Thank you, Jon and Edwina. I don´t understand it, except I have a hunch that he is saying: A thing´s form is unique, and its matter is not, because other things are also made of the same material. I guess I rather want to keep my concept of form and matter, which I think is more naiive: In a
Dear list,
The word ‘reality’, which in the concept of the thing sounds other than the
word ‘existence’ in the concept of the predicate, is of no avail in meeting
this objection. For if all positing (no matter what it may be that is
posited) is entitled reality, the thing with all its
Edwina, Helmut, List:
The nearly 40 different types of "form" that Peirce cataloged in CP
6.360-361 (from Baldwin's *Dictionary*, 1902) highlight the importance of
being clear about *what we mean* by "Form" when we talk about it; likewise
"Matter." In NEM 4:292-300 (c. 1903?), Peirce stated the
Helmut, list
My view of Peirce's Form and Matter is quite different from that of
JAS. I refer you to Vol 6, 354-364, which has an extensive outline of
different types of form. Indeed, he associates Form with 'forma
corpus' and 'morphe' {Note: I am transliterating from the
On a related note ...
That Aristotling Town
=
The man’s reputation for dualing exceeds him.
It’s a mode more the eyebeam of the beholden.
Western wayfarers will claim him their founder,
But they founder on the way his meta*physick
Straddles the narrow straits of their
Dear All,
I wonder why Peirce associated the categories like that. To me it rather seems like matter would be 1ns, form 2ns, and entelechy 3ns. That is because I cannot see more than one mode in matter, but 2 in form: Reason for it, and aim (telos) of it. Aristotle said, that form consists of
Dear list,
As regards the 200 emails,
It is obvious why we don’t appreciate that.
It is not so obvious that we appreciate *Gorgias* and Peirce’s sense of
humor for a similar reason.
On the topic of Discovering the American Aristotle, Peirce also said *of it*,
remember:
Aristotle was
Excellent piece. And excellent quote which I think I had better paste in. I
created the triad Reality Ethics Aesthetics as a suggested post-Peirce
basis for philosophy. It fits in with previous quotes in this thread and
explicitly so with the following:
“Esthetics and logic seem at first blush to
Dear All:
A quarter of a century ago (December 1993), several of the subjects of this
discussion thread (either explicit, implied, or merely mentioned) were
rather eloquently addressed in an article in *First Things*, "Discovering
the American Aristotle," by Edward T. Oakes:
Thanks Jon. That is a direct confirmation of the rather over the top
dispatch of Aristotle in the quote I sent. My own work maintained initially
that Aristotle's ethics were responsible for the ethical problems of our
first two millennia and I laid that at the feet of his reliance on virtues
which
Hi Jon,
Excellent quote; thanks, Jon. I had not seen (recalled?) it
before, and it offers another example of Peirce's universal
categories, plus is the clearest statement I have seen yet of
Peirce's definition of nominalism v realism.
Mike
List:
As the chief culprit for the recent glut of messages--apparently I was the
sender of more than one-third of the 200+ over the first 11 days of
February--I offer my sincere apology, and my promise to try to temper my
enthusiasm for the current discussion topics, or at least "pace myself"
Yes, I had that in mind in sending the CP quote and it seems relevant to
recent discussions. Then there is this: "IN an article published in The
Monist for January 1891, I endeavored to show what ideas ought to form the
warp of a system of philosophy, and particularly emphasised that of absolute
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Stephen - Peirce was 'Aristotelian' in issues about Matter and Form;
and the primacy of sensate data in our experience - and the nature of
Reality vs the individual Existence. But - Aristotle's evolution
theory was - as
Dear Stephen:
As I have read, Peirce desired nothing more than to accede to the title of
"Second Aristotle"
From the first paragraph of first volume of CP:
"[I intend] to make a philosophy like that of Aristotle, that is to say, to
outline a theory so comprehensive that, for a long time to
173. But fallibilism cannot be appreciated in anything like its true
significancy until evolution has been considered. This is what the world
has been most thinking of for the last forty years -- though old enough is
the general idea itself. Aristotle's philosophy, that dominated the world
for so
16 matches
Mail list logo
