List, Ben: Your response clearly addressed the neighborhoods of concern. Thank You.
The article by Esposito clearly addresses the conundrums that are so often overlooked. It deserves careful perusal. The only significant comment I would make is from a historical perspective of the emergence of thought. In earlier writings, CSP followed DesCarte wrt the perennial philosophical question of the nature of an atom as a GEOMETRIC object, a vortex. Thus, his shift of perspective to the Boscovitchian “point” was a major change in belief. It is appropriate to the major logical developments within chemistry during the later half of the 19th century. I examined this question in considerable depth several years ago without any notable understanding. Reference to the role of “energy” (as a point?) was another logical shift of CSP (away from pure chance) Neverthetheless, neither of these shifts account for the utter mystery of why oxygen and hydrogen form water, which was the essence of J S Mills notion the difference between mechanical resultants and chemical resultants. That is, the causal saltation from antecedent to consequence. Nor do they address the deeper question of atomic weights become “holders-togethers” of atoms to create molecules. This latter question remains open in the philosophical literature under the notions of Mill’s “heteropathy” and the more modern term of “emergence”. It is unclear to me why/how CSP ignored Mill’s notion of heteropathy, an extremely important concept in light of the logic of evolution and the origins of multiple sorts and kinds. Cheers Jerry > On Dec 14, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Ben Udell <[email protected]> wrote: > > I found an article "Synechism: the Keystone of Peirce’s Metaphysics" (2005) > by Joseph Esposito, at Commens: Digital Companion to C. S. Peirce > http://www.commens.org/encyclopedia/article/esposito-joseph-synechism-keystone-peirce%E2%80%99s-metaphysics > > <http://www.commens.org/encyclopedia/article/esposito-joseph-synechism-keystone-peirce%E2%80%99s-metaphysics> > which discusses Boscovichian points. (Do a browser Find on "Bosco" to avoid > getting tripped up between +t and -t). > > It contains this quote among others from Peirce: > > [BEGIN QUOTE OF ESPOSITO QUOTING PEIRCE] > "Unless we are to give up the theory of energy, finite positional attractions > and repulsions between molecules must be admitted. Absolute impenetrability > would amount to an infinite repulsion at a certain distance. No analogy of > known phenomena exists to excuse such a wanton violation of the principle of > continuity as such a hypothesis is. In short, we are logically bound to adopt > the Boscovichian idea that an atom is simply a distribution of component > potential energy throughout space (this distribution being absolutely rigid) > combined with inertia." (CP 6.242) > [END QUOTE] > > There's quite a bit more in the article. Maybe Peirce ascribed the inertia > to the point itself within the atom. Or maybe I'm getting confused and he > thought the point WAS the atom. See what you make of it. > > Best, Ben > >
----------------------------- 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 .
