Thank you John for this information. I believe that a reassessment of the importance of mathematics in Peirce's work must be obtained from the community of Peirceans. As for Hegel's mathematical competence, Peirce was not very charitable : "He has usually overlooked external Secondness, altogether. In other words, he has committed the trifling oversight of forgetting that there is a real world with real actions and reactions. Rather a serious oversight that. Then Hegel had the misfortune to be unusually deficient in mathematics. He shows this in the very elementary character of his reasoning. " (CP 1.368)
Robert Le mer. 29 avr. 2020 à 20:48, John F. Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> a écrit : > Jon and Robert, > > This issue illustrates an important point about Peirce's development. His > ideas were constantly "growing" (Peirce's own word), and he kept revising > his terminology as he continued to find new ways of relating his ideas to > one another and to the common vocabulary of his day (much of which he > defined for the Century Dictionary). > > JAS> That passage is from R 1345, dated c. 1896, and thus was written > several years prior to Peirce's much more comprehensive classification of > 1903. It seems to me that empirics became phenomenology > > Yes, but it does not contradict what he wrote in 1896. Unless Peirce > explicitly rejects something he wrote earlier, we must consider it a valid > aspect of his thought. And we should try to understand what differences, > if any, there may be in the different choices of words. > > Instead of saying that empirics became phenomenology, it's better to say > that empirics, phenomenology, and phaneroscopy are three related, but > slightly different ways of talking about closely related issues. > > RM> I always thought that the most peircean of the classifications of > sciences was this one : > > CSP> *Mathematics* the study of ideal constructions without reference to > their real existence, Empirics, the study of phenomena with the purpose of > identifying their forms with those *mathematics* has studied, Pragmatics, > the study of how we ought to behave in the light of the truths of > empirics." (NEM, vol.IV, p. 1122) > > This quotation is important for understanding his 1903 classification. It > shows that the empirical aspects of science require mathematics to > interpret experiences in the phaneron. > > And the passage from 1896 should be compared with R602, which Peirce wrote > a few years after 1903. In R602, Peirce goes back to the issues about the > role of mathematics. (See http://jfsowa.com/peirce/r602.htm ) > > A comparison of the 1896 version with the later two shows the differences > and the similarities between Peirce's views and Hegel's. > > Husserl, by the way, earned his PhD in mathematics. In his book on > diagrammatology, Frederik Stjernfelt showed many of the similarities > between Peirce's phaneroscopy and Husserl's version of phenomenology. I > strongly recommend Stjernfelt's book for its insights into the ways that > two mathematicians addressed closely related issues. > > 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 .
