BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
I fully agree with your concern.
Discussions about terminology, which sees those terms as akin to
isolate separate species differentiation and classification, are
'simple' in the sense that they require no analysis of functionality
in the real world and operate only 'within the text' so to speak.
However, such a focus in my view completely obscures and misses the
point about Peircean semiotics - which outlines the infrastructure of
our universe - a constantly transformative biological and conceptual
universe.
I think that this transformative semiosis is what should be
emphasized, since its infrastructure is a powerful speculative
framework, which can be used with great effect in examining and
explaining not only linguistic evolution and cognitive processes but
also biological and societal dynamics. Focusing on terms-in-the-texts
denies the expansion of Peircean semiosis into the broader research
world - and I think that's a huge loss to that research world.
Edwina
On Sat 26/01/19 11:18 AM , John F Sowa [email protected] sent:
I came across a diagram that shows the patterns of references
to various philosophers in publications from 1950 to the present:
https://homepage.univie.ac.at/noichlm94/img/struct_phil_iii/full_struct.pdf
[1]
See below for a description of how that diagram was derived.
Most of the references are to philosophers active during the past
half century. But Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas are still popular.
So are Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Derrida, and Frege,
There are also groups classified under "Reactions to X", where X is
Kant, Spinoza, Descartes, Hume, Locke, Moore, Lewis, Popper, Quine.
Susan Haack appears in the group of reactions to Quine, but there
is no group for reactions to Peirce.
Prior appears in the group for non-classical logics. He cited
Peirce in many publications, but Peirce did not make the cut.
Peirce has an enormous amount to contribute to modern philosophy,
but most philosophers are clueless. Somebody has to clue them in.
John
PS: I doubt that papers about semes, phemes, and delomes will get
enough citations to make the cut.
_______________________________________________________________________
For this map, I parsed 55327 papers in philosophy from the Web Of
Science Collection. The papers were determined by
snowball-sampling: I
started with a small sample (a few thousand papers), and extended
from
there by repeatedly looking at the most cited publications. For
each
paper I determined the works and authors it cited. Each of these
features of the papers is a dimension in the dataset, which I then
embedded into two dimensions, using Uniform Manifold Approximation
and
Projection, a dimension reduction algorithm by McInnes & Healy
(2018).
These two dimensions form the basis of the scatterplot you see
above.
Note that the position of a point on the x- or y-axis is
meaningless:
only the relation of the points to each other can be interpreted.
The
reduced data was then clustered with the hdbscan algorithm into 42
clusters.
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fhomepage.univie.ac.at%2Fnoichlm94%2Fimg%2Fstruct_phil_iii%2Ffull_struct.pdf
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
