Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[Gary Richmond]

John, list,

Another invaluable post. Your being both a logician and philosopher of the
history of logic and certain facets of scientific philosophy (especially
19th and 20th century logic/philosophy), and being an avowed Peircean
pragmatist puts you in a unique position, in my view, for interpreting this
modern and post-modern history, a (hi)story which is still with us today;
and in a way which holds considerable promise towards the future of these
endeavors. In particular, I would point to your insights into metaphysics,
alluded to in the post to which I'm responding.

OK, since I usually don't find it valuable for listers t--o write to the
effect that "I agree with you; that was a great post!" I'll let this one be
the last from me--at least for now.

But, as I've suggested many times over the years, reading John Sowa on
logic and the history of modern science and logic is *always* rewarding. I
personally think that it's pretty essential, especially if one is
interested in how to make our ideas clear.

Best,

Gary




*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*718 482-5690*

On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 12:30 AM, John F Sowa  wrote:

> Helmut and Stephen,
>
> To interpret Wittgenstein (or any philosopher), it's essential to
> consider all the issues and put them in context.  As I said in my
> previous comment, Russell and Carnap misunderstood the Tractatus.
> They assumed that LW agreed with them that metaphysics, especially
> theology, was meaningless and therefore worthless.
>
> But LW wrote the Tractatus while he was a soldier in the Austrian
> army during World War I.  While he was writing those lines, he also
> carried with him one small book:  a German translation of Tolstoy's
> writings on the gospels.
>
> Helmut
>
>> He said: "Was sich überhaupt sagen läßt, läßt sich klar sagen;
>> und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muß man schweigen."
>> "What can be said at all, can be said clearly, and what cannot
>> be talked about, one must be silent about". Assuming, that a
>> good philosopher usually does not utter tautologies, I take
>> this for an inquiry-block.
>>
>
> That is what Russell assumed, and he said so in his introduction
> to the Tractatus.  But LW was furious about what Russell wrote
> and protested against publishing that introduction.  However,
> the publisher insisted on including Russell's intro, because
> Russell was famous and Wittgenstein was unknown.
>
> But a man who carried a book on the gospels while he was writing
> those words could not have considered the book to be worthless.
> What he meant was that according to the theory of the Tractatus,
> it was not possible to assign a meaning to Tolstoy's words.
>
> In fact, LW explicitly said, in the Tractatus itself, that the theory
> of the Tractatus could not assign a meaning to the Tractatus.  And
> therefore, the Tractatus was meaningless.  But LW did not intend to
> say that meaningless implied worthless.  On the contrary, he also
> said in various fragments that what could not be said had higher
> value than what could be said.
>
> In his later theory of language games, LW allowed all possible games
> with words.  In his list of examples, he explicitly mentioned prayer.
>
> I recommend the excellent biography of Wittgenstein by Ray Monk.
> For every stage of LW's life, Monk relates what LW was doing
> to what he was writing.  Monk also goes into detail about LW's
> relationships with the Vienna Circle and his disgust with Carnap's
> misinterpretation of what he was trying to say.
>
> LW was half Jewish, but his father became Catholic (whether for
> belief, for convenience, or both is unknown).  In any case, LW
> was baptized as Catholic.  When he was dying, his former students
> Elisabeth Anscombe and Peter Geach asked whether he would like to
> see a priest.  LW said yes.  And he was given a Catholic funeral.
>
> 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
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[John F Sowa]

Helmut and Stephen,

To interpret Wittgenstein (or any philosopher), it's essential to
consider all the issues and put them in context.  As I said in my
previous comment, Russell and Carnap misunderstood the Tractatus.
They assumed that LW agreed with them that metaphysics, especially
theology, was meaningless and therefore worthless.

But LW wrote the Tractatus while he was a soldier in the Austrian
army during World War I.  While he was writing those lines, he also
carried with him one small book:  a German translation of Tolstoy's
writings on the gospels.

