Jeffrey, list,
A beutiful example of ethics of interpretation you offered, Jeffrey.
Thanks.
With quotes from Collected Papers my sincere wish is that the year of
writing is mentioned, whenever possible. Those are to be found in the
small footnotes.
Peirce was not just a corpuscular entity,
Helmut,
I find your thinking very much to the point. I also find it very good
to be frank. And I think Peirce wasas frank as he could, too. Which did
not make him very agreeable to the establishments of his times.
By now, there is no agreement on any overview, not about this topic or
much e
Gary f,
Sorry for inexact expressions. I should have made a distinction between
just interpreting a quote and going beyond it. Paraphrasing is
customarily marked with expressions like "as XXX says elsewhere...".
If I had problems with understanding where you were paraphrasing Peirce,
and whe
Gary f.
Now I truly believe you were sincere with your wishes for a happy new
year. Thanks.
We still do disagree. And I do not think the problems can be reduced
into language problems. There are more fundamental issues involved.
I am not asking anyone to believe without testing out what
Linguistists and lexicographers may be and often are experts in
language, but they are no experts in questions on human mind or the
nature of human understanding. The best of them acknowledge this fact.
No onesided expertice can overcome this dilemma. Both sides of any coin
are needed. Just as
In regard of the title in this chain, I'd like add:
If anyone has written a huge amount of definitions on anything does not,
by itself, prove that those are even on the right tract. Words come
easy. Tests on the thougts conveyed do not.
Best,
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 9.1.2018 16:04:
On
Jerry, list,
CSP wrote: the meaning of anything lies in what it aims at. - This what
teleology is about.
The problem lies in that we cannot just just look and see what the aims
are. - Can you now just see what my aim now is? - You may and most
probably do have thoughts and opinions on the is
John, list
If and when "formal languages" end up with attepts at eliminating
flexibility in natural languages, it will not be natural languages which
will get defeated.
Just take a quick look at the history. All proof lies in the side of
natural languages.
John wrote: "Since teachers use N
To my mind CSP by iconical meant turning into geometrical proof. Not
only minute steps written in a very long row
according to a large set of rules given by tradition, but difficult or
even impossible to convey.
A possibility for an overview of logical structures, an overview to be
obtained by
List,
I too second Gary Richmonds note. I'd like to add that multiple postings
seem to be adjunct to this problem.
People send to personal mailboxes in addtion to the list.
If just that gets left out, the mass of mails would not look so awfull,
so hopeless.
Best, Kirsti
Ia mail is sent t
List,
First I wish to express my appreciation to Gary f., to his lead and his
commentaries on LL. - However, it seem to me that the discussions tend
to get muddled on certain very, very basic respects.
Peirce's first formulation of the Pragmatic Maxims was about "practical
bearings". So it w
Gary f., list,
Your response presented as full an understanding of essential points in
my post as I could ever hope. Even more, I was greatly and happily
surprised.
And yes, of course there are any formulations of the ideas conveyed by
the two short expressions he gave a final stamp of his a
gnox,
There must have been some misunderstanding of my post, if you could not
find what I meant. Which is foud EP 2, 134-135.
Even if CSP states in his Harward Lectures (1903) "I have not succeeded
any better than this: Pragmatism is the principle that every theoretical
judgement expressible
Thank you, Jon for bringing up your "Seven major variations..."
In it you take up with excellent clarity seven perspectives upon the
Maxim, from the standpoint of a philospher. Mentioning year with each
quote is very informative in respect of development of CSP's main
interests and aims.
How
Good points. But both of you seem to move only within the thin air of
abstractions. There is a need for concrete demonstrations. Examples to
examine, for example.
Kirsti
g...@gnusystems.ca kirjoitti 19.2.2018 14:47:
Jon,
Your collection of Peirce quotes deploying the term “quasi-mind”
(if ea
Gary R.
I do think you have mistaken CSP's exclamation of dispair for his true
views on science and vitally important matters.
The issue should be rethougth, I believe.
Kirsti
Gary Richmond kirjoitti 2.3.2018 22:41:
Stephen quoted Peirce:
_We employ twelve good men and true to decide a qu
List,
I second Gene's views. A most important post.A most important CSP quote!
Kirsti Määttänen
Eugene Halton kirjoitti 5.3.2018 23:01:
Dear Gary R.
