Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

Hi, Jerry, Where in earth did you take the "moral authority" you (mistakenly) assume I was refering to? Pity you did not understand my points. But if Hilbert is your leading star in the universe of sciences, then it is understandable that you hold on to his mistakes, as well as his

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

Kirsti and Jon A. Kirsti Logic is not linguistics, and should not be replaced, not even partly, by linguistics. Even though there are a host of philosophers, quite famous ones even, which have made that mistake. Jon ditto amen qed si. Logic and linguistics are two branches of semiotic.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

Hi Kirsti: You wrote: >> Logic is not linguistics, and shluld not be replaced, not even partly, by >> lingquitics. I awoke in the middle of the night, feeling that I may have mis-read your meaning. Did you mean, linguistics as the study of languages… Or, that logic ITSELF, whatever that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

Jerry, When CSP used "ERGO", that was a case of ENTHYMEME (cf. Aristotle). The rheme "If - then" remains implied. One is supposed to regocnize that. Logic is not linguistics, and shluld not be replaced, not even partly, by lingquitics. Even though there are a host of philosophers, quite

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

Jon and Jerry, To specify a system of formal logic, there are many equivalent options for choosing the notation, the operators, the definitions, the axioms, and the rules of inference. JA One could hardly dispute the importance of implication relations like A ⇒ B. The set-theoretic analogues

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

Dear list: I thought ‘ergo’ was simply identical with ‘hence’, which is what follows ‘the’ and ‘but’ in the argument CP 5.189. I believe *that* thought is simple and complex enough; for it contains terms, propositions and illation, as well. I see* even* the recognition that arguments may

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

List: > On Jun 12, 2017, at 8:25 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > After those debates, they came to the conclusion that all three were > equivalent in computational power. In John Sowa’s context, how does one relate such assertions to semiotics in light of 3.468-3.475? Is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

List: > On Jun 12, 2017, at 6:50 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: > > ERGO present just the THEN part. from Wikipedia (sorry!) Ergo may refer to: A Latin word meaning "therefore" as in Cogito ergo sum . A Greek

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason

> On Jun 11, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > > The big thing that classification maniacs tend to forget about > types of signs in a sign relational theory of signs is that they > are always interpretive and relative never essential and absolute. The chemical table of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

Jerry, list Dictionary may not be the source to turn to. ERGO is an abbreviation used by CSP to his audience at the time. There are hidden parts, assumed to be self-evidently known to all his readers. In another parts of his writings CSP tells that the primary and fundamental logical

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

Jerry C and list, The context of CP 3.440 (which I quoted in my post) is Peirce’s 1896 Monist article “The Regenerated Logic”, which is really a long review of Schröder's Exact Logic in which Peirce explains how his own views on the subject differ from Schröder's. I think if you read the

Fwd: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason

suggests that all of language is merely a blank form. The notion of “counting” is apparently completely discounted. No. This is Peirce's anticipation of Church's lambda calculus. For details, see below. John Forwarded Message Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason Date: Sat, 10 J

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

Open questions to the list: The following quote, posted by gnox (Thanks, Gary) appears to be a deep conundrum from several perspectives of 21 st Century logic. > On Jun 9, 2017, at 8:44 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > Peirce, CP 3.440 (1896): > [[ I have maintained since 1867 that there is

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason

Jon, What you say is a good reason for (a) not taking terms too “literally” and (2) always taking them in context. Peirce, CP 3.440 (1896): [[ I have maintained since 1867 that there is but one primary and fundamental logical relation, that of illation, expressed by ergo. A proposition,