Re: [peirce-l] review of Moore's Peirce edition
Jerry, Kirsti, list, I've certainly not yet gone through all of the material in Moore's edition of Peirce. Thus far I have concentrated my attention to those parts dealing with issues in set theory, [infinitesimal] analysis, some number, a bit of geometry, and the role of mathematics in education. My general impression of the whole of the contents so far is that CSP's main, but not necessarily so, concern, is to understand the relationship(s) between mathematics and logic, and more generally, of the place of mathematics in the broader context of rationality, thought, and knowledge (the latter, perhaps, in the German sense of Wissenschaften, to include, therefore, the Geisteswissenschafteen as well as the Naturwissenschaften). There are a few references to Cayley and to Kempe, and then only referring to their work in geometry, so I consequently find nothing specific of chemistry in these selections, and so, if chemistry is on the agenda at all here for Peirce, it is probably so only very indirectly, within the perspective of one of the Naturwissenschaften, and not in these selections. That being said, I for one suspect it is very much possible to discuss logic and mathematics without bringing chemistry into the discussion. For those interested in the axiomatization of chemistry, or in employing group theory to study cristaline structures, that of course is a different story altogether. But, as a mathematician, I have no need to consider chemistry. My interest in chemistry, as historian of mathematics extends only so far as Cayley, Kempe, and Peirce were inspired by chemical diagrams to treat logical relations graphically. ... But this is just my own logico-mathematical orientation at play. Irving H. Anellis Visiting Research Associate Peirce Edition, Institute for American Thought 902 W. New York St. Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis Indianapolis, IN 46202-5159 USA URL: http://www.irvinganellis.info - You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Re: [peirce-l] review of Moore's Peirce edition
Malgosia: Thanks for your insights. I concur that the concepts of unity (units?, terms?) and consistency are critical. But, in so far as I understand the concept of logic (logos?, ratio?, rational?) the principle objective is the notion of a conclusion (or a consequence). Apparently, many different pathways between premises and consequences can be constructed and given different adjectival names - eg, modal logic, and so forth. In the case of particular interest to me is the dialogue between two category theorists. One asserts that category theory includes all logics. The other asserts that Life Itself can not be a formal system, ie, the logic of mathematics can not express the dynamics of natural systems. The definition you give for logic is fine with me as a rhetoric sentence - but CSP followed the trivium, rhetoric, grammar and logic / icon, index, symbol. In other words, how would I apply the rhetorical definition to a particular situation - such as the logic of generating chemical compounds by composing components of the arithmetic progression of the atomic numbers? Frankly, I think that we are missing something about the nature of codes and the encoding of our individual thoughts into symbolic messages. I would conjecture that logic is grounded in the codes of human communication. It works only if we understand one another. What do you think? Cheers jerry On Jan 26, 2012, at 3:19 PM, malgosia askanas wrote: Jerry Chandler wrote: So, I remain with the question that has haunted me for more than ten years: What is logic? I will bite - in the hope that this first attempt will elicit discussion, and, as a result, much improvement: (A) logic (of something) is the interconnected set of principles of internal connections, interdependencies and relationships that underlie the unity and consistency of a process, a set of processes, or an entity. This, of course, puts the burden on the concepts of unity and consistency, but I think that's the correct conceptual direction: we first perceive (or decide to perceive) a given process or entity X as a unity and possessed of a consistency, and this perception (or intent) , in turn, leads us to investigate X's underlying logic. -malgosia - You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU - You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
