Re: [PEIRCE-L] How does one justify something like a "completeness" in a logic of vagueness?

Dear Jon, Kirsti, Clark and list, Thank you for your responses. They have been very helpful. One thing still sits as being unsatisfying to me. With consideration to your answers, the justifications of which mostly come from the same section on common-sensism, why does the assertion warrant an

Re: [PEIRCE-L] How does one justify something like a "completeness" in a logic of vagueness?

Hi Jerry Rhee, You misunderstand (misinterpret) the sentence by CSP, so your questions go all wrong. On should take time to understand properly, before making inferences. CSP talks about "something like completenes". - No use asking "What exactly is complete" The question is absurd.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] How does one justify something like a "completeness" in a logic of vagueness?

> On Apr 8, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: > > What exactly is "complete" about a logic of vagueness? Isn’t Peirce’s distinction between generals and vagues complete? It doesn’t deal with all philosophical questions with the term “vague” which often include what I’d

[PEIRCE-L] How does one justify something like a "completeness" in a logic of vagueness?

Hi everyone, In various manuscripts on “Issues of Pragmaticism”, Peirce asserts “*I have worked out* the *logic of vagueness* with *something like completeness*,* but *need* not inflict more of it upon you, at present.” *The asterisk denotes “Where”? (from CP 5.506, Hartshorne and Weiss)