Helmut

He said: "Was sich überhaupt sagen läßt, läßt sich klar sagen;
und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muß man schweigen."
"What can be said at all, can be said clearly, and what cannot
be talked about, one must be silent about". Assuming, that a
good philosopher usually does not utter tautologies, I take
this for an inquiry-block.


That is what Russell assumed, and he said so in his introduction
to the Tractatus.  But LW was furious about what Russell wrote
and protested against publishing that introduction.  However,
the publisher insisted on including Russell's intro, because
Russell was famous and Wittgenstein was unknown.

But a man who carried a book on the gospels while he was writing
those words could not have considered the book to be worthless.
What he meant was that according to the theory of the Tractatus,
it was not possible to assign a meaning to Tolstoy's words.

In fact, LW explicitly said, in the Tractatus itself, that the theory
of the Tractatus could not assign a meaning to the Tractatus.  And
therefore, the Tractatus was meaningless.  But LW did not intend to
say that meaningless implied worthless.  On the contrary, he also
said in various fragments that what could not be said had higher
value than what could be said.

In his later theory of language games, LW allowed all possible games
with words.  In his list of examples, he explicitly mentioned prayer.

I recommend the excellent biography of Wittgenstein by Ray Monk.
For every stage of LW's life, Monk relates what LW was doing
to what he was writing.  Monk also goes into detail about LW's
relationships with the Vienna Circle and his disgust with Carnap's
misinterpretation of what he was trying to say.

LW was half Jewish, but his father became Catholic (whether for
belief, for convenience, or both is unknown).  In any case, LW
was baptized as Catholic.  When he was dying, his former students
Elisabeth Anscombe and Peter Geach asked whether he would like to
see a priest.  LW said yes.  And he was given a Catholic funeral.

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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[Gary Richmond]

John, Helmut,

John Sowa wrote:

The [dualities] that are complementary, not contradictory, can be the
basis for a synthesis.  That's true of many of them.  But there
is no synthesis of open-mind vs closed-mind.

A commonality that characterizes Frege, Russell, Carnap, Quine,
and the movements of behaviorism and logical positivism is that
they all blocked the way of inquiry.


Well said! I couldn't agree more. I also highly recommend your article
"Signs, processes, and language games."  http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf

Best,

Gary




*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*718 482-5690*

On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 5:07 PM, John F Sowa  wrote:

> On 6/2/2018 3:45 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>
>> some of these dualities (e.g.: Nominalism/universalism,
>> semantics/semiotics, linguistic turn/cognitive turn,
>> empiricism/metaphysics) are not necessarily antinomies, but may be regarded
>> for theses/antitheses, that may merge to syntheses, dialectically. Isnt
>> that so?
>>
>
> The ones that are complementary, not contradictory, can be the
> basis for a synthesis.  That's true of many of them.  But there
> is no synthesis of open-mind vs closed-mind.
>
> A commonality that characterizes Frege, Russell, Carnap, Quine,
> and the movements of behaviorism and logical positivism is that
> they all blocked the way of inquiry.  Each one said, in effect,
>
>I do not know how to explore the following topics.  Therefore,
>thou shalt not ask any question or think any thought about them.
>
> I admit that I learned a lot about logic from them, but I also
> learned that their research guidance is toxic to creativity.
>
> I have a deadline to finish, so I won't be able to say more now.
> But the article "Signs, processes, and language games" summarizes
> the issues:  http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf
>
> 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
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[Stephen Curtiss Rose]

