Jon A.S. First: see my recent response to Jon Awbrey.
Second: In developing his theory of true continuity, CSP used the basic geometrical notions of a line and a point. (According to his architecture of sciences, which presents not just an architecture of sciences, but more so a method for proceeding with any questions).
CSP grew dissatisfied with the ancient view as well as the Kantian view of continuity. The latist view of CSP was that there are no points in true continuity, neither does it consist of points, however small, however near to each other.
BUT, as a methodological advice, he wrote that it is admissible to separate of point in the continuity in question, IF it is done with a deliberate aim & a readyness to leave from separation to unification as soon as possible.
In separating any point within the continuum in question, continuity gets violated. But this violation may and can be mended. - The point, thus sepateted, must be re-posioned into the contunuity it was originally pointed out.
To understand all this, it is necessary to truly understand the essence of ordinal (nin contrast to cardinal) mathematics,simplest arihmetics, in the philosophy of CSP.
The Fist, the Second, the Third.... Then at least a little bit new Fist, Second, Third...
CSP came to the conclusion that his categories beared a resemblance with the three moments by Hegel. - After having been mocking Hegel's Logic (with good reasons!)
What, for Peirce ( and me), is universal is change, chance (spontaneity) and continuity. But, mind you, all together.
From exlusion of existent individuals (points in a line) does not follow that existent individuals do not matter. - it just follows that from any collection og existent indivuals ( collection of points) it is not possible to construe a continuum. - However hard it may be tried.
Continuity as an abstraction does not amount to understanding real continuity. With figments of your imaginations you can do (almost) anything with a whim of your mind. But even then there is the ALMOST. The 'not quite', a residual.
Well. You asked about the relation between universal and general. But from the viewpoint of taking existent individuals as the starting point. - Which is wrong.
It presents a nominalistic starting point. - Are generals real? was the formulations CSP gave for the basic philosphical disagreement in the Middle Ages between the Thomists and the Scotists. - Since then, the nominalistic view has absolute taken the upper hand. - It rules our minds, from the first grade at school onwards.
I truly appreciate your posts to the list. A very good understanding they present, with due accuracy. - Very seldom met qualities, very seldom...
With appreciation, Kirsti Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 8.1.2017 00:49:
List: I have been reading up on Peirce's version of scholastic realism and his opposition to various forms of nominalism. He seems to have consistently preferred the term "general" to "universal" (e.g., CP 2.367); has anyone ever tried to figure out why? In a new book, _Peirce's Empiricism: Its Roots and Its Originality_, Aaron Bruce Wilson suggests that "it might be that he thinks 'general' is a better translation of Aristotle's _katholou_," or because "laws are the type of generals his realism emphasizes the most," and "propositions expressing such laws are not universal propositions ... but are general propositions which can admit of exceptions" (p. 51). On the flip side, "universal" is usually contrasted with "particular," while "general" is opposed to "singular." All of these identify types of propositions--singular when the subject is determinate, general when it is indeterminate; and the latter further divided into universal (all) and particular (some). Finally, Peirce described continuity as a higher type of generality, and contrasted it with individuality; specifically, individuals are actualized from a continuum of potentiality. Any further insights on these terminological distinctions would be appreciated. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2] Links: ------ [1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
----------------------------- 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 .
