On 9/6/2018 11:07 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
I agree with your linking Peirce's semiotic with his logic, but my concern is that one can lose the vital nature of Peirce; namely, that his logic-as-formal semiotic is a pragmatic system.
I agree with your concerns. I know many logicians who get lost in the technical details and ignore all the issues about relating logic to language, thought, and life. I also admit that it's much easier to write many pages of ordinary language than to write a few lines of precisely stated mathematics or mathematical logic. Peirce knew that. But he also knew that precision required a restatement in terms of some version of logic. Basic point: It's vastly easier to translate logic to language, than to translate language to logic. But the exercise of writing the logic is necessary for precision. 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 .
