Dear Franklin, list,
It is walking on landmines to figure out someone else’s intention and deliver your opinion out loud in public *as if *your opinion is the only one that is correct. However, if your purpose is, “to understand better the genesis of Peirce’s work in logic”, then you could always just ask him, but, as we say, ‘he is safely dead’. If that is not enough for you, then check out Amirouche Moktefi’s presentation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSmdpsaMvXg 21:00 “If by modern, we mean what we are doing today, so what we are doing comes from there, - we could do that, of course. But then, I’m not doing history, what we are doing is.. heritage- It’s the idea that you are looking for the advancement of the discipline. How advanced is it. So, we would say, for instance, ‘Given what we are doing today, Frege was the most advanced in 1879’. Meaning that it is the closest to what we are doing. That’s the top. And then, you can search for the next step.. We don’t have historical moments but historical steps. But if you want to know how logic was in 1879, .. if you’re interested in the state of logic.. How was logic in 1879?.. What were all the other people doing?” For instance.. and he gives examples, including situating Boole beginning at ~35:15, introducing Peirce at 38:20 and Ladd-Franklin at 38:45, who is not developing Peirce’s system. “She is introducing her own system. ‘There are in existence, five. I propose to add one more to the number.’ The whole idea here is that you have a lot of different logicians introducing different systems. Now how do they compare their methods? It’s very simple.. You apply them on the same problem, (cf, slide at 40:00) and show how their method works best.” I hope that helps. With best wishes, Jerry R On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 9:46 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > List, > > After receiving an off-list suggestion to pick up an introduction to > symbolic logic and use Wikipedia as a resource, it will be well for me to > clarify that I am quite familiar with symbolic logic, having mastered > sentential logic and predicate calculus, dabbled in modal logic, and gotten > to be familiar with Peirce’s graphical logic. The purpose of understanding > Boole’s work is not to learn symbolic logic—which is in fact quite > different in many respects from Boolean calculus—but specifically to > understand better the genesis of Peirce’s work in logic, which I take to be > a broader and deeper conception of logic than one finds in studies of > symbolic logic. > > Sincerely, > Franklin Ransom > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jan 10, 2022, at 12:03 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > Hello list, > > > > It has been some years since I lasted posted, and I have only been > lurking ever since. > > > > I am hoping to get some advice on reading George Boole’s An > Investigation of the Laws of Thought. This is a text which CS Peirce > references in his earlier logical work, and I was hoping to follow along > Peirce’s early work by understanding what he used as a basis for developing > his own ideas. > > > > I’ve had some difficulty though in trying to decipher Boole’s work. His > earlier essay on his work I was able to get through, but the book proves > more challenging. At first I tried an online PDF, but what I found had > noticeable typos, the sort of thing one really wants to avoid in a work > using a lot of abstract symbols. > > > > So some years ago I acquired a hard copy of the currently printed > version from Watchmaker Publishing, but found the book still having typos. > This is rather frustrating, as they’ve had over a century and a half to get > it right. I suspect it has to do with digitization of the book and then > publishing the latest hard copy based on this poor digitization. After > trying for a couple years to get through it, I decided I couldn’t figure > out if it was due to typos that I don’t know are typos, or simply inability > to comprehend on my part, that has kept me from being able to interpret the > work successfully. > > > > So what I’d like to know is if there are possibly any publications on > Boole’s work, hopefully in relation to Peirce’s early logical work > extending the Boolean calculus, that might assist me in finally getting > through Boole’s book. Any advice or suggestions in regard to this matter > will be appreciated. > > > > Sincerely, > > Franklin Ransom > > Sent from my iPhone > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the > message and nothing in the body. More at > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
