Kirsti, List:
Apology accepted, and thanks for clearing all of that up.
Regards,
Jon
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 3:55 AM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote:
> Jon,
>
> You are right about my unhappy choice of word. It was an overstatement, to
> say the least.
>
> Long ago, when you had used "segments" in connection with continuity, It
> gave me the impression of some lines of thought akin to nominalistic ways.
> - But you responded with taking a critical stand towards using "segments".
> - So that question was settled. - I hope?
>
> No allegations (or labels) were intended about you or your ways of
> thinking. Just generals remarks. Followed by a series of misunderstandings.
> - My sincere apologies for my part in generating such. No offence intended.
>
> Colloquial language, to my mind, may aim to exactness, but never fully
> reaches this aim. With these ambiquities we just have to try to cope, as
> best we can.
>
> To my mind, we live in a nominalistic culture, setting its traps to all
> its members, even Peirceans. Which does not mean quite the same as did
> nominalism and realism as philosophical stands CSP talked about so much.
>
> But you may percieve these issues differenty. Still, no controversy there.
>
> Regards, Kirsti
>
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 21.1.2017 18:04:
>
>> Kirsti, List:
>>
>> What you wrote on Tuesday: "Definitions I do abhorre."
>>
>> What I wrote on Thursday: "You say now that you are not denying the
>> usefulness of definitions,but you said before that you abhor
>> definitions."
>>
>> What you wrote today: "I definitely never said that I "abhorr
>> definitions"."
>>
>> All of these comments are copied directly from the messages threaded
>> below. Needless to say, I am even more confused now, and still
>> wondering what exactly you find "nominalistic" about my "ways of
>> thinking."
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 7:26 AM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry Jon. Again. - I definitely never said that I "abhorr
>>> definitions". If you do not regocnize an intrepretation here,
>>> compared to what I wrote, I'm afraid there is nothing to discuss. -
>>> We are not on anything like a same page.
>>>
>>> Kirsti
>>>
>>> Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 19.1.2017 16:25:
>>>
>>> Kirsti, List:
>>>
>>> Just to clarify, Alan is my middle name; I go by Jon.
>>>
>>> What makes you think that I am missing that "crucial aspect"? I
>>> provided this quote very early in the thread.
>>>
>>> But here it is necessary to distinguish between an individual in the
>>> sense of that which has no generality and which here appears as a
>>> mere ideal boundary of cognition, and an individual in the far wider
>>> sense of that which can be only in one place at one time. It will
>>> be convenient to call the former singular and the latter only an
>>> individual … With reference to individuals, I shall only remark
>>> that there are certain general terms whose objects can only be in
>>> one place at one time, and these are called individuals. They are
>>> generals that is, not singulars, because these latter occupy neither
>>> time nor space, but can only be at one point and can only be at one
>>> date. (W2:180-181; 1868)
>>>
>>> You say now that you are not denying the usefulness of definitions,
>>> but you said before that you abhor definitions. I find this
>>> confusing. Again, how would one go about better understanding the
>>> concepts of universal/general/continuous and
>>> particular/singular/individual by means of "strict experimental work"?
>>> In other words, how can we achieve the third grade of clarity
>>> regarding those concepts?
>>>
>>> Most importantly, I am still wondering what you find "nominalistic"
>>> about my "ways of thinking." On a Peirce list, that is a rather
>>> serious allegation.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:51 AM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote:
>>>
>>> Alan,
>>>
>>> Sorry for the typo. - Sill it seems to me you miss a crucial aspect
>>> of ' to kath ekaston', what is singular. - The difference lies in it
>>> being determinate only as long as 'time is so'. - What is real, in
>>> contrast to existent individuals, always lies (partly) in the
>>> future. Thus it is never wholly determined, but possesses the
>>> element of vagueness, never wholly captured by any definition.
>>>
>>> I am not denying the usefulness of definitions. - By no means.
>>>
>>> With all respect,
>>>
>>> Kirsti
>>>
>>> Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 17.1.2017 22:10:
>>> Kirsti, List:
>>>
>>> What problems do you think I am trying to solve with definitions?
>>>
>>> What is intrinsically nominalistic about working with definitions?
>>> Peirce associated them with the second grade of clarity, and wrote
>>> many of them for the _Century Dictionary_ and Baldwin's
>>> _Dictionary_.
>>>
>>> How would one go about better understanding the concepts of
>>> universal/general/continuous and particular/singular/individual by
>>> means of "strict experimental work"?
>>>
>>> Since you brought it up, I actually found no mentions of "atomos" but
>>> three of "atomon" in the Collected Papers.
