John wrote :
I am currently unclear whether the processes he (6960-1)
hypothesizes (and creates) are semiotic.
It seems to me that semiosis is a complex process consisting of at least
three basic steps that constitute a mathematical category:
fg
Object -- Sign
Stefan, Gary F., list,
I was indeed addressing the snakebite example, just not mentioning it by
name. If two traditions, two people, two of anything, arrive at
incompatible conclusions about snakebites, then at most one of their
conclusions is true. That's what incompatible conclusions means.
Jon, I too find more continuity than discontinuity in the development of
Peirce's thought. However, I don't think that following that development in
chronological order is the easiest or best way to understand his truly radical
ideas. My experience has been that we can clearly see the roots of
John, lists,
I remember years ago here at peirce-l I did another one of those
examples of what would happen in courtrooms (but I was a LOT wordier in
those days) if some replacement of truth as a value were to prevail,
Rorty's in that case, the value of democratic exchange of views. Rorty
Cathy, list,
Thanks! But you're scaring me with some of the things that you say.
[...] first-year philosophy students, most of whom come in thinking
that some kind of social constructivism is the only educated or
open-minded or ‘culturally sensitive’ view of the world – I am currently
being
Ben,
Yes, please do post the paper. I don’t deal with the materialism-idealism issue
in that paper. Just in things that aren’t directly Peirce related, though they
do use some of his ideas.
I hadn’t thought of the legal issue, but Susan Haack is a legal philosopher
first of all. I found her
Stefan, I think you have a well-balanced position here, and I’m copying your
post to the biosemiotics list, because I think it contributes a lot to a
discussion that’s been going round and round on the biosemiotics list for
years. The same goes for Ben’s contributions, but he’s already posted
John C.,
Thanks, done. But you say your paper deals just in things that aren't
directly Peirce related? (Signs without minds
http://web.ncf.ca/collier/papers/Signs%20without%20minds.pdf ) It has
plenty of review of Peirce's ideas, and draws conclusions that
definitely are not simply about
Gary F, Stefan, lists,
Stefan does appear to offer a balanced approach. Still, I have some
questions.
Firstly, I didn't (and I don't recall Cathy) strongly approving Ben's post
on any other basis than that it argued against, as I put it, a
constructivist epistemology, something which Stefan
Gary F., Jon, Lists,
Looking back on my own struggles to find coherence in Peirce's published and
unpublished writings, I now think that the early lectures 1865-6 are actually
quite a good place to start--at least when one reaches the point of trying to
work more systematically through his
At 12:45 PM 9/22/2014, Benjamin Udell wrote:
The laws seem for all the world like mathematical rules nontrivially
operative as laws of physical quantities such as force, mass,
velocity, etc. That's why the laws can be formulated as mathematical
rules, in conventional mathematical symbols and
On Sep 23, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard jeffrey.down...@nau.edu
mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu wrote:
So, I'd like to ask, what are the key data that a logical theory should draw
on for the purposes of generating and testing hypotheses about real the
nature of the dicisign?
On Sep 23, 2014, at 12:12 PM, Benjamin Udell bud...@nyc.rr.com
mailto:bud...@nyc.rr.com wrote:
I remember years ago here at peirce-l I did another one of those examples of
what would happen in courtrooms (but I was a LOT wordier in those days) if
some replacement of truth as a value
13 matches
Mail list logo
