[peirce-l] Re: What's going on here?

[Gary Richmond]

Martin, Thanks for the analysis which gets to the heart of the matter and which seems to me correct. Gary martin lefebvre wrote: Dear Gary and Tomas, List-, On the question of proof, here's what Max Fish had to say: "Our first question is, in what sense can truths of philosophy be proved? Not in the sense in which the theorems and problems of mathematics can be proved. For that kind of proof Peirce reserved the term demonstration [...] The proof of matters of fact consists in bringing them to the test of indubitable experience. "When I say indubitable, I mean of course indubitable today for me. Nothing can be imagined more absolutely satisfactory than that, being indubitable to me, it is equally so to you, for your doubting it would cause me to do so". (Ms L 133, Draft of a letter to J.S. Engle, Feb. 1905) "Now proof does not consist in giving superfluous and superpossible certainty to that which nobody ever did or ever will doubt, but in removing doubts which do, or at least might as some time arise" (CP 3.432). It seems this answers Thomas's question: the icon, because it is indistinguishable from its object exhibits the object as it is in all its pertinent semiotic features for the task at hand. That Peirce asks his reader to "think in order to see" he is asking that the proof become indubitable to him as well. No other proof than that of perception/observation/experience is to be had. cheers, Martin Lefebvre --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com