rom: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu on
behalf of John F Sowa
Sent: Friday, June 9, 2023 7:06 PM
To: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce -
Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).
Jeff, Jon, Jack, Helmut, et al.,
B
Jeff, Jon, Jack, Helmut, et al.,
Before discussing Peirce's comments about Kant and others, I think it's
important to review Peirce's background and the influences that led to his
final synthesis.
By the time Peirce was 8 years old, his father had taught him Greek, Latin,
mathematics, and che
ubject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce -
Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).
Jon, Jack, et al.,
As I wrote in my previous note (excerpt copied below), both Kant and Peirce
presented positions that neither one had fully proved. Although I prefer
Peirce
Brian Downard"
An: Kein Empfänger
Cc: "Peirce-L"
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce - Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).
Hello John, Mary, all,
I'd be happy to compare notes on Peirce's, Kant's, Leibni
Mary, Jeff, List:
The new volume by Atkins is surely another valuable contribution from him
to Peirce scholarship, but searching it on Google Books turns up zero
instances of "thing in itself," "things in themselves," or "*Ding an sich*."
It apparently does not even discuss collateral experience/o
Mary Libertin
Cc: Peirce-L ; Jon Alan Schmidt
; jack.cody.2...@mumail.ie
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce -
Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).
Mary,
Thanks for citing that book.
Note to all: If anybody has a copy of that book (or any oth
John and Peirce-List,
Here is the link to an excerpt from the book Peirce on Inference: Validity,
Strength, and the Community of Inquirers by Richard Kenneth Atkins.
https://books.google.com/books?id=4ZLCEAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PP1&hl=en&source=newbks_fb#v=onepage&q&f=false
Be
Mary,
Thanks for citing that book.
Note to all: If anybody has a copy of that book (or any other reference pro or
con the issue of the "thing in itself"), please find and send us any excerpt or
summary that might clarify these issues.
After further thought about this issue, my doubts about P
John, Peirce-list
For Our Information: Oxford UP has just published a book appropriate to this
discussion.
Peirce on Inference: Validity, Strength, and the Community of Inquirers, By
Richard Kenneth Atkins
> On Jun 8, 2023, at 1:16 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
> Jon, Jack, et al.,
>
> As I wro
Jon, Jack, et al.,
As I wrote in my previous note (excerpt copied below), both Kant and Peirce
presented positions that neither one had fully proved. Although I prefer
Peirce's position, I must admit that his proof in CP 5.525 is flawed, and your
version does not correct the flaw.
JAS> By con
Jack, List:
I appreciate the latest attempt at simplification, but it is still not a
deductively valid argumentation. In fact, its conclusion is an incorrect
*definition*.
JRKC: 13. Elemental qualities, in the absence of human (or, all organic)
experience, must exist in themselves.
14. This is wh
Jack and Jon,
I believe that the two of you are talking past one another. I also suspect
that a major reason for the disagreement is that Kant and Peirce had very
different criteria for what it means to know something. By knowing, Kant meant
absolutely total knowledge of something, not just i
ubject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce -
Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).
Jack, List:
Your persistent claim is that the existence of an incognizable thing-in-itself
is a necessary inference, i.e., a deductive conclusion. The problem is that
] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce -
Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).
Jack, List:
Your persistent claim is that the existence of an incognizable thing-in-itself
is a necessary inference, i.e., a deductive conclusion. The problem is that it
almost certainly follows
Jack, List:
Your persistent claim is that the existence of an incognizable
thing-in-itself is a *necessary *inference, i.e., a *deductive* conclusion.
The problem is that it almost certainly follows only from premisses (still
not fully spelled out) that Peirce and I would dispute. Moreover, we can
ct that it exists, is not as
contradictory as it may seem.
Best
Jack
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu on
behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 8:57 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Pei
eirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu>> on
behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt
mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 3:23 AM
To: Peirce-L mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce -
Again). (Assemblage Forma
possibility". So I guess, that you cannot conclude
> from an ought-matter such as representation to an is-matter, like the
> essential being of a thing.
>
> Best, Helmut
> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 04. Juni 2023 um 09:50 Uhr
> *Von:* "JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY"
> *An:* &
f after that ideal time? Logically, it seems to me, the key isn't
> "infinite community" but whether it is necessary to infer the existence of
> the thing in itself. For if this is necessary, then it matters not if the
> period of time be finite or infinite.