You mention the problem of greed, Gary, denying that it is
a problem of science and claiming that it is a misuse of science by
“the
List,
Did CSP ever use as a dichotomy the distincition between ontology vs.
epistemology? I think not. That would be against his basic views.
This frame just does not fit.
Kirsti
Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 7.9.2016 00:43:
Helmut, List:
Peirce's "Neglected Argument" is certainly NOT the sam
Dear Jean-Yves Beziau & the list!
The one and only linguist, who knew both Saussure and Peirce ' by
heart', was Roman Jakobson. He never agreed with the idea of
arbitrariness of the sign. He even took the famous 'Cours' compiled by
the students of Saussure as a misunderstanding, a misintepreta
Dear John, Jerry R.,
Thank you very much, John for your brilliant summary on the relation
between nominalism and pragmaticism & Einstein and his theorizing.
And Jerry, I would recommend a very detailed study of the two
formulations by CSP, given in his first Harward Lecture (EP vol. 2)
befor
Dear Jerry R.
I can assure you, there was nothing pejorative in my intention in
responding to you. I just wished to point out that it indeed is very
important to study in detail the exact wording CSP worked with for
decades. Especially those wordings he stick up with in his latest years.
The
Dear Auke & al.
It seems to me that you are on the right tract, but in a way CSP did not
share. And going along a tract, wich leads nowhere.
Although the main interest of CSP lied in science, his starting point
was "babes and suclings", (just google this) As have been mine, even
before I had
A most importan note! Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 21.10.2016 20:55:
On 10/21/2016 1:09 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
By "scientific causality," do you mean /efficient/ causality (i.e.,
brute reactions), /final/ causality (i.e., laws of nature), both,
or something else altogether?
Scientific c
Dear Auke,
I got very delighted by your response! Right now, I have very little
time, but I wish to share some of my thoughts on and about it.
First: The idea of primordial chaos is very, very popular. Even so
popular that one should get suspicios in front of the popularity. It is
commonly t
Edwina, Auke, listers,
I wish to point out some key issues involved in my earlier post,
connected with Edwina's comments 24.10.2016
Edwina Taborsky kirjoitti 24.10.2016 16:51:
ET: > "Kirsti, I like your outlines of embryos and the 'firstness' of
Feelings. [I think that more research should
John, list,
Everyone seems to take the Big Bang hypothesis as granted. Still, it is
just a hypothesis with meagre, if any evidence.
And John, a most interesting question you posed:
Does anyone know if he had written anything about embedding our
universe in a hypothetical space of higher dime
Jon,
I could not agree more. Excellent, to my mind.
Best regards,
Kirsti Määttänen
Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 4.11.2016 15:51:
Jerry, List,
Inquiry begins in Doubt and aims for Belief but the rush
to get from D to B and achieve mental peace can cause us
to short the integrated circuits of inquiry
John, list,
Most important points you take up, John. Time-sequences between
stories do not apply. - The big-bang is just a story,one on many just as
possible stories.
Time-scales are just as crucial with the between - issue as are
storywise arising issues. There are no easy ways out ot the
John, list.
You wrote:
"Different languages have different options for the grammatical forms
that express such relations. The number of options could lead to a
combinatorial explosion, but the practical number is limited by human
memory."
I take your first sentence as a most important note.
Jerry,
If you take "to people who want to find out" to mean: "people who want
to find out by themselves" thus not only to be told so, it makes perfect
sense. - In order to find grounds for this interpretation, you will have
to look elsewhere in the works of CSP. - It is not uncommon that in
o
Jerry,
Instead of jumping into conclusions (iterpretations) on what CSP meant,
let's (as a first step) take closer look on what you did in the act of
writing your response.
You picked up a metaphor, used by CSP. In order to understand the
meaning of any metaphor (in pragmaticist sense), one
Hi Stefan,
Very interesting! Especially because the author is a lawyer. Still, I
doubt I'll have time to read these.
Anyway, Husserlian phenomenology is thoroughly different from Peircean
phenomenology. They started from a very, very different conception of
mind. For starters.
Quite often,
Stefan,
This gets more and more interesting! Please, do provide the details! - I
have spent quite a while in moderating my methods of text
interpretations for developing a way which works in interpreting law.
