Dear list:
Jon’s recommendation is useful. However, I found the later version of the Logic of Relatives (1897), the one after his public conversation with Carus, to be clearer. Also, since Peirce publicly recognized Aristotle’s influence and purpose, here is a ground for the original work: “Every syllogism is effected by means of three terms. One kind of syllogism serves to prove that A inheres in C by showing that A inheres in B and B in C So it is clear that every demonstration and every syllogism will proceed through three terms only. This being evident, it is clear that a syllogistic conclusion follows from two premisses and not from more than two. For the three terms make two premisses, unless a new premiss is assumed, as was said at the beginning, to perfect the syllogisms. It is clear too that the inquiry proceeds through the three terms and the two premisses, and that all the syllogisms proceed through the aforesaid figures. The method is the same in all cases, in philosophy, in any art or study. We must look for the attributes and the subjects of both our terms, and we must supply ourselves with as many of these as possible, and consider them by means of the three terms, refuting statements in one way, confirming them in another, in the pursuit of truth starting from premisses in which the arrangement of the terms is in accordance with truth, while if we look for dialectical syllogisms we must start from probable premisses.” ~Aristotle, Posterior Analytics and Prior Analytics Hth, Jerry Rhee On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike, Jerry, Jon, Edwina, List ... > > The Germans have a word for it ... «Einstellung» ... > but never mind that now ... > > I only wanted to say what I always say when disputes > about the nature of relations, triadic relations, and > sign relations arise — that the best way for readers of > Peirce to get clear about the nature of relations is to > begin where Peirce began, with his 1870 Logic of Relatives. > It is especially important for people interested in empirical > applications of Peirce's semiotic to acquire fluency with the > extensional definition of triadic relations as sets of triples. > Classifications are important in any science, but it is critical > to be classifying subject matter at the right level of structure. > > As it happens, I am planning to continue with the close reading of > Peirce's 1870 Logic of Relatives that I was serializing on my blog, > and I'm thinking it would be good to begin by refreshing my memory > of what has gone before. See the following anchor post: > > https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/01/27/peirces-1870-logic > -of-relatives-%e2%80%a2-preliminaries/ > > Regards, > > Jon > > -- > > inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
