Dear Stephen, list, Thanks for that clear response,
With best wishes, Jerry R On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:47 PM, Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > Absolutely. The words are from my Kindle book Tractatus which is clearly > related to Wittgenstein. > > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Stephen, list, >> >> >> >> Your words are lovely. >> >> >> >> But pray tell, would you accept the following assertion as one that >> pragmaticists would boast themselves to be? >> >> >> >> *'the holdings of a person are just if he is entitled to them by the >> principles of justice in acquisition and transfer .. .'?* >> >> >> >> With best wishes, >> Jerry R >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> John, my reply to Jerry sort of thoughts on the idea of two logics. >>> Unfortunately, I replied first to Jerry and managed to lose your note to >>> which I was going to reply. I have been online forever but have no idea >>> what happened. >>> >>> Here is a bit that may explain what I am about. >>> >>> Reality is all. >>> >>> All is the case. >>> >>> The world is a case. >>> >>> A case is a sign. >>> >>> + >>> >>> Facts are claims as well as true. >>> >>> Things are what they are. >>> >>> Ultimately, what is good is what is true. >>> >>> + >>> >>> Sometime is time to come. >>> >>> Future is here in >>> >>> The world is determined as we go. >>> >>> Things change and remain the same. >>> >>> + >>> >>> There is no end to all. >>> >>> Continuity and movement reign. >>> >>> Days are units of progress. >>> >>> + >>> >>> The case is what is true. >>> >>> The totality is true and false – ambient but moving toward truth. >>> >>> Totality is an aggregate within the all which is mixed, depending on the >>> disposition of choices. >>> >>> Our world is where we are in reality. >>> >>> + >>> >>> Logic tends toward good. >>> >>> The world tends toward good. >>> >>> + >>> >>> The world is not divided by any mental gyration. >>> >>> The world is what it is. >>> >>> + >>> >>> Everything is in and beyond us. As is mystery. As is knowing and not >>> knowing. >>> >>> No one has a final answer. >>> >>> Most mystery we cannot fathom. >>> >>> >>> >>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:00 AM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Edwina and Stephen, >>>> >>>> ET >>>> >>>>> what's the difference between a 'language game' and >>>>> a 'grammatical sentence'? >>>>> >>>> >>>> A sentence is just one move in a language game. >>>> >>>> For more about Wittgenstein's language games and their relationship >>>> to logic and computer programs, see the article "Language Games, >>>> Natural and Artificial": http://jfsowa.com/pubs/lgames.pdf >>>> >>>> See page 3 of lgames.pdf, which quotes some examples of language >>>> games from his later book _Logical Investigations_. >>>> >>>> And by the way, Wittgenstein's original term was 'Sprachspiel'. >>>> The word 'Spiel' in German is somewhat broader than the English >>>> 'game'. It would include noncompetitive play as well as games >>>> that involve competition. >>>> >>>> It's closer to Peirce's word 'musement', which he defined as >>>> "pure play": http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/musement >>>> >>>> SCR >>>> >>>>> I claim logic is good. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Oh. Now I realize that you were talking about logic as one of >>>> the normative sciences, since it defines the criteria for truth. >>>> >>>> But note that Peirce classifies logic in two places. Formal logic >>>> is a subset of mathematics, which is prior to all versions of >>>> philosophy. But logic is also one of the normative sciences. >>>> As such, it depends on mathematics, phenomenology, and the two >>>> prior normative sciences, aesthetics and ethics. >>>> >>>> When I said that NLs are prior to logic, I meant that as a >>>> historical observation: All versions of formal logic have >>>> been designed as disciplined subsets of natural languages. >>>> >>>> I was talking about language and logic as semiotic systems. >>>> In that sense, Peirce discussed logic in the broad sense as the >>>> study of criteria of truth for any system of signs, which include >>>> natural languages as well as all kinds of notations and diagrams. >>>> >>>> Formal logics are rigidly disciplined versions of logic. That >>>> makes them useful for enabling precise definitions of the rules >>>> of inference, which preserve truth. >>>> >>>> Peirce also said that discipline is purely negative. It puts >>>> constraints on what can be said. By itself, formal logic is >>>> a deductive system that cannot find or create anything new. >>>> >>>> To introduce anything new, you need the methods of induction >>>> (generalization from particular instances) and abduction >>>> (forming hypotheses by guessing or phenomenological insight). >>>> Neither method is guaranteed to preserve truth. >>>> >>>> If you introduce new axioms by induction and abduction, >>>> they must be tested by an unending cycle of deduction and >>>> further observation. But you can never be certain that the >>>> cycle has finally converged to absolute truth. >>>> >>>> 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 . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