Very, very different methods are needed, that's for sure. 'Tradition'
for instance
Stefan,
Thank you for the information. Good to know. - However, I do not think
I'll ever take the trouble of finding these books.
With any close-read of texts it is sufficient for a big while to know
that laws need an approach of their own. - No hand of a sheriff with
any, however nonsensic
Most interesting! Thank you Gene.
I have been reading Simmel lately. Not been happy with it. But Simmel
seems to be quite to the vogue, in Finland that is.
Kirsti
Eugene Halton kirjoitti 27.11.2016 19:25:
Dear Stefan,
Interesting. One rarely ever hears of a student of Simmel.
Desp
Clark,
How come you say chemists have a "more practical field"??? This I find
an amusing note.
Is there a rationale behind this note, or is it just a flippant one
which cannot be given any grounds for?
Kirsti
Clark Goble kirjoitti 5.12.2016 19:31:
On Dec 5, 2016, at 7:05 AM, John F Sowa
For CSP the real was not reducible to existent individuals, be
theyindividual facts fould out by measuments in empirical,however strict
experimental investigations, OR individual minds, ie. any particular
persons, taken as existent individuals.
The real, for CSP, revealed itself only 'in the
Helmut,
Peirce was opposed to behaviorism in any proper sense, because
behaviorism did not exist by his time. It came into being later.
Behaviorism came from US, and sweeped over the field of anglo-american
psychology later than the span of life of CSP.
The roots of behaviorism come from Ru
Theoretical physicists are of course less practiqual minded. But the
right point of comparison would then be theoretical chemists.
The key point, however, is that neither chemistry nor physics should be
taken as equivelants to the buch of people currently practicing the
these sciences.
That
Hi all,
The string theoty is a legitimate theory, even if (and when)it does not
hold. It has paved the way forwards. -
Kirsti
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@li
A very, very important note this is. - The deepest theoretical problem
(to my mind) lies in scaling, which is necessary in order to deal with
the very large and the very small. Practical problems with measuring
follow suit. They are just problems of time and efforts. - Once there is
a theoreti
If Wikipedia is taken as a scientific authority, then the situation is
really bad.
Kirsti
Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 11.12.2016 22:36:
Ben, List:
On Dec 11, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Benjamin Udell
wrote:
According to Wikipedia, the Planck length is, in principle, within a
factor of 10, the short
John wrote:
"Note that Peirce did not use the word 'semantics'. That word
was introduced into analytic philosophy by Charles Morris's
misunderstanding of Peirce. Carnap loved that word because it
gave his nominalism a thin veneer of meaning. It enabled him
to define modality in terms of Gedan
Is this list about the philosophy of Peirce any more? - Or does CSP only
serve as a starting point to presenting any kinds of ideas loosely
connected with CSP. The list-minders should set an example. - It does no
seem so to me.
Best,
Kirsti
Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 29.12.2016 21:52:
Clark,
I heartily agree with John.
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 11.1.2017 17:32:
On 1/10/2017 2:21 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
Forster's /Peirce and the Threat of Nominalism/.
Re: The favorable review by Nathan Houser and the highly critical
review by T. L. Short.
I believe that both reviewers saw
Jon,
The problem, as I see it, has not been a philosphical issue for many,
many centuries. In the Middle Ages it was. - But, as CSP noted, by his
time it had become a very different question. - By which I mean: No
question at all!
I do not have time or patience to look up the exact quote by
Jon A.S.
First: see my recent response to Jon Awbrey.
Second: In developing his theory of true continuity, CSP used the basic
geometrical notions of a line and a point. (According to his
architecture of sciences, which presents not just an architecture of
sciences, but more so a method for pr
Ben,
Peircer's qualities of feelings are not 'generals'. When reflected upon
they appear vague, which does not have any direct relation with tte
philosphical concept of 'general'.
Kirsti
Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 10.1.2017 06:07:
Ben, List:
BU: This rule-style of formulation reflects a m
Jon S.
Not only is continuity the most difficult problem for philosophy to
handle, it is also the most difficult problem for mathematics to handle.
Taking into consideration the view of CSP that we always have to start
with math, then proceed to phenomenology, and only after this try to
hand
John F.S.,
It is always absolutely necessary to communicate with ones contemporary
scientific communities. Which is followed by a necessity to use the
basic views and terminology they use and can understand. - CSP (in
letters to lady Welby) characterized this as throwing a bone to the
Cerber
Ben,
Are there omitted parts in your quotes? Marked by -?
