I suspect the fundamental reality of Peirce's thought was there at the start and that his later work was consistent with what he had always thought. After the PM was in place, everything was clarification. The revolution lay in the work he anticipated would get done in future times as a result of his basic insight which conflicted with the past in a fundamental and world-changing way. It's a sort of forest and trees thing.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 11:01 AM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > John, thanks for clarifying, I guess our perspectives are not so different > as I thought. But I still think that Peirce’s did not have to wait until > 1911 to “integrate every aspect of his philosophy” with EGs; I think they > co-evolved with those other aspects, philosophical problems being reflected > in EGs and vice versa. In fact that’s the main reason I’m taking a close > look at EGs in the context of the Lowell lectures. > > > > The direct quote I should have included as a statement of your position > was from your Thursday post: “Among the implications: The sharp > distinction between "formal logic", which is part of mathematics, from > logic as a normative science and the many studies of reasoning in > linguistics, psychology, and education.” > > > > Gary f. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] > Sent: 3-Nov-17 15:02 > > > > On 11/3/2017 10:38 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > > For you, formal logic is a branch of mathematics; for us, though... > > > > It's always a bad idea to make claims about anyone else's thoughts, > contemporary or historical. It's best to quote their exact words. > > > > As for me, I completely agree with Peirce: formal logic is pure > mathematics, normative logic is part of the normative sciences, applied > logic is part of any system of reasoning in philosophy or any branch of > science, and many aspects of logic may be studied by linguists, > psychologists, and educational psychologists. > > > > > if EGs are relegated entirely to the realm of pure mathematics, we > > > lose the experiential element of their meaning. > > > > I completely agree. I would never say that. > > > > > This is why I don’t find it helpful to consider the Lowell > > > presentation of EGs as merely a crude and confused form of more recent > > > developments in mathematics. > > > > I agree. I never said that. All I said is that the 1903 and 1906 > versions were early stages in his way of thinking about EGs. They > contained too much excess baggage that created obstacles in the "way of > inquiry". By discarding the irrelevant details, the 1911 version enabled > him to integrate every aspect of his philosophy. > > > > See "Peirce's magic lantern of thought" by Pietarinen: > > http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/papers/magiclantern.pdf > > > > On p. 7, Pietarinen quotes from a later part of the letter to Kehler that > contains Peirce's 1911 version of EGs. The following quotation begins with > the part that Ahti quoted and continues with a bit more: > > > In great pains, I learned to think in diagrams, which is a much > > > superior method [to algebraic symbols]. I am convinced there is a far > > > better one, capable of wonders, but the great cost of the apparatus > > > forbids my learning it. It consists in thinking in stereoscopic > > > moving pictures. Of course, one might substitute the real objects > > > moving in sold space; and that might not be so unreasonably costly. > > > (NEM 3:191) > > > > I don't believe that it's an accident that Peirce mentioned 3D or even 4D > (3D + time) in the same letter in which he introduced EGs. > > His 1911 semantics can accommodate such things in EGs. > > > > John > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