>>>
>>> This distinction between the absolutely indivisible and that which
>>> is one in number from a particular point of view is shadowed forth
>>> in the two words _individual _{to ATOMON} and _singular _(to kath'
>>> hekaston); but as those who have used the word _individual _have not
>>> been aware that absolute individuality is merely ideal, it has come
>>> to be used in a more general sense. (CP 3.93; 1870)
>>>
>>> (As a technical term of logic, _individuum _first appears in
>>> Boëthius, in a translation from Victorinus, no doubt of {ATOMON}, a
>>> word used by Plato (_Sophistes_, 229 D) for an indivisible species,
>>> and by Aristotle, often in the same sense, but occasionally for an
>>> individual. Of course the physical and mathematical senses of the
>>> word were earlier. Aristotle's usual term for individuals is {ta
>>> kath' hekasta}, Latin _singularia_, English _singulars_.) Used in
>>> logic in two closely connected senses. (1) According to the more
>>> formal of these an individual is an object (or term) not only
>>> actually determinate in respect to having or wanting each general
>>> character and not both having and wanting any, but is necessitated
>>> by its mode of being to be so determinate. See Particular (in logic)
>>> ... (2) Another definition which avoids the above difficulties is
>>> that an individual is something which reacts. That is to say, it
>>> does react against some things, and is of such a nature that it
>>> might react, or have reacted, against my will. (CP 3.611-613; 1911)
>>>
>>> But experience only informs us that single objects exist, and that
>>> each of these at each single date exists only in a single place.
>>> These, no doubt, are what Aristotle meant by {to kath' hekaston} and
>>> by {ai prötai ousiai} in his earlier works, particularly the
>>> Predicaments. For {ousia} there plainly means existent, and {to ti
>>> einai} is existence. (I cannot satisfy myself that this was his
>>> meaning in his later writings; nor do I think it possible that
>>> Aristotle was such a dolt as never to modify his metaphysical
>>> opinions.) But {to ATOMON} was, I think, the strict logical
>>> individual, determinate in every respect. In the metaphysical
>>> sense, existence is that mode of being which consists in the
>>> resultant genuine dyadic relation of a strict individual with all
>>> the other such individuals of the same universe. (CP 6.335-336; c.
>>> 1909)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:39 AM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote:
>>>
>>> Solving problems with definitions and defining is the nominalistic
>>> way to proceed.
>>> I do not work in the way of presenting definitions. - I work with
>>> doing something, with a (more or less) systematic method. - Just
>>> like in a laboratory.
>>>
>>> I have done strict experimental work. And strict up to most
>>> meticulous details!
>>>
>>> Since then, I have been studieing tests. With just as keely
>>> meticulous aattitude.
>>>
>>> Definitions I do abhorre.
>>>
>>> If you are looking for definitions, you'll be certainly going amiss
>>> with CSP. - So I will not offer you any.
>>>
>>> CSP does mention ATOMOS, once. Referring to Ariatotle and the
>>> ancients.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Kirsti
>>>
>>> Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 17.1.2017 16:12:
>>> Kirsti, List:
>>>
>>> KM: Just as well as a continuous line (in CSP's view) doesn not
>>> consist of points, it does not consist of segments, continuous or
>>> not so. A truly continuous line cannot be segmented without
>>> breaking the very continuity you are trying to capture. - It
>>> presents just the same geometrical problem as do points.
>>>
>>> You are correct, "segment" was probably a poor choice of word on my
>>> part.
>>>
>>> KM: You seem to be captured (along with nominalistic ways of
>>> thinking) by the notion of individual as ATOMOS (cf. Aristotle).
>>>
>>> What specific "nominalistic ways of thinking" do you detect in my
>>> posts? How would you define an "individual" from a Peircean
>>> standpoint?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] [1] [1] [1] -
>>> twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2] [2] [2] [2]
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 5:04 AM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jon S.
>>>
>>> Not only is continuity the most difficult problem for philosophy to
>>> handle, it is also the most difficult problem for mathematics to
>>> handle.
>>>
>>> Taking into consideration the view of CSP that we always have to
>>> start with math, then proceed to phenomenology, and only after this
>>> try to handle logic (in the broad sense or in ny more restricted
>>> sense), it follows that some (not yet definable) mathematical ideas
>>> should be developed. - Such may not as yet exist!
>>>
>>> Viewing Moore's collection of mathematical writings of CSP & his
>>> introductions there seems to prevail a basic misunderstanding of the
>>> relation between continua and continuity.
>>>
>>> Just as well as a continuous line (in CSP's view) doesn not consist
>>> of points, it does not consist of segments, continuous or not so.
>>>
>>> A truly continuous line cannot be segmented without breaking the
>>> very continuity you are trying to capture. - It presents just the
>>> same geometrical problem as do points.
>>>
>>> One has to start with (geometrical) topology. A topic SCP says so
>>> little about e.g. in Kaina Stoicheia. - He only states that it must
>>> come first. And followed by perspective, and only after these any
>>> kinds of measuring.
>>>
>>> But what kind of topology? - And how and why the simplest math must
>>> come before phenomenology & be followed by (a special kind of)
>>> phenomenology?
>>>
>>> Definitely not Husserlian, according to CSP.
>>>
>>> But there are grounds in the writings of CSP to assume that
>>> Hegelian dialectics, with the three moments, are not such a far
>>> catch.
>>>
>>> You seem to be captured (along with nominalistic ways of thinking)
>>> by the notion of individual as ATOMOS (cf. Aristotle).
>>>
>>> True continuity involves time. (And vice versa: time involves
>>> continuity.) They are like RECTO and VERSO in CSP's Existential
>>> Graphs.
>>>
>>> Or a jacket with a lining. Most jackets do have a separable inside
>>> cloth but even if it is taken away, there always remains a RECTO and
>>> VERSO. As well as both taken together: the jacket!
>>>
>>> With this there comes triadicity.
>>>
>>> Keen to hear your response,
>>>
>>> Kirsti
>>>
>>
-----------------------------
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 .
