Jon AS, Edwina, List,
Did you read the first 20 slides of http://jfsowa.com/talks/natlog.pdf ?
You may ignore my words if you wish, but please read the examples by the
people I quoted. As they emphasize, context is essential for understanding
anything and everything in natural languages. My comments in this note and
the previous notes depend critically on the issues in those slides. And
please pay careful attention to the term 'mic
JFS: Nobody on planet earth is qualified to say that he or she knows
exactly what Peirce meant.
JAS: Nobody is claiming to know exactly what Peirce meant, but we can
certainly discern approximately what Peirce meant, often to a very high
level of confidence, by carefully studying his voluminous writings.
Otherwise, indeed, "why would anyone bother to read Peirce at all?"
Every interpretation by anybody is always dependent on the context, which
includes (1) their own background and education, (2) what they have read of
Peirce's other writings and how they interpreted them, (3) Peirce's own
understanding of the issues and his intentions in writing the MS being
considered.on the dates he wrote it and revised it.
Everyone who subscribes to P-List has found his writings valuable for
their purposes, but nobody's context is sufficiently similar to Peirce's
that they can make any claims that their interpretation is what Peirce
intended for the purpose of that reader As Peirce himself said,
mathematics (which includes mathematical logic) is the only subject in
which anyone who is familiar with that version of math is qualified to make
definitive interpretations and corrections.
ET: The question remains: Is there a 'Final Interpretant' of a text
If it's stated in mathematics, yes. Otherwise, nobody except the
original author is qualified to make that judgment.
ET: We cannot, ourselves, proclaim that our readings are 'the Final' one.
Only the 'community-of-scholars', over time, can do that, if at all.
The community is better qualified to make a good interpretation, but none
of them can be final. Just look at the history of scholarship about any
historical document -- ranging from the Bible (pick your preferred text) to
the US Constitution, ro any text by any philosopher, theologian or legal
scholar of any date.
Mathematics is the only subject on which qualified readers can make
definitive pronouncements. On anything written in a natural language,
nobody can claim "a high degree of confidence" for other readers who have a
similar level of education.
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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
