Jeff, List: I did not assert #1 without qualification--"In all those quoted definitions, he *never *says that a sign *is *a triadic relation." The very first one in the post <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-09/msg00048.html> to which I was referring does state, "A sign, or representamen, *involves *a plural relation" (R 16, c. 1895, emphasis mine), but that is still not the same as saying that a sign *is *a relation or *is composed of* relations. In both Robert Marty's article <https://cspeirce.com/rsources/76defs/76defs.htm>, "76 Definitions of the Sign by C. S. Peirce," and the Commens Dictionary entry <http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/sign> for "sign," *not one* of the listed quotations states or implies that the sign *is* a relation or *is composed of* relations. I understand the hesitancy to say "never" in an absolute sense, but the weight of this evidence is such that the burden of proof is squarely on anyone who claims that Peirce *did *somewhere use "sign" to refer to the triadic relation, not *strictly *its first correlate.
Accordingly, I disagree that "both (a) premisses and (b) whole arguments *internally* are composed of triadic relations." Again, they *involve *other signs, which *are in *triadic relations with their own objects and interpretants as identified by further analysis, but they are not *built up* from those other signs nor their triadic relations. The real and continuous inferential process as a whole is ontologically prior to its artificial and discrete parts--"propositions are either roughly described states of Thought-motion, or are artificial creations intended to render the description of Thought-motion possible; and Names are creations of a second order serving to render the representation of propositions possible" (LF 3/1:235, 1906). We use names to formulate propositions that together describe arguments *retrospectively *(see CP 2.27, 1902). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 1:29 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jon, List, > > > > You say: > > > > 1. Peirce *never *says that a sign *is *a triadic relation. > 2. instead, he *repeatedly *says that a sign *is in* a triadic relation > 3. An argument is *not *"made up of a full triad of correlates." It is > a sign (first correlate) that is determined by its object (second > correlate) to determine its interpretant (third correlate). As an argument, > it *involves *other signs, namely, propositions and names; and as a > symbol, it * involves *other signs, namely, indices and icons; and > each of those other signs likewise has its own object and interpretant > > > > As Peirce points out, we can use the term argument to refer only to the > premisses of a reason, or we can use it to refer to the premisses and the > conclusion. In my view, either can function as a sign in relationship to > some further interpretant. That is, the premisses of an argument can > function as a sign in relationship to a conclusion, which is the > interpretant of the premisses. Or, an entire argument, such as an abductive > inference, can function as a sign in relationship to a further argument in > the cycle of inquiry, such as deductive inference about the possible tests > that might be run and predicted consequences that are expected if the > hypothesis is true. > > > > On my interpretation of the relations that are involved in such symbolic > signs, both (a) premisses and (b) whole arguments *internally* are > composed of triadic relations. As such, symbolic signs involve these types > of relations. As such, I tend to draw the conclusion that some signs are, > in part, triadic relations because these signs internally are composed of > such relations. > > > > So, it appears we disagree on (1) above. > > > > For my part, I try to avoid making claims about what Peirce never said. He > said a lot of things he didn’t write down, and I wasn’t there to hear them. > What is more, there are a lot of things that he did write down that I’ve > not yet read. Those that I have read, I’ve often misunderstood or > forgotten. Furthermore, a number of things he wrote down have been lost. My > hope is that we recover some of them. I’ll leave it at that. > > > > --Jeff > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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.
