Open questions to the list: The following quote, posted by gnox (Thanks, Gary) appears to be a deep conundrum from several perspectives of 21 st Century logic. > On Jun 9, 2017, at 8:44 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > Peirce, CP 3.440 (1896): > [[ I have maintained since 1867 that there is but one primary and fundamental > logical relation, that of illation, expressed by ergo. A proposition, for me, > is but an argumentation divested of the assertoriness of its premiss and > conclusion. This makes every proposition a conditional proposition at bottom. > In like manner a “term,” or class-name, is for me nothing but a proposition > with its indices or subjects left blank, or indefinite. The common noun > happens to have a very distinctive character in the Indo-European languages. > In most other tongues it is not sharply discriminated from a verb or > participle. “Man,” if it can be said to mean anything by itself, means “what > I am thinking of is a man.” ]]
First we note that CSP notes that he has held the view for 29 years! Second, we note the singularity of the assertion > there is but one primary and fundamental logical relation Thirdly, we note that this single ur-form of logic is expressed by a single term: > expressed by ergo. In English, the word Ergo means therefore. Next, CSP expresses his conclusion on the nature of a proposition: > A proposition, for me, is but an argumentation divested of the assertoriness > of its premiss and conclusion. With this simple sentence, does the single term, “argumentation” replace the traditional ur-logical ground of logic, antecedent and consequence? How important is this sentence? If "divested of the assertoriness of its premiss and conclusion”, then what is the meaning of the grammar? Or the meaning of arithmetic? Are arguments to be fabricated in a completely ad hoc manner, depending solely on the emotions whims of the author? The sentence > In like manner a “term,” or class-name, is for me nothing but a proposition > with its indices or subjects left blank, or indefinite. suggests that all of language is merely a blank form. The notion of “counting” is apparently completely discounted. My gut level response to CP 3.440, in toto, is that if I take this description of a fundamental logical relation as a conclusive statement, it seems to deny the realism of my experiences. I am very curious as to how others interpret this gloss of 3.440 and welcome both online as well as offline responses. Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
