Sung, list, Well Sung, you didn't quote yourself at length, and it's on topic, so I'll respond. Your penchant for numbering every claim is a bit curious, and since I don't think anyone else is making use of the numbered claims, I wonder why you do it. Is this habit related to some professional practice in which you participate?
With respect to the comparison with language: It seems to me that it is not necessary at all for a judgment to be expressed in a sentence. A proposition can occur without being expressed verbally, and I think it wrong to refer to the grammar of the English language in order to justify a logical point. Perhaps some of the analytic philosophers would like to agree with such an idea, but I am no analytic philosopher and do not think the analysis of language is going to get us anywhere in philosophy. So, while what I have said fits with your understanding, what you have said does not fit with my understanding. A perceptual judgment is not a sentence which includes a subject and a predicate; a perceptual judgment is a proposition (or dicisign) which attributes a predicate to a subject, or an icon to an index, as the result of an uncontrollable inference. -- Franklin On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote: > Franklin, List, > > You wrote the following statements with quotation marks: > > > "Smoke, qua type, is not a perceptual judgment. A perceptual judgment > (121315-1) > is not the general element, but includes the general as its predicate." > > "So, as I said, one must say something like "that there is smoke", > introducing (1213`15-2) > the general element in a proposition (or probably, more accurately, a > dicisign)." > > "Smoke, as the predicate in such a proposition or judgment, is a type. > (121315-3) > But it is not the perceptual judgment, which connects the predicate, or > type, to the subject, or percept." > > These fit with my understanding [1] that > > <Words denote and sentences assert or make judgement. > (121315-4) > In other words, to make a judgement, you need to use the > vehicle of a sentence.> > > Also the following statements nicely fit (12135-4): > > "Smoke, qua type, is not a perceptual judgment." > (121315-5) > > Because "smoke" is a word, not a sentence. > > "A perceptual judgment is not the general element, but includes > (121315-6) > the general as its predicate." > > Again this fits (121315-4) well, since a perceptual judgement is a > sentence which includes a subject and a predicate, both could be words. > > > All the best. > > Sung > > Reference: > [1] Hjelmslev, L. (1961). *Prolegomena to a Theory of Language*. The > University of Wisconcin Press, Madison, pp. 4. >
----------------------------- 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 .
