" Because Peirce was very precise in what he wrote, and he had no sympathy with people who misrepresented what he was saying. "
That seems a mite broad. Were he precise the likes of Walker Percy wou;ld have complimented him rather that repeatedly complaining about Peirce the writer and explainer. Peirce seems to have gained in sympathy over time. He did after all reject the term pragmatism. That suggests that he regarded words themselves as weak vessels. Please do not reply. I would do me in from surprise. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:30 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > On 2/25/2019 9:04 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > Why not just accept the fact (as I have) that we are pursuing different > > purposes, and therefore adopting different approaches accordingly? Why > > insist that I /must /adhere to /your /analysis of propositions and /your > > /preference for unmodified EGs? > > Because Peirce was very precise in what he wrote, and he had > no sympathy with people who misrepresented what he was saying. > > If you just want to develop your own ideas, I have no objection. > But I do object to claims like the following: > > > It is perfectly consistent with what Peirce wrote > > in NEM 3:885-886--as well as ... > > Just quoting a bunch of words and saying X is consistent with Y > is the loosest of loose thinking. It's even worse when you add > the word 'perfectly'. > > No linguist, lexicographer, or logician would ever say that. > Peirce had a solid foundation in all those areas, and he used > those skills in everything he wrote. He would never say > "This cloud of words is consistent with that cloud." > > I am not condescending. I'm treating you as a bright student > who has a lot to learn about logic, linguistics, lexicography, > and the kind of detailed textual analysis that Peirce did all > his life. I'm willing to help, but you must do your homework. > > If you don't want to do the really hard work of learning how > to analyze every last detail, just go your own way. But don't > claim that what you write is consistent with what Peirce said. > > 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 .
