Jon Alen, list, I don't see how the quote you provide could lead to the insetion of 'of the scroll' after interpretation. I don't see any reason for it in that text.
It is very well posssible and more probable given the remark on common sense and logicians that Peirce was pointing to a curiosity that follows from FOL from an interpretative or pragmatic perspective and looked at the matter in those quotes from the outside. best, Auke > Op 23 augustus 2020 om 0:19 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt > <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>: > > 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 > Christianhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 11:44 AM Auke van Breemen < > peirce-l@list.iupui.edu mailto: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.
