John, Jon,
I agree with John on the issue of "every word.."
Opening the pdf by John did not succeed. So a little note on his wording
in:
JFS; In summary, the range of contexts for writing or using EGs is as
open ended as the contexts for using any other kinds of signs.
It's best to distinguish the act of drawing an EG from any use or
speech act, such as assertion.
Shouldn*t the last word be "asserting", thus using the verb, not the
noun?
This may sound trifle, but I do think it is important to make clear
whether and when one is talking about an act, or an entitity.
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 28.11.2017 22:03:
Jon A and Kirsti,
Jon, replying to JFS
[In] a proof by contradiction... there would be no universe about
which the statements on the paper could be true.
In that case we may say that a sign's set of denoted objects is empty.
Yes, but there are several reasons why Peirce's original discussion
about the Sheet of Assertion is too restrictive.
Jon
By the way, to assert “Every word makes an assertion”
is either word magic, word animism (?), or nominalism...
No. Every use of signs, especially natural language, can only
be interpreted in context. The sentence that precedes the in
question states the context: "This syntax is so simple that
I will describe it." (NEM 3:162)
I didn't quote that sentence because the context was a comparison
with the Lowell lectures, in which Peirce distinguished "verbs"
that named rhemes (or predicates) from "nouns" that named the kinds
of entities in the universe of discourse.
In 1911, he did not limit the part of speech of the words or phrases
that named rhemes or predicates. See Peirce's own examples in
http://jfsowa.com/peirce/ms514.htm :
From the first two graphs: -man, -eats. Fig 1: -phoenix.
Fig 3: -thunder, -lightening. Unlabeled graph: -is-.
Fig 5: -will die. Fig 7: -boy, -industrious.
Fig 9: -known for certain, -communication with-. Fig 10: -deceased.
Kirsti
If there exists a sheet of assertion, for example a blackboard or
a piece of paper, there has to have been some co-operative human
beings to make even the empty ones.
Yes, and those people must have some reason or intention for doing so.
Assertion is just one reason among many.
Peirce discussed the kinds of "speech acts" long before John Austin.
Any of those acts may be performed with EGs: metalanguage (talking
about an EG); hypothesis (suggesting an EG without claiming it's true);
proof (drawing implications before the conclusion is known); teaching
the syntax and rules for EGs (what Peirce was doing in his lectures)...
In summary, the range of contexts for writing or using EGs is as
open ended as the contexts for using any other kinds of signs.
It's best to distinguish the act of drawing an EG from any use or
speech act, such as assertion.
For more examples of contexts in language and logic, see the
slides in http://jfsowa.com/contexts.pdf .
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 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 .