I think Peirce has the answer in triadic thinking as opposed to the yes and
no that is the cultural expression of binary thinking. The maxim suggests
that ethics and esthetics have a role t play in conscious thought. THat has
immense implications.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 6:44 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> Stephen, John, list,
> yes, thank you. I always wonder about this gap. In physics there is
> experimental physics and theoretical physics, but do they quarrel or
> disagree? No. They are trying to get along, and do (Higgs boson, dark
> matter...). But the philosophers, they still are split up, either being for
> empiricism or metaphysics, as if both were contradicting ideologies, and
> not merely different ways of approach (top-down and bottom-up). Maybe there
> still is some theological residues at work, from medieval times, when it
> was about the question at stake of transsubstiantiation, and "at stake"
> really meant "at stake", which direness still is present in the collective
> memory of philosophy, still not having achieved riddance of this bad old
> horror? Maybe "metaphysics" is a conceptual monster that still arouses bad
> feelings, for very good historical reasons. It is both  hard to cope with
> it and without it.
>
> , 02. Juni 2018 um 23:57 Uhr
>  "Stephen Curtiss Rose" 
> wrote:
> Wittgenstein was making a point about "metaphysical" language for which
> there was no scientific proof. It is the conclusion of his Tractatus. I
> think he was suggesting such language is inevitably incapable of grasping
> what remains a mystery. He knew of course that most speech is not
> responsive to the rules he helped established and he himself changed. As to
> your Nietzsche comment in a previous post, I think he must be credited with
> Wittgenstein for helping pave the way for a philosophy that can, as Peirce
> seemed to wish, bridge the gap between the scientific and metaphysical.
> Your own sense of synthesis seems to want to accomplish that.
>
> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Supp: He said: "Was sich überhaupt sagen läßt, läßt sich klar sagen; und
>> wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muß man schweigen.“ "What can be said
>> at all, can be said clearly, and what cannot be talked about, must be
>> silent about". Assuming, that a good philosopher usually does not utter
>> tautologies, I take this for an inquiry-block. But I guess he just had a
>> bad day then, but otherwise was a good philosopher too.
>> John, list,
>> maybe they just have been angry when saying so? Didn´t Wittgenstein too
>> say something inquiry-blocking like that once? I vaguely recall that he
>> said something like: "About (this or that) you must not speak". I don´t
>> remember, was it about what you cannot define, what you cannot imagine,
>> what you have not experienced, or whatever. I just remember that when I
>> read it, I thought: "No, you don´t tell me when to shut up".
>> Best, helmut
>>
>> , 02. Juni 2018 um 23:07 Uhr
>> *:* "John F Sowa" 
>> wrote:
>> On 6/2/2018 3:45 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>> > some of these dualities (e.g.: Nominalism/universalism,
>> > semantics/semiotics, linguistic turn/cognitive turn,
>> > empiricism/metaphysics) are not necessarily antinomies, but may
>> > be regarded for theses/antitheses, that may merge to syntheses,
>> > dialectically. Isnt that so?
>>
>> The ones that are complementary, not contradictory, can be the
>> basis for a synthesis. That's true of many of them. But there
>> is no synthesis of open-mind vs closed-mind.
>>
>> A commonality that characterizes Frege, Russell, Carnap, Quine,
>> and the movements of behaviorism and logical positivism is that
>> they all blocked the way of inquiry. Each one said, in effect,
>>
>> I do not know how to explore the following topics. Therefore,
>> thou shalt not ask any question or think any thought about them.
>>
>> I admit that I learned a lot about logic from them, but I also
>> learned that their research guidance is toxic to creativity.
>>
>> I have a deadline to finish, so I won't be able to say more now.
>> But the article "Signs, processes, and language games" summarizes
>> the issues: http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf
>>
>> 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
>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
>> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
>> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/
>> peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List"
>> or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should
>> go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
>> PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L"
>> 

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[Helmut Raulien]

Stephen, John, list,

yes, thank you. I always wonder about this gap. In physics there is experimental physics and theoretical physics, but do they quarrel or disagree? No. They are trying to get along, and do (Higgs boson, dark matter...). But the philosophers, they still are split up, either being for empiricism or metaphysics, as if both were contradicting ideologies, and not merely different ways of approach (top-down and bottom-up). Maybe there still is some theological residues at work, from medieval times, when it was about the question at stake of transsubstiantiation, and "at stake" really meant "at stake", which direness still is present in the collective memory of philosophy, still not having achieved riddance of this bad old horror? Maybe "metaphysics" is a conceptual monster that still arouses bad feelings, for very good historical reasons. It is both  hard to cope with it and without it.

