these are called individuals. They are >>> generals that is, not singulars, because these latter occupy neither >>> time nor space, but can only be at one point and can only be at one >>> date. (W2:180-181; 1868) >>> >> >> You say now that you are not denying the usefulness of definitions, >> but you said before that you abhor definitions. I find this >> confusing. Again, how would one go about better understanding the >> concepts of universal/general/continuous and >> particular/singular/individual by means of "strict experimental work"? >> In other words, how can we achieve the third grade of clarity >> regarding those concepts? >> >> Most importantly, I am still wondering what you find "nominalistic" >> about my "ways of thinking." On a Peirce list, that is a rather >> serious allegation. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon >> >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:51 AM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote: >> >> Alan, >>> >>> Sorry for the typo. - Sill it seems to me you miss a crucial aspect >>> of ' to kath ekaston', what is singular. - The difference lies in it >>> being determinate only as long as 'time is so'. - What is real, in >>> contrast to existent individuals, always lies (partly) in the >>> future. Thus it is never wholly determined, but possesses the >>> element of vagueness, never wholly captured by any definition. >>> >>> I am not denying the usefulness of definitions. - By no means. >>> >>> With all respect, >>> >>> Kirsti >>> >>> Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 17.1.2017 22:10: >>> Kirsti, List: >>> >>> What problems do you think I am trying to solve with definitions? >>> >>> What is intrinsically nominalistic about working with definitions? >>> Peirce associated them with the second grade of clarity, and wrote >>> many of them for the _Century Dictionary_ and Baldwin's >>> _Dictionary_. >>> >>> How would one go about better understanding the concepts of >>> universal/general/continuous and particular/singular/individual by >>> means of "strict experimental work"? >>> >>> Since you brought it up, I actually found no mentions of "atomos" >>> but >>> three of "atomon" in the Collected Papers. >>> >>> This distinction between the absolutely indivisible and that which >>> is one in number from a particular point of view is shadowed forth >>> in the two words _individual _{to ATOMON} and _singular _(to kath' >>> hekaston); but as those who have used the word _individual _have >>> not >>> been aware that absolute individuality is merely ideal, it has come >>> to be used in a more general sense. (CP 3.93; 1870) >>> >>> (As a technical term of logic, _individuum _first appears in >>> Boëthius, in a translation from Victorinus, no doubt of {ATOMON}, >>> a >>> word used by Plato (_Sophistes_, 229 D) for an indivisible species, >>> and by Aristotle, often in the same sense, but occasionally for an >>> individual. Of course the physical and mathematical senses of the >>> word were earlier. Aristotle's usual term for individuals is {ta >>> kath' hekasta}, Latin _singularia_, English _singulars_.) Used in >>> logic in two closely connected senses. (1) According to the more >>> formal of these an individual is an object (or term) not only >>> actually determinate in respect to having or wanting each general >>> character and not both having and wanting any, but is necessitated >>> by its mode of being to be so determinate. See Particular (in >>> logic) >>> ... (2) Another definition which avoids the above difficulties is >>> that an individual is something which reacts. That is to say, it >>> does react against some things, and is of such a nature that it >>> might react, or have reacted, against my will. (CP 3.611-613; 1911) >>> >>> But experience only informs us that single objects exist, and that >>> each of these at each single date exists only in a single place. >>> These, no doubt, are what Aristotle meant by {to kath' hekaston} >>> and >>> by {ai prötai ousiai} in his earlier works, particularly the >>> Predicaments. For {ousia} there plainly means existent, and {to ti >>> einai} is existence. (I cannot satisfy myself that this was his >>> meaning in his later writings; nor do I think it possible that >>> Aristotle was such a dolt as never to modify his metaphysical >>> opinions.) But {to ATOMON} was, I think, the strict logical >>> >>> individual, determinate in every respect. In the metaphysical >>> sense, existence is that mode of being which consists in the >>> resultant genuine dyadic relation of a strict individual with all >>> the other such individuals of the same universe. (CP 6.335-336; c. >>> 1909) >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:39 AM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote: >>> >>> 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] [1] [1] - >>> >>> twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2] [2] >>> >>> [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 >>> >>
----------------------------- 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 .