Dan and Peircers,
I agree with Dan’s proposal to consider “the practical/empirical
consequences C.S. intended each definition to have.” I’m not sure I can
attempt that. The complications shown are interesting but above my pay
grade. Instead I would like to offer what went through my mind when I f
Mary, List:
Fascinating responses like yours and Stephen R.'s bring to my mind Peirce's
comment, "Different people have such wonderfully different ways of
thinking" (CP 6.462, EP 2:437; 1908).
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Lay
Thanks, Mary.
In fact there is a long tradition in lexicography that the meanings of a word
are the contexts in which it is used. And though we want to be as precise as we
can be about our understanding of Charlie’s writings, there is a fine line
between that and engaging in unresolvable debate
Dan, List:
Your point continues to be well-taken. At the same time, Peirce sharply
cautioned against allowing practical considerations to govern over
theoretical ones within philosophy or any other science of discovery, since
that might wrongly block the way of inquiry (cf. CP 1.619, EP 2:29; 189
Mary, list,
I hope that your spouse feels much better soon.
Thanks for this illuminating post! I was drafting one myself, but will now
have to reconsider it in light of your questions. I add just one more
question for now to pair with your "Is it a translation?" What if the
person seeing that wor
.. and let us not neglect the notion that 'truth' has a bearing on anything
whatsoever.
Best,
J
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 3:34 PM, Gary Richmond
wrote:
> Mary, list,
>
> I hope that your spouse feels much better soon.
>
> Thanks for this illuminating post! I was drafting one myself, but will now
>
Jeff, Jon S, Edwina, Gary f, Helmut, list,
I agree with Jon S that there is value in theoretical as well as practical
(pragmatic) analyses of the Sign and pragmaticism more generally. While, as
I noted in a post of a few days ago, it would seem that we have been
concentrating on the theoretical mu
Gary R., List:
I am currently trying out in my own mind defining the Immediate Object as
the *partial *combination of attributes of the Dynamic Object by which the
Sign *denotes *it. It is partial because (as you said) knowing the DO in
its fullness is an impossibility. It does not *itself *pred
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }As
usual - I have a different outline. I think there are multiple Signs
involved. I understand the Sign as: DO-[IO-R-DI]...and often DI.
That's the basic format.
1. Child touches hot stove: Rhematic Iconic Qualisi
