Jean-Marc, list > It is unfortunate that Peirce used the terms 'First', 'Second' and 'Third' in > the place of ordinals when he used the same vocabulary for the categories. > In the texts that you chose the terms do not refer to categories, they simply > refer to 3 things presented in a given order, as in the English language, > when you say: "first I will make some coffee", "secondly I will get some > bread" and "thirdly I'll eat breakfast".
No. Wrong. Referring to "a First" and "a Second" and "a Third" is _not_ normal English and certainly not normal written English. It distinctively coheres, rather glaringly to anybody fluent in English, with the specific sense lent to that set of forms by Peirce. Peirce's manner of using those ordinal words is so distinctly un-English that one sees whole discussions about Peirce which avoid quoting him saying such things, because it sounds strange in English. > One cannot deduce from that that "making coffee" is firstness, "getting some > bread" is secondness and that "eating breakfast" in thirdness > If the sign was a First as you commented on CP 2-274 according to the > cenopythagorean category Firstness, how would you explain that the sign taken > in itself can be a quality (a First), an existent (a Second) or of the nature > of a law (a Third)? It can be a First, a Second, etc., in various ways and respects. This is elementary stuff in Peirce. At this point, I honestly think that you are grasping at straws. I'm sorry, but it's over. Best, Ben Udell --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
