Jon and I had an offline exchange. He sent me a list of offline
comments by readers who were also misled by the ambiguity in the
word 'subject'. See the *anonymous* comments below.
A mistaken interpretation of just one word is not a big deal.
But Jon's claim that a subject could be a Seme contradicts the
foundations of Peirce's semeiotic.
I have no desire to continue this debate. But I persisted because
it would be unethical to allow an email list devoted to Peirce's
philosophy to undermine the foundations he so carefully constructed.
Summary of the main thread:
1. In CP 4.538, Peirce said that the triad Term, Proposition, Argument
had to be widened, and he proposed a new triad Seme, Pheme, Delome.
In 4.539, he discussed issues about percepts, which showed why the
category Seme needed to go beyond purely symbolic terms.
2. But Jon claimed that the triad Subject, Proposition, Argument would
be an appropriate widening. He was misled by an ambiguity in the
word 'subject'.
3. But that triad would contradict the foundation of Peirce's system.
A Seme is a First. It represents a pure possibility, such as a
Mark/Tone, Potisign, or Qualisign. But a grammatical subject in
language refers to something that exists. It is a Second, such
as a Token, Actisign, or Sinsign. To claim that a grammatical
subject could be a Seme would break the system of categories.
The reason why Jon was misled is that the word 'subject' without
any qualifiers is ambiguous. A Term in Aristotle's syllogisms may
be used in either subject position or predicate position. As a
Term without an indexical word in front (a, some, any, every...),
it would be a predicate, which is a Seme.
But a grammatical subject refers to something that exists (or is
assumed to exist) in the Universe of Discourse. That kind of
subject would be a Second. It would be a Pheme, not a Seme.
That's all there is to the debate. But it has ramifications that
get into many abstract issues about Peirce's logic and semeiotic.
I admit that those details often obscured the basic points.
If anybody has any doubts or questions about any of these issues,
I'd be happy to explain them.
John
__________________________________________________________________
JAS
I also received several offline comments from different sources.
#1
As for John’s post, I wasn’t really able to thread my way through
his maze of abstractions (maybe due to lack of interest), so I can’t
really advise on how to respond to it. I’m not at all tempted to
respond to it myself, as I don’t think I could find anything positive
to say about it.
#2
I agree with what you wrote ... Yet the mystery remains, why would
a seasoned logician like John see it any other way?
#3
I think your two most recent posts to the list are both quite good.
We’ll see how John responds. The one thing I’m pretty sure of is
that he’ll never say that he was wrong, except in some minor detail.
#4
John, who has written two widely read books on KR, has been thought
of by some, including me, to be one of America's strongest logicians.
But what he's recently been writing has me mystified.
#5
I think John's the one grasping at straws. But he's probably right
that continuing the thread is a waste of time, because you've made
your point and he's not going to admit it no matter what you say.
-----------------------------
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 .