 

, 02. Juni 2018 um 23:57 Uhr
 "Stephen Curtiss Rose" 
wrote:


Wittgenstein was making a point about "metaphysical" language for which there was no scientific proof. It is the conclusion of his Tractatus. I think he was suggesting such language is inevitably incapable of grasping what remains a mystery. He knew of course that most speech is not responsive to the rules he helped established and he himself changed. As to your Nietzsche comment in a previous post, I think he must be credited with Wittgenstein for helping pave the way for a philosophy that can, as Peirce seemed to wish, bridge the gap between the scientific and metaphysical. Your own sense of synthesis seems to want to accomplish that.

 








amazon.com/author/stephenrose








 

On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:




 
 

Supp: He said: "Was sich überhaupt sagen läßt, läßt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muß man schweigen.“ "What can be said at all, can be said clearly, and what cannot be talked about, must be silent about". Assuming, that a good philosopher usually does not utter tautologies, I take this for an inquiry-block. But I guess he just had a bad day then, but otherwise was a good philosopher too.






John, list,

maybe they just have been angry when saying so? Didn´t Wittgenstein too say something inquiry-blocking like that once? I vaguely recall that he said something like: "About (this or that) you must not speak". I don´t remember, was it about what you cannot define, what you cannot imagine, what you have not experienced, or whatever. I just remember that when I read it, I thought: "No, you don´t tell me when to shut up".

Best, helmut

 

, 02. Juni 2018 um 23:07 Uhr
: "John F Sowa" 
wrote:

On 6/2/2018 3:45 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> some of these dualities (e.g.: Nominalism/universalism,
> semantics/semiotics, linguistic turn/cognitive turn,
> empiricism/metaphysics) are not necessarily antinomies, but may
> be regarded for theses/antitheses, that may merge to syntheses,
> dialectically. Isnt that so?

The ones that are complementary, not contradictory, can be the
basis for a synthesis. That's true of many of them. But there
is no synthesis of open-mind vs closed-mind.

A commonality that characterizes Frege, Russell, Carnap, Quine,
and the movements of behaviorism and logical positivism is that
they all blocked the way of inquiry. Each one said, in effect,

I do not know how to explore the following topics. Therefore,
thou shalt not ask any question or think any thought about them.

I admit that I learned a lot about logic from them, but I also
learned that their research guidance is toxic to creativity.

I have a deadline to finish, so I won't be able to say more now.
But the article "Signs, processes, and language games" summarizes
the issues: http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf

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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .



 




- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .









-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[John F Sowa]

On 6/2/2018 5:33 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:

I vaguely recall that [Wittgenstein] said like: "About (this or that)
you must not speak"... I just remember that when I read it, I thought:
"No, you don´t tell me when to shut up".


That was from the his first book, the Tractatus.  He wrote that
while he was still following his mentors, Frege and Russell.

Russell and Carnap loved that book, because they misunderstood
his point.  There is much more to say.

Please read the signproc.pdf article.

