John, Kirsti, List ...
The most important difference between linguistics and logic
is that linguistics is descriptive while logic is normative.
Yes, some grammarians try to treat grammar as prescriptive,
but most in modern times have given up on that and realize
that usage will have its day and win out in the long run.
And even when grammar appears to dictate form it does so
only on the plane of signs, sans objects, and so remains
a flat affair.
It is only logic that inhabits all three dimensions O × S × I
of sign relations, inquiring into how we ought to conduct our
transactions with signs in order to realize their objectives.
A normative science has different aims even when it looks on
the same materials as a descriptive science. So logic may
deal with abstractions from language but it is more than
abstract linguistics — it is an augmentation of language.
Regards,
Jon
On 6/16/2017 10:55 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
Kirsti and Jon A.
Kirsti
Logic is not linguistics, and should not be replaced, not even partly,
by linguistics. Even though there are a host of philosophers, quite
famous ones even, which have made that mistake.
Jon
ditto amen qed si.
Logic and linguistics are two branches of semiotic. They are related
by the Greek word 'logos', which may refer to either language or logic.
The most serious mistakes were made by Frege and Russell, who had a
very low opinion of language. Frege (1879) made a horrible blunder.
He tried to "break the domination of the word over the human spirit
by laying bare the misconceptions that through the use of language often
almost unavoidably arise concerning the relations between concepts."
My "correction" to Frege: "We must break the domination of analytic
philosophy over the human spirit by laying bare the misconceptions
that through ignorance of goals, purposes, and intentions unavoidably
arise concerning the relations of agents, concepts, and the world."
For more detail, see http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf
Kirsti,
CSP did not make that mistake. Wittgenstein did not make that mistake.
Yes. Unlike Frege and Russell, Peirce did his homework. He studied
the development of logic from the Greeks to the Scholastics in detail.
Aristotle developed formal logic as a *simplified* abstraction from
language. The Stoics and Scholastics continued that development.
Peirce continued to treat logic as an abstraction from language,
not as a replacement for language.
In his first book, Wittgenstein followed Frege and Russell. But
Frank Ramsey, who had studied Peirce's writings, discussed Peirce
with LW. Wittgenstein's later theory of language games is more
compatible with Peirce than with his mentors, Frege and Russell.
I discuss those issues in http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/rolelog.pdf
Kirsti
I remain firmly with my stance, that dictionaries may not replace
reading CSP. - Even though they may be of help sometimes. To a
limited degree.
I certainly agree with that point. When I said that dictionaries
were useful, I meant as a *starting point* for discussion. Please
remember that Peirce himself wrote thousands of definitions for
several dictionaries.
But no definition can be definitive for all applications for all time.
Professional lexicographers are the first to admit the limitations.
See the article "I don't believe in word senses" by the lexicographer
Adam Kilgarriff: https://arxiv.org/pdf/cmp-lg/9712006.pdf
John
--
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 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 .
