Dear Edwina, list: When you say it's not the words but the format that counts; is that like saying, it's not the argumentation but the argument that counts?
For example, do you mean that it's CP 5.189 that counts and not C A B? But what is CP 5.189 without C A B? And what is C, A, B, without syllogism, CP 5.189, growth of concrete reasonableness? pragmatic maxim, CP 5.189, growth of concrete reasonableness? That is, if I were only to take you literally, then I could ask, *Among all words, is there a word?* Best, Jerry Rhee On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Sorry, Jerry, I don't agree. It's not the words; it's the format that > counts. People think, not so much in words, but in images and diagrams .... > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> ; Benjamin Udell > <baud...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 1:25 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - > > Dear list: > > > > If words are only birds, then: > > > > “CP 5.189 is NOT a syllogism!” > > > > “CP 5.189 is not *the* pragmatic maxim, nor even *a* pragmatic maxim in > the same sense, so it is certainly not *the best* pragmatic maxim.” > > > > 5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. ~Tractatus > > > > Best, Jerry R > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> Very nice comments, John. I fully agree: 'words are birds' - and some of >> the focus on this list on 'this word' having 'just that meaning' has been, >> in my view, unfruitful...because it ignores what's going on within that >> semiosic action. >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> >> *To:* Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com> ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu >> *Sent:* Saturday, February 11, 2017 8:40 PM >> *Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - >> >> Interesting, Ben. How words change in meaning and connotation. Although >> mist of the negative references are to the medical use, some of them >> certainly apply to a sort of (Francis) Baconian science. Thanks for posting >> this. >> >> >> >> As I said, I was referring to the method, not the word. As my Tai Chi >> master was fond of saying, “Words are birds”, and he changed the meanings >> for basic movements just to help us focus on what really mattered. >> >> >> >> Interesting that some of the definitions have the modern meaning of both >> evidence and meanings being grounded in the senses, but still have negative >> connotations. I suppose that the rise of positivism in the late 1800s was >> somewhat instrumental in (slowly) changing attitudes. Full blown logical >> empiricism arises only with verificationism, which I think was the biggest >> error ever made by otherwise sensible philosophers. We are still suffering >> the consequences. I hasten to add that, although he was sometimes read that >> way (perhaps, for example, by Rescher and Putnam) Peirce was no >> verificationist. We see remnants in opposition views to logical positivism >> that try to reduce things to social phenomena, which I see as making >> precisely the same error. >> >> >> >> I am no empiricist in this modern sense, the one I contrasted with >> rationalism originally in this thread. >> >> >> >> John Collier >> >> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate >> >> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal >> >> http://web.ncf.ca/collier >> >> >> >> *From:* Benjamin Udell [mailto:baud...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Saturday, 11 February 2017 10:35 PM >> *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - >> >> >> >> Even in the days of the Century Dictionary (late 19th to early 20th >> Century), "empiric" and "empirical" had rather negative connotations. See >> the definitions of "empiric," "empirical," and related terms that I >> compiled at a website some years ago: >> >> http://peircematters.blogspot.com/#empir >> >> So empiricists in the modern sense would not have been fond of calling >> themselves "empiricists" way back when. >> >> Best, Ben >> >> On 2/11/2017 2:06 PM, John Collier wrote: >> >> The reference is to the method, not the word. There is an historical >> continuity between the Medieval empiricists like Roger Bacon, and Galen’s >> followers (he died about 299 AD (who go back to Arabic predecessors, >> perhaps influenced by Galen – medical usage, of course, but he seemed to >> extend it in his views of the natural world) and the later ones who came >> to called The British Empiricists, though not by that name at that time. On >> source puts the general use of the modern accepted sense at 1796, well >> after the British Empiricists. >> >> Typical definition: >> >> empiricist >> ɛmˈpɪrɪsɪst/ >> PHILOSOPHY >> noun >> 1. >> a person who supports the theory that all knowledge is based on >> experience derived from the senses. >> "most scientists are empiricists by nature" >> adjective >> 1. >> relating to or characteristic of the theory that all knowledge is based >> on experience derived from the senses. >> "his radically empiricist view of science as a direct engagement with the >> world" >> >> The term in its present form originated in 1660-70; some say about 1700. >> If you think that words determine thoughts, than there was no empiricism >> except in medicine before these dates. >> >> Aristotle had some things I common with empiricists, but his requirement >> for a rationalist/ essentialist middle term undermined that because it >> required the active nour. The Medieval ones gave that up. But so did many >> of the stoics, who were therefore empiricists. >> >> The term goes back to the Greeks, not that I think that some magic >> connects terms to ideas: >> >> Etymology >> The English term empirical derives from the Greek word ἐμπειρία, >> empeiria, which is cognate with and translates to the Latin experientia, >> from which are derived the word experience and the related experiment. The >> term was used by the Empiric school of ancient Greek medical practitioners, >> who rejected the three doctrines of the Dogmatic school, preferring to rely >> on the observation of "phenomena".[5] >> >> NB the restriction to medicine here, similar to the early restriction of >> semiotics to medicine. >> >> Peirce relevance: Peirce is usually included among those who tried to >> combine elements of empiricism and rationalism, though for my money he >> doesn’t fit either camp very well >> >> In any case, the recent attempts on this list to try to tie empiricism to >> the use of the word are pretty poor examples of scholarship. >> >> John Collier >> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate Philosophy, University >> of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi >> <kirst...@saunalahti.fi>] >> > Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2017 5:58 PM >> > To: Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> >> <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> >> > Cc: Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> <tabor...@primus.ca>; John >> Collier >> > <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> <colli...@ukzn.ac.za>; Peirce-L >> <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> >> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