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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[Stephen Curtiss Rose]

Wittgenstein was making a point about "metaphysical" language for which
there was no scientific proof. It is the conclusion of his Tractatus. I
think he was suggesting such language is inevitably incapable of grasping
what remains a mystery. He knew of course that most speech is not
responsive to the rules he helped established and he himself changed. As to
your Nietzsche comment in a previous post, I think he must be credited with
Wittgenstein for helping pave the way for a philosophy that can, as Peirce
seemed to wish, bridge the gap between the scientific and metaphysical.
Your own sense of synthesis seems to want to accomplish that.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:

>
>
> Supp: He said: "Was sich überhaupt sagen läßt, läßt sich klar sagen; und
> wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muß man schweigen.“ "What can be said
> at all, can be said clearly, and what cannot be talked about, must be
> silent about". Assuming, that a good philosopher usually does not utter
> tautologies, I take this for an inquiry-block. But I guess he just had a
> bad day then, but otherwise was a good philosopher too.
> John, list,
> maybe they just have been angry when saying so? Didn´t Wittgenstein too
> say something inquiry-blocking like that once? I vaguely recall that he
> said something like: "About (this or that) you must not speak". I don´t
> remember, was it about what you cannot define, what you cannot imagine,
> what you have not experienced, or whatever. I just remember that when I
> read it, I thought: "No, you don´t tell me when to shut up".
> Best, helmut
>
> , 02. Juni 2018 um 23:07 Uhr
> *:* "John F Sowa" 
> wrote:
> On 6/2/2018 3:45 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> > some of these dualities (e.g.: Nominalism/universalism,
> > semantics/semiotics, linguistic turn/cognitive turn,
> > empiricism/metaphysics) are not necessarily antinomies, but may
> > be regarded for theses/antitheses, that may merge to syntheses,
> > dialectically. Isnt that so?
>
> The ones that are complementary, not contradictory, can be the
> basis for a synthesis. That's true of many of them. But there
> is no synthesis of open-mind vs closed-mind.
>
> A commonality that characterizes Frege, Russell, Carnap, Quine,
> and the movements of behaviorism and logical positivism is that
> they all blocked the way of inquiry. Each one said, in effect,
>
> I do not know how to explore the following topics. Therefore,
> thou shalt not ask any question or think any thought about them.
>
> I admit that I learned a lot about logic from them, but I also
> learned that their research guidance is toxic to creativity.
>
> I have a deadline to finish, so I won't be able to say more now.
> But the article "Signs, processes, and language games" summarizes
> the issues: http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf
>
> 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
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
> - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List"
> or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should
> go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
> PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L"
> in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/
> peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
>
>
> -
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[Helmut Raulien]

 
 

Supp: He said: "Was sich überhaupt sagen läßt, läßt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muß man schweigen.“ "What can be said at all, can be said clearly, and what cannot be talked about, must be silent about". Assuming, that a good philosopher usually does not utter tautologies, I take this for an inquiry-block. But I guess he just had a bad day then, but otherwise was a good philosopher too.




John, list,

maybe they just have been angry when saying so? Didn´t Wittgenstein too say something inquiry-blocking like that once? I vaguely recall that he said something like: "About (this or that) you must not speak". I don´t remember, was it about what you cannot define, what you cannot imagine, what you have not experienced, or whatever. I just remember that when I read it, I thought: "No, you don´t tell me when to shut up".

Best, helmut

 

, 02. Juni 2018 um 23:07 Uhr
: "John F Sowa" 
wrote:

On 6/2/2018 3:45 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> some of these dualities (e.g.: Nominalism/universalism,
> semantics/semiotics, linguistic turn/cognitive turn,
> empiricism/metaphysics) are not necessarily antinomies, but may
> be regarded for theses/antitheses, that may merge to syntheses,
> dialectically. Isnt that so?

The ones that are complementary, not contradictory, can be the
basis for a synthesis. That's true of many of them. But there
is no synthesis of open-mind vs closed-mind.

A commonality that characterizes Frege, Russell, Carnap, Quine,
and the movements of behaviorism and logical positivism is that
they all blocked the way of inquiry. Each one said, in effect,

I do not know how to explore the following topics. Therefore,
thou shalt not ask any question or think any thought about them.

I admit that I learned a lot about logic from them, but I also
learned that their research guidance is toxic to creativity.

I have a deadline to finish, so I won't be able to say more now.
But the article "Signs, processes, and language games" summarizes
the issues: http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf

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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .



