Gene, Gary F, and Clark,

let's remember the influential book by Ogden and Richards, The Meaning of Meaning (1923), which brought discussion of Peirce to a wider audience over many following decades. It was Lady Welby's influence on Ogden that brought Peirce into the discussion, using quotes from Peirce's letters to Lady Welby.

Yes.  That's the important point.  Ogden was also the translator
of Wittgenstein's Tractatus.  That meant that Lady Welby's influence
extended to that circle -- which included Frank Ramsey, who had read
and cited Peirce's work.

Wittgenstein credited Ramsey as the one who led him to recognize
the "grave errors" in the Tractatus.  Ramsey's tragic accident
was a disaster for philosophy.

There is also a phenomenological side to Peirce’s semeiotic as
revealed in the Welby letters, but despite the subject line,
we haven’t really considered that in this thread …

a rut philosophy fell into during the move to linguistic analysis
during much of the 20th century. Missing these more general cases
in preference to ordinary language.

Yes.  If Ramsey had lived, he might have promoted Peirce's ideas
as the foundation for 20th c logic and philosophy.  I blame Russell,
Carnap, and Quine for promoting Frege's very narrow vision instead
of Peirce's much broader and deeper foundation.

I develop those ideas in the article "Signs, Processes, and Language

PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at .

Reply via email to