Jerry, list, Jerry, thanks for this very handy "survey of atomism," as you phrased it.
As for Peirce being "a follower of Boscovich," there are only a very few mentions of him in the CP, mainly in relation to Kant's logic. There are some brief remarks on "Boschovichian points" in the 1898 Cambridge Lectures (published as *Reasoning and the Logic of Things, *edited by Kenneth Laine Ketner with an "Introduction" by Ketner and Hillary Putnam). CP 6.82.Would not the human race, supposing that it could survive the shock at all, be pretty sure to develop a new form of intuition in which the things that now appear near would appear far? For what is the real truth of nearness? Who is my neighbor? Is it not he with whom I intimately react? In short, the suggested explanation is that space is that form of intuition in which is presented the law of the mutual reaction of those objects whose mode of existence consists in mutually reacting. Let us see how much this hypothesis will explain. What are its necessary consequences? I must abridge the reasoning to a mere sketch. In the first place space, as a presentation of law, must be continuous and without singularities. In the second place, since reaction is essentially hic et nunc, or anti-general, it follows that the reacting objects must be entirely independent of one another in their purely spatial determinations. That is, *one object being in one particular place in no way requires another object to be in any particular place. From this again it necessarily follows that each object occupies a single point of space, so that matter must consist of Boscovichian atomicules, whatever their multitude may be.* On the same principle it furthermore follows that any law among the reactions must involve some other continuum than merely Space alone. Why Time should be that other continuum I shall hope to make clear when we come to consider Time. In the third place, since Space has the mode of being of a law, not that of a reacting existent, it follows that it cannot be the law that, in the absence of reaction, a particle shall adhere to its place; for that would be attributing to it an attraction for that place. Whence it follows that in so far as a particle is not acted upon by another, that which it retains is a relation between space and time. . . . (RLT, 212). One ought compare these remarks with the note on Boscovich's understanding of the atom in the brief survey you referenced. Roger Boscovich <http://www.eoht.info/page/Roger+Boscovich> (1711-1787) Developed a 'theory of point atoms', a modified type of Newtonian atomic theory of inelastic collisions regarding atoms as centers of forces rather than as particles <http://www.eoht.info/page/Particle>. His 1763 book *Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis*, outlined a 'stationary atom' theory, which reasoned that at short range, atoms attracted each other, but that at longer range, atoms pushed each other way, the latter aspect explaining gas pressure Of the above passage from RLT (and a few other related ones), Putnam writes (in "Comments on the Lectures": Peirce clearly anticipated that it would take fundamental new ideas to penetrate to the nature of "molecules and ether," to get down to the level of "Boschovichian atomicules" (the point particles, which Peirce believed to be the ultimate constituents of matter), and to answer questions about the geometry and topology of space. Not only was he right about this, as relativity theory and quantum mechanics have shown, but he was also right that these new ideas would never be found by merely trying to extend Newtonian dynamics to smaller and smaller regions (RLT, 86). Best, Gary [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com > wrote: > List: > > This website: > > http://www.eoht.info/page/Atomic+theory > > > gives a short survey of atomism, from classic Greek philosophy to modern > times, including its relation to sub-atomic physics. The stages of > development of philosophical thought about the nature of matter are > presented diagrammatically over various periods of thought. > > One can place CSP's scientific views in the contexts of his times, a topic > I have mentioned on several occasions. > > Many students of CSP could find this useful for evaluating various CSP's > text. In particular, note that CSP was a follower of Boscovich. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
