> On Apr 20, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> > wrote: > > First, an analysis of the essence of a sign, (stretching that word to its > widest limits, as anything which, being determined by an object, determines > an interpretation to determination, through it, by the same object), leads to > a proof that every sign is determined by its object, either first, by > partaking in the characters of the object, when I call the sign an Icon; > secondly, by being really and in its individual existence connected with the > individual object, when I call the sign anIndex; thirdly, by more or less > approximate certainty that it will be interpreted as denoting the object, in > consequence of a habit (which term I use as including a natural disposition), > when I call the sign a Symbol. (CP, 4.531) > > Peirce makes the following claim: All determination is by negation; we can > first recognize any character only by putting an object which possesses it > into comparison with an object which possesses it not. (CP 5.294) Having > examined a number of places where Peirce describes different sorts of > determination, one of the clearest sets of definitions and explanations are > found in an unpublished set of manuscript. In particular, MS 612 contains a > detailed analysis of the meaning of “determination,” “determined to accord,” > and “determined after.” Here are links to the manuscript pages and (as yet > unedited) transcriptions of the relevant passages in FromThePage: >
List, It may be helpful to recognize that these writings are simply re-statements and generalizations of the methods of chemical determination as they stood in the latter part of the 19 th Century. In particular, the sentence: > All determination is by negation; we can first recognize any character only > by putting an object which possesses it into comparison with an object which > possesses it not. is absolutely essential as the first phase of erotetic logic. (What is it?) Logically, many chemical elements are known to exist and are potential precedences for the material at hand. If you want to determine what is in a thing, one must eliminate everything else. The antecedent of the determination must be an object. Otherwise, no sign exists. And, no determination is possible. In the habits of chemists, various methods are given names. These methods were not necessary specific and often inconsistent with one another so that double and triple checking of questionable tests were necessary. The specific goal of determination was to reach a conclusion with regard to the molecular formula (ratios of small whole numbers by weight of each element that appears in the determination. The broad goal of the chemist must be constrained for application of the semantics to non-material phenomena. Hope this is helpful 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 .