 




- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[Helmut Raulien]

John, list,

maybe they just have been angry when saying so? Didn´t Wittgenstein too say something inquiry-blocking like that once? I vaguely recall that he said something like: "About (this or that) you must not speak". I don´t remember, was it about what you cannot define, what you cannot imagine, what you have not experienced, or whatever. I just remember that when I read it, I thought: "No, you don´t tell me when to shut up".

Best, helmut

 

, 02. Juni 2018 um 23:07 Uhr
: "John F Sowa" 
wrote:

On 6/2/2018 3:45 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> some of these dualities (e.g.: Nominalism/universalism,
> semantics/semiotics, linguistic turn/cognitive turn,
> empiricism/metaphysics) are not necessarily antinomies, but may
> be regarded for theses/antitheses, that may merge to syntheses,
> dialectically. Isnt that so?

The ones that are complementary, not contradictory, can be the
basis for a synthesis. That's true of many of them. But there
is no synthesis of open-mind vs closed-mind.

A commonality that characterizes Frege, Russell, Carnap, Quine,
and the movements of behaviorism and logical positivism is that
they all blocked the way of inquiry. Each one said, in effect,

I do not know how to explore the following topics. Therefore,
thou shalt not ask any question or think any thought about them.

I admit that I learned a lot about logic from them, but I also
learned that their research guidance is toxic to creativity.

I have a deadline to finish, so I won't be able to say more now.
But the article "Signs, processes, and language games" summarizes
the issues: http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf

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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .



 




-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[John F Sowa]

On 6/2/2018 3:45 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
some of these dualities (e.g.: Nominalism/universalism, 
semantics/semiotics, linguistic turn/cognitive turn, 
empiricism/metaphysics) are not necessarily antinomies, but may 
be regarded for theses/antitheses, that may merge to syntheses, 
dialectically. Isnt that so?


The ones that are complementary, not contradictory, can be the
basis for a synthesis.  That's true of many of them.  But there
is no synthesis of open-mind vs closed-mind.

A commonality that characterizes Frege, Russell, Carnap, Quine,
and the movements of behaviorism and logical positivism is that
they all blocked the way of inquiry.  Each one said, in effect,

   I do not know how to explore the following topics.  Therefore,
   thou shalt not ask any question or think any thought about them.

I admit that I learned a lot about logic from them, but I also
learned that their research guidance is toxic to creativity.

I have a deadline to finish, so I won't be able to say more now.
But the article "Signs, processes, and language games" summarizes
the issues:  http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf

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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[Helmut Raulien]

 
 

Supplement: Maybe too, I suffer from disharmonyphopia, or am harmony-addicted, so always look for compatibility instead of contradiction. And I like Noam Chomsky.




John, list,

In the list I often sense, not only in your posts, a strong antipathy against certain philosophers and their theories. On one hand I understand that, because I have felt something like that too, against Skinner and his behaviourism. Not to speak of Nietzsche, his resentful refution-attempt of values, and his superman. On the other hand I suspect, that some of these dualities (e.g.: Nominalism/universalism, semantics/semiotics, linguistic turn/cognitive turn, empiricism/metaphysics) are not necessarily antinomies, but may be regarded for theses/antitheses, that may merge to syntheses, dialectically. Isnt that so? It is only a hunch of mine, as I have not studied these theories thoroughly. But all these opponental philosophers did not always mutually refuse to attend each other´s meetings. They also talked with each other and learned from each other, or so it says on Wikipedia. I guess, or suspect, that some opposing -isms are not either-or-matters, but merely different approaches, namely top-down-method versus bottom-up-method. Just guessing, more or less.

Best, Helmut

 

01. Juni 2018 um 16:56 Uhr
 "John F Sowa" 
wrote:

Mary,

> My previous post was intended for John alone. Please ignore it.
> I apologize for my mistake.

