Auke, All: AvB: The interesting word being the emphasized *interpretation*. Jon Alen inserts in his comment 'of the scroll' just after interpretation. I do not know on what grounds.
Here is what comes right before the quoted passage. CSP: A conditional proposition is false only if the condition of it is satisfied, while the consequent is falsified. For the proposition asserts nothing at all in case the condition is not satisfied. So then it is only if the condition is satisfied, while the consequent is falsified, that the conditional proposition is false. But a proposition that is not false is true. ... This reasoning is irrefragable as long as a mere possibility is treated as an absolute nullity. Some years ago, however, when in consequence of an invitation to deliver a course of lectures in Harvard University upon Pragmatism, I was led to revise that doctrine, in which I had already found difficulties, I soon discovered, upon a critical analysis, that it was absolutely necessary to insist upon and bring to the front, the truth that a mere possibility may be quite real. That admitted, it can no longer be granted that every conditional proposition whose antecedent does not happen to be realized is true, and the whole reasoning just given breaks down. (R 490:23-26, 1906) As I explained before, the interpretation that Peirce deems to be "too narrow" in light of "the truth that a mere possibility may be quite real" is that "every conditional proposition whose antecedent does not happen to be realized is true." Since "the *verso *of the sheet of Existential Graphs represents a universe of possibilities," not just the denial of actuality, a consequence (scroll) is not strictly equivalent to a composite of two negations (nested cuts); he later explicitly reaffirms this in "The Bed-Rock Beneath Pragmaticism" (R 300:48-50[47-51], 1908). Technically it only affects the revised *Gamma *EGs that use tinctures for different modalities rather than broken cuts, not *Beta *EGs that use shading but still conform to classical first-order logic as explained in R 670 and RL 231, unless the latter are adapted for intuitionistic logic. AvB: At the very least it is not *necessary *to evaluate the issue in terms of L231. The dicision of what is obsolete or not must be based on a reality check and the context of his thought and experiences. Not on what is written last. I strongly agree. While I generally give more weight to Peirce's later writings as presumably reflecting his more considered views, this does not warrant summarily dismissing his earlier writings as "irrelevant and obsolete." Such an approach would be no more legitimate than relying entirely on earlier passages and ignoring the later ones. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 11:44 AM Auke van Breemen <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> wrote: > John, Jon Alen, list, > > I am not interested in what might be the final version Peirce wrote on the > negation vs scroll isue. Even if John is right, the interesting point that > remains is not the actual history of Peirce's thought, but the systematic > problem it poses. It remainds me of Hempels confirmation paradox. Jon Alen > arguing the Peirce did not fall pry to it and John that he did. > > Jon Alen provided an interesting quote: > > CSP: I often think that we logicians are the most obtuse of men, and the > most devoid of common sense. As soon as I saw that this strange rule, so > foreign to the general idea of the System of Existential Graphs, could by > no means be deduced from the other rules, nor from the general idea of the > system, but has to be accepted, if at all, as an arbitrary first > principle,--I ought to have poked myself, and should have asked myself if I > had not been afflicted with the logician’s *bêtise*, What compels the > adoption of this rule? The answer to that must have been that the > *interpretation *requires it; and the inference of common sense from that > answer would have been that the interpretation was too narrow. Yet I did > not think of that until my operose method like that of a hydrographic > surveyor sounding out a harbour, suddenly brought me up to the important > truth that the *verso *of the sheet of Existential Graphs represents a > universe of possibilities. This, taken in connection with other premisses > led me back to the same conclusion to which my studies of Pragmatism had > already brought me, the reality of some possibilities. (R 490:26-28, CP > 4.581,1906) > > -- > > The interesting word being the emphasized *interpretation. *Jon Alen > inserts in his comment 'of the scroll' just after interpretation. I do not > know on what grounds. It can be read as 'the movement of thought' being > different when thinking something in a scroll or a double negation form. > The context, logicians devoid of common sense, seems to point to a > perspective wider than the strict formal logical. > > John wrote: > > Familiarity does not imply agreement. The writings prior to June 1911 > have some useful insights mixed with some obsolete material. It's > necessary to evaluate them in terms of L231. > > -- > > At the very least it is not *necessary* to evaluate the issue in terms of > L231. The dicision of what is obsolete or not must be based on a reality > check and the context of his thought and experiences. Not on what is > written last. > > Best, > > Auke >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
