Thank you.
I would like to see "Peirce and" threads when the and is almost anything. I
would also like to see a critical intellectual biography that might lay
some of these recurrent matters to rest. My own sense is that Peirce
himself died without himself knowing what among his contributions was
Stephen, List,
Stephen wrote:
SR: Should this list not be more concerned with helping spread consensus on
what Peirce offers that is not open to question and celebrating his
relevance to all disciplines. . .
I would say unquestionably 'yes'.Yet, achieving "consensus on what Peirce
offers that
Should this list not be more concerned with helping spread consensus on
what Peirce offers that is not open to question and celebrating his
relevance to all disciplines rather than debating who is right or wrong in
interpreting matters that may be of interest to a few but hardly present a
picture
Edwina, Helmut, Gary f, Jon S, list,
I've hesitated writing this as we've been through it before on the list,
and I don't expect my observations to change anyone's mind. However, I
think some points warrant comment as, in my view, they impact at least on
the progress of list discussion and,
Jon,
That’s an interesting hypothesis, or set of hypotheses, but I don’t have any
more specific comment on it, because I haven’t read that 1867 paper of Peirce’s
since I published my paper on his concept of information in 2010.
I don’t think your contrast of “systematic” and “exegetical” quite
Gary F., List:
This might strike you as another case of forcing together pieces from
different puzzles, but I will throw it out there anyway.
I have already noted that in CP 2.418 (1867), Peirce characterized logical
breadth, depth, and information as follows.
- Informed breadth is the