>
> And, again, I
the essential being of a thing.
Best, Helmut
Gesendet: Sonntag, 04. Juni 2023 um 09:50 Uhr
Von: "JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY"
An: "Peirce-L" , "Jon Alan Schmidt"
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce - Again). (Assemblage Forma
Alan Schmidt
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 3:23 AM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce -
Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).
Jack, List:
Any argumentation that has a "gap" cannot be deductively valid. The whole point
is to sho
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu>
mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu>> on
behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt
mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2023 4:01 AM
To: Peirce-L mailto:peirce-l@list.iupu
pt. I believe it is
> necessary.
>
> Best
>
> Jack
> ------------------
> *From:* peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu
> on behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 3, 2023 4:01 AM
> *To:* Peirce-L
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL]
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu on
behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2023 4:01 AM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce -
Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).
Jack, List:
I appreciate the summary as requested, but t
dt
Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2023 3:34 AMal
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce -
Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).
Jeff, List:
Admittedly, I have not read a lot of Kant, so I am mostly just agreeing with
Peirce that "the absolutely
, I side with Peirce in the Welby exerpt. I believe it is necessary.
Best
Jack
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu on
behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2023 4:01 AM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself
Jack, List:
I appreciate the summary as requested, but that argumentation is not
deductively valid. Indeed, our impressions of things are not identical to
those things (they are signs of them), and those things in themselves are
as they are regardless of our impressions of them (dynamical objects)
nothing but objects of possible experience, consequently to mere things of
> sense, and as soon as we leave this sphere these concepts retain no meaning
> whatever."
>
> What strikes me about this passage is the extent to which Kant and Peirce
> appear to agree about the &qu
.@list.iupui.edu on
behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 9:23 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce -
Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).
Jack, List:
Again, if the "thing in itself" can be inferred, then it
u on
behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 1:23 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce -
Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).
Jack, List:
Again, if the "thing in itself" can be inferred, then it can be rep
Jack, List:
Again, if the "thing in itself" can be inferred, then it can be represented
and is not incognizable after all. So, Peirce was right and Kant was wrong.
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/Jo
oint out, have to properly situate the
> Kantian thesis before departing. On that, I agree absolutely.
>
> Best
>
> Jack
>
> ----------
> *From:* peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu
> on behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt
> *Sent:* Friday, June 2, 2023 7:32
on
behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 7:32 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce -
Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).
Jack, List:
"Value" is a relatively unambiguous term in mathematics, but not in
phil
ce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu on
behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 7:32 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce -
Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).
Jack, List:
"Value" is a relatively unambiguous term in
cceptance, I genuinely
> await a long back and forth as to the entire structure and premis(ses) of
> the series/argument/conclusion (as such is necessary).
>
> I will fetch a summary and argument-treatment for you, though, - thanks
> again for offering to critique.
>
> Bes
ment-treatment for you, though, - thanks again
for offering to critique.
Best
Jack
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu on
behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 6:30 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peir
Jack, List:
An OpenAI account is required for the link, which I do not have. If you
sincerely desire my feedback on your alleged "proof," then please provide
your summary (formal argumentation) in a List post. Note that even if its
conclusions are deductively *valid*, it is not *sound *unless all
s
Jack
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu on
behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2023 4:16 AM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce -
Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).
Jack, List:
ehalf of Helmut Raulien
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2023 7:55 PM
To: jonalanschm...@gmail.com
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce -
Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).
List,
I have not fully understood the proof of the thing in itself, but
.edu on
behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2023 4:16 AM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce -
Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).
Jack, List:
Infinite, continuous, and recursive are not synonymous. Gödel's incom
"Peirce-L"
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce - Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference).
Jack, List:
Infinite, continuous, and recursive are not synonymous. Gödel's incompleteness theorems pertain only to axiomatic formal systems of mat
Jack, List:
Infinite, continuous, and recursive are not synonymous. Gödel's
incompleteness theorems pertain only to axiomatic formal systems of
mathematical logic. The term "value" is vague and still lacks a rigorous
definition for how it is being used in this particular context. No one is
denying
42 matches
Mail list logo
