Gary,
Is it truly possible to just by defining to make oneself into strictly
separate parts?
An interesting question.
Nevertheless, this discussion does not deserve continuation. All your
points have become quite clear. With the undertones.
Kirsti
Gary Richmond kirjoitti 25.9.2017 05:00:
Jerry - I'll just reply this once and then won't comment again as we
are moving into red herring terrain. You wrote:
Is this opening flourish a case of CSP style? or hubris? or
bragging? or sophistry?
My comment is that: 'Style' in itself has no meaning. It requires
> On Sep 25, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
> since you originally defined Peirce's style as possibly a 'hubris style, a
> bragging style, a sophist style'.
Edwinia:
Your assertion is not true.
Jerry
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click
Jerry, list - Sorry, but I don't understand your comment.
I didn't say that Peirce claimed that he would analyze fallacious
logic using fallacious logic - and, I don't see that Peirce made that
suggestion either.
As for your conclusion that ' this style is common among
> On Sep 25, 2017, at 10:41 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
> I consider that the initial quotation was simply Peirce's general
> Introduction to his anticipated analysis, explaining that he was going to
> explore fallacious logic, using a key example. I don't think that one
List,
In case there are other subscribers besides Gene who would prefer to read this
Lowell lecture in bigger chunks, and don’t have a copy of EP2 handy, I’ve put
up a page on my website that gives the whole text from the beginning to the
part most recently posted to the list. The link to
On 9/25/2017 11:41 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
I consider that the initial quotation was simply Peirce's
general Introduction to his anticipated analysis, explaining
that he was going to explore fallacious logic, using a key example.
I agree.
Muhammad Ali did a lot of bragging. But he
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }I
consider that the initial quotation was simply Peirce's general
Introduction to his anticipated analysis, explaining that he was
going to explore fallacious logic, using a key example. I don't think
that one can discuss
I agree with Kirsti and Jerry:
IS THIS OPENING FLOURISH A CASE OF CSP STYLE? OR HUBRIS? OR
BRAGGING? OR SOPHISTRY?
Commenting with these questions is sufficient, given that the initial
Peirce quotation was simply insufficient to provide genuine discussion. The
Lowell lecture introductory 1.1
Kirsti, List,
I really can't say that I understand what your complaint is. Your post
began with and highlighted the snippet pointed to
. Here it is exactly as it appears in your post
:
List,
I agree with Jerry.
Kirsti
>
> IS THIS OPENING FLOURISH A CASE OF CSP STYLE? OR HUBRIS? OR
Gary R.
You misread my message. If it seemed as especially pointing at the
snippet you took up, it has been unintentional.
As a list manager your concern on the snippet is understandable.
However, as an approach by a list manager, I must say I do not feel good
about the way you expressed
Kirsti, Jerry, Gary F, list,
Kirsti, you wrote that you "agree with Jerry" and pointed to this snippet
from his message: * "Is this opening flourish a case of CSP style? or
hubris? or bragging? or sophistry?"*
But Jerry has here offered 4 *possibilities of interpreting* the opening
comments by
List,
I agree with Jerry.
Kirsti
Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 24.9.2017 22:41:
List, Gary:
Thanks, Gary for initiating a fresh informative stream.
It seems that how one interprets this opening rhetoric stance
(“hook”) is rather dependent on the number of symbols systems (
linguistic,
List, Gary:
Thanks, Gary for initiating a fresh informative stream.
It seems that how one interprets this opening rhetoric stance (“hook”) is
rather dependent on the number of symbols systems ( linguistic, musical,
mathematical, chemical … ) one can use to communicate with others.
This
Peirce begins his lecture series with a 'hook,' warning of an intellectual
disease which is likely to spread through all of science if not nipped in
the bud. The source of the disease is "a false notion about reasoning," and
the practitioners of science are vulnerable to it because many of them
15 matches
Mail list logo