Best, Kirsti
Benjamin Udell kirjoitti 15.1.2017 20:05:
Jon A.S., Kirsti, list,
Regarding Peirce about reflected-on qualities as generals, I was
basing that on the same text as contains CP 1.427 quoted by Jon A.S.
That is "§2. Quality"
I agree!
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 16.1.2017 23:56:
On 1/16/2017 3:32 PM, Clark Goble wrote:
I think one can still manage how symbols grow. That is consider them
bundles of process. The question ends up being what the limits of the
symbol are. Of course that becomes a complex topic too.
I
Clark,
Your wrote:
CG: Logically that then has a beginning and end to the symbol.
Definitely not so acccording to the logic of CSP. - You are using some
other kind of logic, according to which symbols do not grow - on the
ground of communities, not just by individuals.
You seem to be block
Solving problems with definitions and defining is the nominalistic way
to proceed.
I do not work in the way of presenting definitions. - I work with doing
something, with a (more or less) systematic method. - Just like in a
laboratory.
I have done strict experimental work. And strict up to mo
OK, very interesting. - But not viable to any kind of an answer to the
question of the nature of relationship between quality and generality.
CSP is just throwing some loose characerizations to the field.
What he happened to write (e.g in his notebooks), or even his published
papers, were not
Clark,
No community we possibly know about has not ended.
There is no "of course" with the question of communities. On the main,
communities change, radically or not so. - The remnants of any
community, any culture with any traces left behind may start to grow
again.
Kirsti
Clark Goble kir
Alan,
Sorry for the typo. - Sill it seems to me you miss a crucial aspect of '
to kath ekaston', what is singular. - The difference lies in it being
determinate only as long as 'time is so'. - What is real, in contrast to
existent individuals, always lies (partly) in the future. Thus it is
ne
Yes! I agree.
Kirsti
Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 18.1.2017 05:52:
A Few Points Along This Line:
JA:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-01/msg00055.html
JA:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-01/msg00062.html
JA:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-01/msg00063.html
JA:ht
Sorry Jon. Again. - I definitely never said that I "abhorr definitions".
If you do not regocnize an intrepretation here, compared to what I
wrote, I'm afraid there is nothing to discuss. - We are not on anything
like a same page.
Kirsti
Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 19.1.2017 16:25:
Kirsti, L
Jon,
You are right about my unhappy choice of word. It was an overstatement,
to say the least.
Long ago, when you had used "segments" in connection with continuity, It
gave me the impression of some lines of thought akin to nominalistic
ways. - But you responded with taking a critical stand
Hi,
I feel a need to point out that "sinsign, index and dicisign" presents a
trichotomy of signs. Not a triad, but a tree-part division, a
classification, if you wish.
All triads and triadicity involve mediation. Triadicity also involves
meaning, not just signs.
Kirsti
Jerry LR Chandler
Hi,
Modern positivism, the (future) mainsource of present analytical
philosphy has been excellenty described by John F. Sowa in the list.
Dichotomic divisions into two, like ontology and epistemology,is the
ground for this line of philosophy, by now taken as a common starting
point in eleme
Jerry,
CSP did use divisions into three, so trichotomies do belong to his
philosophy. Only in his latest phase he devoted himself to developing
triadicity as his key concept in his theory of the Categories.
So, trichotomies of signs, such as icon, index, symbol etc. are OK. But
only for the
Stephen,
In teh main, I agree. But I do not think they, either one, were in any
way "voting FOR" anything, not for religion or anything any individual
may choose. They were both making systematic observations on truth & the
methodical ways of approaching a true understanding of what is real.
Hi John,
I just wish to remind that Pythagoreans brought together music and
measurement. Ancient Greek tradition did not start with Plato and
Aristotle. - The monochord, together with the idea of Universal Lyra was
the srarting point to both Plato and Aristotle.
Which is full accord with pos
I share your surprise, Jerry.
Kirsti
Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 5.2.2017 19:26:
John, Edwina, List:
I am more than a bit surprised by the assertions that the Middle Ages
gave birth to "Empirism".
Does anyone have a convenient reference to the historical emergence of
this term in philosophy?
