On 2/25/2019 9:04 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
Why not just accept the fact (as I have) that we are pursuing different purposes, and therefore adopting different approaches accordingly? Why insist that I /must /adhere to /your /analysis of propositions and /your /preference for unmodified EGs?
Because Peirce was very precise in what he wrote, and he had no sympathy with people who misrepresented what he was saying. If you just want to develop your own ideas, I have no objection. But I do object to claims like the following:
It is perfectly consistent with what Peirce wrote in NEM 3:885-886--as well as ...
Just quoting a bunch of words and saying X is consistent with Y is the loosest of loose thinking. It's even worse when you add the word 'perfectly'. No linguist, lexicographer, or logician would ever say that. Peirce had a solid foundation in all those areas, and he used those skills in everything he wrote. He would never say "This cloud of words is consistent with that cloud." I am not condescending. I'm treating you as a bright student who has a lot to learn about logic, linguistics, lexicography, and the kind of detailed textual analysis that Peirce did all his life. I'm willing to help, but you must do your homework. If you don't want to do the really hard work of learning how to analyze every last detail, just go your own way. But don't claim that what you write is consistent with what Peirce said. 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 .
