Sorry, nasty typo : But, does this imply that a Neccesitant determines a Possible?
Op 14 april 2020 om 11:55 schreef a.bree...@chello.nl: Jon Alan, You wrote: "Constrains" refers to the rule of determination-- -"It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible; it is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant" (EP 2:481). But, thus this imply that a Neccesitant determines a Possible? Auke Op 14 april 2020 om 2:42 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>: Auke, List: I am not sure that I understand your objection. In my current view, the final and normal interpretants are one and the same--whatever the sign necessarily would signify under ideal circumstances; namely, in the ultimate opinion after infinite inquiry by an infinite community. This indeed does not entail that it is "inescapable," because it may never actually have that effect; it is "final" in the sense of a final cause, not something that comes last in a series. "Nature" in this context means purpose for the final interpretant, mode of being for the dynamical object or interpretant, and mode of presentation for the immediate object or interpretant; in each case belonging to one of three universes--possibles, existents, or necessitants (EP 2:478-490, 1908). "Constrains" refers to the rule of determination--"It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible; it is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant" (EP 2:481). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 6:03 PM < a.bree...@chello.nl mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl > wrote: Jon wrote: In other words, the nature of the final interpretant constrains the possible natures of the dynamic and immediate interpretants, just as the nature of the dynamical object constrains the possible nature of the immediate object. Jon, That is quite some statement, I wonder whether Trump would agree, look at his deeds. And, I mean this in a very real sense. It was not just a joke that Peirce also wrote: we have to choose between mamon and god. At most, it is our duty to find the final interpretant, it is not an inescapable end. Nature of ...? What means nature here? Without nature and with normal instead of final, I could consider to agree. But then we are only at the level of the legisign aspect ( the involved sign aspects included of course) or, in other words, dealing with habits of interpretation. Best regards, Auke van Breemen ----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
