Thomas Riese wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:23:55 +0100, Gary Richmond
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thomas Riese wrote:
"The necessity for a sign directly monstrative of the
connection of premiss and conclusion is susceptible of proof.
The proof is as follows. When we contemplate the premiss,
we mentally perceive that that being true the conclusion is
true. I say we _perceive_ it, because clear knowledge follows
contemplation without any intermediate process. Since the
conclusion becomes certain, there is some state at which it
becomes directly certain. Now this no symbol can show; for a
symbol is an indirect sign depending on the association of ideas.
Hence, a sign directly exhibiting the mode of relation is
required. This promised proof presents this difficulty: namely,
it requires the reader actually to _think_ in order to see the
force of it. That is to say, he must represent the state of
things considered in a direct imaginative way."
(Charles Peirce, Collected Papers 4.75)
Ergo:
CP 4.76 A large part of logic will consist in the study of the
different monstrative signs, or icons, serviceable in reasoning.
Gary Richmond
Ok, Gary, but does the proof prove this?
Thomas;-)
Perhaps the "ergo" was too strong; ergo, whoops, I meant, therefore :-)
I will leave it up to you and others to connect CP 4.45 & 4.76.
Gary
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