Please don't apologize. I'm glad to get the free advertising.

> reading Joyce’s ouevre, reading Peirce (whom I think Joyce read in 1903-4
> when he reviewed FCS Schiller’s book on pragmatism in a Dublin paper),
> and this, because it shows me the best so-far explanation of what world-
> representation-language-logic games Joyce was experimenting with.

That led me to your article, which elaborates that point:
https://www.academia.edu/30720270/James_Joyces_comments_on_pragmatism_in_Review_of_Humanism_by_Ferdinand_Channing_Scott_Schiller

The connection between logic, language, philosophy, and literature,
which Joyce recognized, was undermined by the misguided program of
Frege, Russell, Carnap, and Quine. I believe that philosophy, logic,
and the world today would have been much better if logicians and
philosophers had followed Peirce, Whitehead, and Wittgenstein.

As just one example, Carnap's most serious denunciation was
"That's poetry!" But Peirce, Whitehead, and Wittgenstein had
appreciated the insights of poetry and literature. Wittgenstein
visited the Vienna Circlers several times, but he refused to
attend any meeting at which Carnap would be present.

For the fact that the development of logic did not depend on anything
that Frege wrote, see "Peirce the Logician" by Hilary Putnam:
http://jfsowa.com/peirce/putnam.htm

For the other issues, see "Signs, processes, and language games",
http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf

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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .



 




- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[Helmut Raulien]

John, list,

In the list I often sense, not only in your posts, a strong antipathy against certain philosophers and their theories. On one hand I understand that, because I have felt something like that too, against Skinner and his behaviourism. Not to speak of Nietzsche, his resentful refution-attempt of values, and his superman. On the other hand I suspect, that some of these dualities (e.g.: Nominalism/universalism, semantics/semiotics, linguistic turn/cognitive turn, empiricism/metaphysics) are not necessarily antinomies, but may be regarded for theses/antitheses, that may merge to syntheses, dialectically. Isnt that so? It is only a hunch of mine, as I have not studied these theories thoroughly. But all these opponental philosophers did not always mutually refuse to attend each other´s meetings. They also talked with each other and learned from each other, or so it says on Wikipedia. I guess, or suspect, that some opposing -isms are not either-or-matters, but merely different approaches, namely top-down-method versus bottom-up-method. Just guessing, more or less.

Best, Helmut

 

01. Juni 2018 um 16:56 Uhr
 "John F Sowa" 
wrote:

Mary,

> My previous post was intended for John alone. Please ignore it.
> I apologize for my mistake.

Please don't apologize. I'm glad to get the free advertising.

> reading Joyce’s ouevre, reading Peirce (whom I think Joyce read in 1903-4
> when he reviewed FCS Schiller’s book on pragmatism in a Dublin paper),
> and this, because it shows me the best so-far explanation of what world-
> representation-language-logic games Joyce was experimenting with.

That led me to your article, which elaborates that point:
https://www.academia.edu/30720270/James_Joyces_comments_on_pragmatism_in_Review_of_Humanism_by_Ferdinand_Channing_Scott_Schiller

The connection between logic, language, philosophy, and literature,
which Joyce recognized, was undermined by the misguided program of
Frege, Russell, Carnap, and Quine. I believe that philosophy, logic,
and the world today would have been much better if logicians and
philosophers had followed Peirce, Whitehead, and Wittgenstein.

As just one example, Carnap's most serious denunciation was
"That's poetry!" But Peirce, Whitehead, and Wittgenstein had
appreciated the insights of poetry and literature. Wittgenstein
visited the Vienna Circlers several times, but he refused to
attend any meeting at which Carnap would be present.

For the fact that the development of logic did not depend on anything
that Frege wrote, see "Peirce the Logician" by Hilary Putnam:
http://jfsowa.com/peirce/putnam.htm

For the other issues, see "Signs, processes, and language games",
http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf

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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .



 




-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .