Jim Platt wrote (in part):
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jim Piat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
> Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Existent vs Real
> Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 12:02:23 -0500
>
>
>
>
>>
> D
For anyone who may have missed it, I'm forwarding Alan Ryan's obituary of P. F.
Strawson, as posted on Russell-l.
Irving Anellis:
Message: 4
From: "Kenneth Blackwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Obit. of Strawson
To: "Russell Studies Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:
Irving Anellis wrote (in part):
To be able to formulate the judgment that 'The present King of France is
bald' meant for Meinong that the present King of France must have being at
some ontological level or another (i.e have some sort of ontological status,
even if he does not exist) in order t
tological riff:
If Ockham's razor won't kill the bachelor's wife,
and Russell's denoting won't describe her to end her life,
Try Quine's tomahawk and scalping knife.
Irving Anellis
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jim Piat" <[EMAIL PROTE
Dea Folks,
I'm thinking it might be helpful to try to distinguish between the notions
of real and true. One can contrast real with imaginary and true with false.
Some further preliminary thoughts below. As in maybe---
Peirce proposes that being comes in three modes -- the potential, the
ac
Thomas,
[[ perhaps I have here something more that might be of interest for you: ]]
Yes, those citations are interesting, and new to me because i don't have
access to the Eisele volumes. Thank you! I can't say that they throw much
light (for me) on Peirce's usage of "subject" and of "real", th
Gary,
perhaps I have here something more that might be of interest for you:
Logic requires us, with reference to each question we have in hand, to
hope some
definite answer to it may be true. That *hope* with reference to *each
case* as
it comes up is, by a *saltus*, stated by logicians as
What struck me immediately about Thomas's quote from CP 4.546 was its
distinction between logical subjects and meta-physical Subjects, or
"substances". Just this morning i've been perusing the Century Dictionary on
"subject", "subjective" and "subjectivity", all of which are on the UQAM
word li
I have no problem with this, Thomas, as showing the need for the distinction
of the existent vs. the real, but then I wasn't really putting the need for
it in question but only intending to indicate that I don't always understand
how to apply it effectively.
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message
