BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
1] I disagree with your assertion that Peirce never said that the
triad is a sign. See.. "by 'semiosis' I mean, on the contrary, an
action or influence, which is, or involves, a cooperation of three
subjects, such as a sign, its object, and its interpretant, this
tri-relative influence not being in any way resolvable into actions
between pairs...'semeiosis' in Greek of the Roman period, as early as
Cicero's time, if I remember rightly, meant the action of any kind of
sign; and my definition on anything that so acts the title of a
'sign' 5.484. I read that to mean that the title of 'sign' refers to
the semiosic tri-relative action'. My emphasis on the words of
'action' and 'act'. Therefore - I continue to use the term of Sign to
refer to this tri-relative action.
2] My reading of 'the entire universe is perfused with signs, if it
is not composed exclusively of signs' is that the universe is a
continuous semiosic process - of that triad. You, on the other hand,
seem to understand this to mean a reductionism which declares that
All signs are connected and therefore, are ONE sign' - whereas I
understand Peircean semiosis to be a continuous process but not a
material reductionism of its material results.
It's almost like saying that 'The forest is perfused with trees;
therefore, the forest is a tree'.
Therefore although each of your premises might be in itself valid in
its own domain, I consider that putting them together leads to a false
conclusion -especially if we differ on the meaning of the terms
[Sign].
Edwina
On Mon 20/05/19 11:28 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: All dogs are animals/All cats are animals. BOTH these premises
are true. Can I logically then state that All dogs are cats?
No, and why not? Because the conclusion does not follow necessarily
from the premisses; the form of the argumentation is invalid. The
same is true of the other examples below. Now consider a different
one--all dogs are animals, and Rover is a dog; can I logically then
state that Rover is an animal? Yes, because the conclusion does
follow necessarily from the premisses; the form of the argumentation
is valid. My Semeiotic Argumentation has exactly the same form as
the second case, not the first case or any of the others below;
therefore, it is valid, such that the conclusion does follow
necessarily from the premisses.
*Every Sign is determined by an Object other than itself = all
dogs are animals, and
*The entire Universe is a Sign = Rover is a dog; therefore,
*The entire Universe is determined by an Object other than itself
= Rover is an animal.
So I suppose that I should have said explicitly what I took to be
obviously implied--for any valid deductive argumentation, the
conclusion is only as strong as the premisses. If one premiss is
false, then the conclusion is false, or at least unwarranted on the
basis of that premiss; e.g., if the entire Universe is not a Sign,
or if Rover is not a dog. However, anyone who affirms all of the
premisses is rationally required to affirm the conclusion, as well.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:04 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS, list
The problem I have with this claim is that it is invalid.
JAS: As with any logical or mathematical "proof"--i.e., any
deductive argumentation--the conclusion is only as strong as the
premisses. If one premiss is false, then the conclusion is false, or
at least unwarranted on the basis of that premiss; but anyone who
affirms all of the premisses is rationally required to affirm the
conclusion, as well."
For example,
All dogs are animals/All cats are animals. BOTH these premises are
true. Can I logically then state that All dogs are cats?
How about:
The robber wears size 12 boots/ You wear size 12 boots. Both
premises are true. So, YOU are the bank robber.
All plumbers repair sinks/ Henry repaired this sink. [both premises
are true]. So- can we say that Henry is a plumber?
All men are rational animals/No woman is a man. [All true].
Therefore no woman is a rational animal.
And so on...
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