Stephen,
On the nachlass of Peirce, just see the timelapse in publishing his
latest works. It just may be that his latest conclusions are met with
some uneasyness by those publishing it. - About Nietzche I do not know.
CSP was and remained critical towards his own earlier work. To the end
of
One of the most important points of convergence with Wittgenstein and
Peirce I find in the note by Wittgenstein when starting his lectures on
Mathematics. He opened his lectures by stating: I will not say anything
anyone will disagree with. If someone does, I will say something else.
(not a quo
Thank you Stephen!
The following shows a fine understanding of the deep contextuality of
meaning.
Stephen Rose: "Which is a swift way to be reminded that we live in the
now, not back then."
This is something very hard to understand. So true, so true...
Kirsti
Stephen C. Rose kirjoitti 11.
John,
I wish to draw your attention to this part in you mail:
JFS: ... a theory expressed in discrete signs...
This statement presupposes that even signs acting as symbols, are
discrete. Written statements are put down in the form of discrete parts.
But it does not follow that the proposition
List,
First, Peirce did not adress questions, which did not arise, or were
impossible during his time. Thus Prigogine did not bleong to his agenda.
Well, then what is Prigogine about, deep down. What are the
resemblances, what are the diffenrencies.
In physics, a problem has been how to co
Hi,
To my mind, Jerry is right in pointing out a general neglect on the
significance of chemistry in Peirce's philosophy. - Today, browsing
Essential Peirce, vol 2, I was dismayed, again, with the note of the
editors of a footnote of CSP on chemistry, left out. - With the excuse,
that it is l
List, Jerry,
Peirce was interested in relations, right? - So, with a sentence, he
reduced it to a relational rhema, like - fought -.
This expresses the ralation of figthing. The lines just express a
logical "place", which may be be Harry or Peter, or Kirsti or anyone.
This rhema is about a
Dear friends,
There are two issues I wish to comment. One is "hypostatic abstraction",
the other is the title of this thread.
It took me quite some time in the past, to get a clear idea of what CSP
means with "hypostatic abstraction". - Well, the conclusion I came into,
was just the opposite t
List, Jerry, Stephen,
It seems to be commonly assumed that CSP created a theory of signs. -
Well, amongst other things, he did. - But it was not what he was after.
- He was after a theory, or rather a method and methodogy of finding out
meanings.
By the end of 1800, there was a kind of mania
John & al
I have a suggestion for what is missing. By mistake, I sent my
suggestion only to Jerry. But perhaps you and Jon are interested in it,
as well. - So I'll copy my note below:
Jerry,
I have not studied this particular triad CSP has presented. - BUT
two-dimensional diagrams never pre
Jerry, You wrote to me:
JLRC:"My purpose is mainly to align the logics in terms of Tarski’s
meta-languages, but I will not address that here."
KiM: If and when Tarski is your object of thought, my note is completely
irrelevant.
JLRC: The meta-languages of interest here geometry, matter, num
Jon, list
I do remember your three-dimensional visualization of sign relations,
Jon. I had no intention of excluding you three-dimensional
presentations. I appreciate your work, it just is not my cup of tea.
My note to the list was NOT about sign relations, it was about
understanding the mea
Hi Jerry, list
Just a quick resoponse, for now:
"Most modern logicians operate off of first order logical premise which
roughly translate that logic is an algebra and algebra is a logic.
Universality of meaning is, somehow or other, exchanged between
algebraic symbols (signs) and logical symbol
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.
"s
Jerry, list,
Your response helped a lot in proceeding towards some answers, hopefully
more connecting with your interests & current problems you are seeking
to find solutions. (I hope!)
First, it now seems clear to me, that your homefield is to be found in
naturalistic philosophy. Thus I hea
Hi Charles, Jeffrey & others involved in this tread,
I skimmed through the whole below, currently writing (amongs other
issues) on Moebius stripe & the bottle of Klein. You may not be aware
that the latter was a great question to Lévy-Strauss, the famous
ethnologist & mythologist. The question
CSP was thoroughly familiar with Aristotle, both his syllogisms and
their context in those times. It may be good to remember that
Aristotle's works, along all others, were translated into Latin by the
time we call the new age.
Translations always involve interpretation. Thus what has passed on
The idea of meta-languages presents the way of thinking in levels
(characteristic to modern age). Thinking in terms of levels involves
jumps. Triadic thinking doen not. It incorpotes the idea of growth.
