John, List: JFS: As I said, you pick random quotations out of context and apply them without considering whether they are relevant to the issue.
There is nothing random or irrelevant about looking up the definitions of "subject" and "predicate" in an ordinary dictionary (*Merriam Webster's Collegiate*) to confirm that it is still common usage in logic to treat these as the two parts of any proposition. JFS: Nearly all modern logics are based on predicate calculus, which is derived from Peirce's algebra of 1885 ... they do not use the word 'subject'. Then I guess that Peirce's own logic does not qualify as "modern," since he consistently used the word "subject" and maintained its distinction from the predicate--again, as the many quotes that I have offered amply demonstrate. Like him, rather than focusing on any particular logical *calculus*, I am more interested in better understanding the *entire process* of learning by experience--i.e., *semeiosis*. As I have said before, the appropriateness of any analysis is tied to its purpose. Analyzing a proposition by throwing everything possible into the subject--specifically, everything that requires Collateral Experience in order to be understood by an interpreter--makes sense for my purposes. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 9:10 PM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/21/2019 5:58 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > JFS: No version of logic after syllogisms made a binary distinction > > between subject and predicate. > > > > That statement is false. According to my dictionary, a "subject" > > is defined as "the term of a logical proposition that denotes the > > entity of which something is affirmed or denied," and a "predicate" > > is defined as "something that is affirmed or denied of the subject > > in a proposition in logic." > > As I said, you pick random quotations out of context and apply them > without considering whether they are relevant to the issue. > > I don't know what dictionary you have chosen, but that definition > is true of the traditional Aristotelian-Scholastic syllogisms, which > dominated logic teaching until the early 20th century. But there are > still some excellent textbooks which teach that logic. For example, > > Rauh, Sister Miriam Joseph (1937) The Trivium: The Liberal Arts > of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric, Third edition 1948, reprinted by > Paul Dry Books, 2002. > > Nearly all modern logics are based on predicate calculus, which is > derived from Peirce's algebra of 1885. The syntax of those logics > use the words 'function', 'predicate', 'operator', 'quantifier', > 'type', 'variable', 'identifier', and a few others. But they do > not use the word 'subject'. See the history by Hilary Putnam: > http://jfsowa.com/peirce/putnam.htm > > There are many variants that use other terminology. But the only > versions that use the word 'subject' are revivals of syllogisms > or versions "controlled natural languages" (CNLs), that use a > grammar that is similar in structure to a natural language. > > 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 .
