Helmut, Gary F, John S, list,
Helmut asked: "
But I have not understood, what people mean by "metaphysics". Is it the
same as "transcendence"?"
First, to answer your second question, for Peirce metaphysics is most
certainly *not* *transcendence* if by 'transcendental' one means experience
or
On 9/2/2017 8:31 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
[Metaphysics is] "First in dignity, last in the order of learning":
What is meant by "learning"? Is it the learning of the researcher,
or the learning of the pupil, who is being taught by the researcher
the results of the research?
The word Aquinas
Kirsti, John, Tommi, List,
"First in dignity, last in the order of learning": What is meant by "learning"? Is it the learning of the researcher, or the learning of the pupil, who is being taught by the researcher the results of the research? I think, that trying to find out what is behind nature
There is a link between ideas of recursion and that of cyclical
arithmetics. Has this not been recognized?
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 2.9.2017 20:53:
On 9/1/2017 6:37 PM, Tommi Vehkavaara wrote:
I do not see how those who take ontology as the first philosophy could
be convinced with this
On 9/1/2017 6:37 PM, Tommi Vehkavaara wrote:
I do not see how those who take ontology as the first philosophy
could be convinced with this diagram, because in it, metaphysics
is presented rather as the last philosophy, instead.
I googled "prima philosophia" and found an interesting discussion
John, list
You wrote:
"Those dependencies are important to emphasize, especially for anyone
who might claim that ontology is prima philosophia."
I do not see how those who take ontology as the first philosophy could
be convinced with this diagram, because in it, metaphysics is
presented
On 8/31/2017 6:41 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
FZ: About Sowa’s classification of the sciences, compared to Peirce’s,
I don’t see something new.
I strongly agree. I was *not* attempting anything new. And I was
most definitely *not* attempting to produce a classification of the
sciences. I did
Jerry LRC, Tommi, Gary F, and Kirsti,
Jerry
Thanks for collecting and posting the references to Simons works.
His views have changed hues since his book!
Yes. I'd say that the theoretical analysis in his 1987 book is
still valid, but Simons got hit with a large dose of reality in
his dozen
To: PEIRCE L <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu>
Cc: John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net>; Tommi Vehkavaara <tommi.vehkava...@uta.fi>;
Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce's classifications of the sciences
As wished by John, some comments to the
As wished by John, some comments to the jpg, as well as on some comments
presented:
I find the diagram a misleading, not a clarifying one.
I found the quote provided by Tommi a highly relevant problematization
of the issue. I also agree with the critical notes provided by Jerry, up
to a
10 matches
Mail list logo