Within triadic thinking one may enlarge or diminish the scope, the
perspective. At will, p
Hi,
It depends on what you take a syllogism to consist on. The modern
interpretation leaves out the ancient Greek understanding of time. As
you most probably know, CSP wa occupied with the problem of time as
something constantly evolving all his life.
(Thus it is of no use to stic into his ear
Clark,
I agree with your points. - But I did not use the word "necessarily".
As long as one stays within mathematics, what you write:
" While none of
these are in the Peircean arena, I think they fit in rather well.
(Inquiry as a continual generation of higher metalanguage in terms of
semiosis)
Jerry. Clark, list,
Jerry wrote:
Of course, things are always more complex than they first appear.
I would argue for a completely connected world if my purpose were
metaphysical in nature.
But, language itself separates the world from its totality into
manageable parts.
And culture has found it
Jerry, list,
My comments are inserted.
Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 29.4.2016 16:15:
Kristi, Clark, List:
On Apr 29, 2016, at 12:05 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
The most common form these problems appear, is in the form of just
jumping from "the level of individuals" (be they chemical re
Well put, Jon Alan!
Most happy to read such a clear statement.
Kirsti
Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 12.5.2016 04:33:
Gary R., List:
Quick thought ...
"The irritation of doubt causes a struggle to attain a state of
belief." (CP 5.374)
The first phase of inquiry is abduction, which begins when an
Clark,
An excellent & clear statement. I agree with all points you take up.
Kirsti
Clark Goble kirjoitti 10.5.2016 00:33:
On May 9, 2016, at 1:45 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
I read Peirce primarily for his insights into logic, mathematics,
and science, which are considerable enough for several l
Clark,
Thank you very much for your posts on this thread. Greatly appreciated!
Also, Neglegted Argument has been my favorite piece since I started with
CSP. The question of the reality of God has always seemed to me to be a
critical question to pose in front of anything Peirce wrote.
However
Hi,
My distant memories tell me that I took up Parker's book in the hope of
finding there something essential & important about the concept of
continuity in CSP's work. I was quite disappointed in finding out that
the book was about continuity between the phases of theorizing in the
writings o
Jerry, list,
I have never found divisions of signs (trichotomies) of much use. And I
cannot see how they could work with proposisional functions. So I cannot
be of help in your questions.
Kirsti
Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 16.6.2016 18:25:
List, Kirsti:
On Jun 16, 2016, at 9:12 AM, kirst..
Clark,
There is a deep problem involved with attepts to give any just
epistemological explanations of CSP's views on doubt. He states, for
example, that you should not pretend to doubt anythinf you do not doubt
in your heart. (This is, of course,pointed against Descartes.) - But
'heart' here
Clark, Jerry R., list,
It seems to me you evade Jerry's question, Clark. A very sensible
question to me, well worth an answer to the question, not just beside
it.
As we all know, CSP took himself to be a laboratory minded philosopher,
in contrast with seminary minded philosophers. That is, h
Stephen,
I very good & most relevant quote you provided.
Kirsti
Stephen C. Rose kirjoitti 3.7.2016 15:00:
The reasoning of Triadic Philosophy works in all contexts. This is a
remarkable claim in a world where the barriers between disciplines
grow higher and it is hard to have discussions becaus
CLARK GOBLE kirjoitti 4.7.2016 07:53:
On Jul 2, 2016, at 5:58 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
KiM: It seems to me you evade Jerry's question, Clark. A very sensible
question to me, well worth an answer to the question, not just beside
it.
CG: I’m not sure I was evading it so much as expla
Ben,
A most interesting & valuable post!
I do hope all involved in this discussion will pay attention to this
response of yours.
Kirsti
Ben Novak kirjoitti 16.7.2016 21:00:
Dear Helmut and List:
Helmut asks: "Can things take habits?"
Discussion of Peirce's theory of habit reminds me of G
Jon Alan,
I fully agree!!!
Kirsti
Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 20.7.2016 04:15:
Stefan, List:
You wrote ...
It would be much better to teach practicing scientists the
philosophy, history and sociology of science. This would be
enlightenment in science...
The same is true for engineers and en
Gary,
Hereby my wish to sign out from the P-list. Best wishes. Kirsti
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRC
101 - 200 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
