John S., List, I agree. Having said that, I think it will help to dispel confusion in our discussions on the list if we spell out the texts and sources that are most on our minds when we are trying to interpret specific passages. Or, in those cases when we are giving an "all things considered" reading, then to say so.
For Peirce, the mathematical and logical ideas and systems were so familiar to him that he was able to move between systems (e.g., Boole, De Morgan, Jevons, Schröder, his own, etc.) with incredible ease. In my own particular case, the algebraic ideas are harder for me to see with much clarity or depth. As such, I appreciate it when you, Jon A, and others explain the relevance of various developments in the algebraic systems of logic for the philosophical questions he is trying to answer--and especially when you offer nice, clear (i.e., diagrammatic) ways of understanding what is involved in a particular set of algebraic relations. --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 ________________________________________ From: John F Sowa <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 8:54 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs On 4/14/2017 10:41 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote: > I have to say (one more time) that if we want to understand Peirce’s > terms — especially what he means by a *triadic relation* — we need to > read them *in the context *where Peirce uses them, not lift them out > of their context and drop them into a scheme of our own invention. For any particular text, that principle is quite reasonable. But Peirce's life included a very wide range of contexts -- all of which were lurking in the back of his mind while he wrote. Note the frequent digressions in his writings. And note the dates. He wrote his 1870 article on relations while he was working on physics and engineering (measuring gravity and designing instruments). He wrote his 1880, 1883, and 1885 work after he edited his father's book on linear algebra and while he was teaching logic at Johns Hopkins. He wrote his articles and MSS on existential graphs *after* he had written or edited thousands of definitions for the _Century Dictionary_. > not ... drop them into a schemeof our own invention. But I would add "not choose one aspect of Peirce's work to the exclusion of others." In short, we should consider his writings on chemistry when we analyze his graph logic. But we should not forget his other work, especially his algebraic logic and his more recent work on lexicography. John
----------------------------- 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 .
