Supp-supplement: And, I think, that amongst the things about what is to be said more, is the subject of the difference between classification and composition (inclusion), which Russell had pointed out. The third one, between them (as there are always three- Peircean) is power. 1: Composition,
Supplement: From Wikipedia and other internet articles I have got the strong idea, that Russell (of whom there was only one, he just had got very old) was a good guy. Might have called himself "atheist", but performatively always worked for the general good. So I wonder. Don´t bother to tell j
Thank you, John, Stephen, and all, especially John, for your patient explanations and answers to my errors. From all I know, which is not much, I of course agree so far. Also, that someone has to clear the brushes. Have there been two Russells? I have read an article about Russell falsely claiming
Wittgenstein, Peirce, and Nietzsche fit together and seeing that seems to
me almost key to figuring out where we need to go. Of the three Peirce is
the heavy lifter, Nietzsche the brush clearer and Wittgenstein the assent
CSP needs to say what he does about science, metaphysics, and semiotics.
ama
John,
Well put, indeed!
Kirsti M.
John F Sowa kirjoitti 3.6.2018 00:57:
On 6/2/2018 5:33 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
I vaguely recall that [Wittgenstein] said like: "About (this or that)
you must not speak"... I just remember that when I read it, I thought:
"No, you don´t tell me when to shut u
On 6/6/2018 1:06 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
The inferences of “synthesis" for CSP philosophy appears to broader
and deeper than metaphysics.
Peirce had a broad understanding of many fields, and he frequently
used insights from one to form abductions (by analogies and metaphors)
that enriched
On 6/5/2018 7:46 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
In the case of the ancient term, synthesis, it is commonly used in CSP’s
profession to mean the putting together of atoms to form molecules.
The word 'synthesis' means "putting together". A thesis and an
antithesis are both propositions. Both of t
John, List:
> On Jun 5, 2018, at 5:05 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
> Thanks. But I thought of another answer to the question about
> thesis/antithesis/synthesis:
>
> The synthesis is always metaphysical -- transcendental, as Kant
> called it, or a kind of Thirdness, as Peirce would say.
>
> B
I
On 6/2/2018 11:45 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
The [dualities] that are complementary, not contradictory, can be
the basis for a synthesis. That's true of many of them. But there
is no synthesis of open-mind vs closed-mind.
A commonality that characterizes Frege, Russell, Carnap, Quine,
and the mo
John, list,
Another invaluable post. Your being both a logician and philosopher of the
history of logic and certain facets of scientific philosophy (especially
19th and 20th century logic/philosophy), and being an avowed Peircean
pragmatist puts you in a unique position, in my view, for interpreti
Helmut and Stephen,
To interpret Wittgenstein (or any philosopher), it's essential to
consider all the issues and put them in context. As I said in my
previous comment, Russell and Carnap misunderstood the Tractatus.
They assumed that LW agreed with them that metaphysics, especially
theology, wa
John, Helmut,
John Sowa wrote:
The [dualities] that are complementary, not contradictory, can be the
basis for a synthesis. That's true of many of them. But there
is no synthesis of open-mind vs closed-mind.
A commonality that characterizes Frege, Russell, Carnap, Quine,
and the movements of b
I think Peirce has the answer in triadic thinking as opposed to the yes and
no that is the cultural expression of binary thinking. The maxim suggests
that ethics and esthetics have a role t play in conscious thought. THat has
immense implications.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose
On Sat, Jun 2, 2018
Stephen, John, list,
yes, thank you. I always wonder about this gap. In physics there is experimental physics and theoretical physics, but do they quarrel or disagree? No. They are trying to get along, and do (Higgs boson, dark matter...). But the philosophers, they still are split up, either bei
On 6/2/2018 5:33 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
I vaguely recall that [Wittgenstein] said like: "About (this or that)
you must not speak"... I just remember that when I read it, I thought:
"No, you don´t tell me when to shut up".
That was from the his first book, the Tractatus. He wrote that
while
Wittgenstein was making a point about "metaphysical" language for which
there was no scientific proof. It is the conclusion of his Tractatus. I
think he was suggesting such language is inevitably incapable of grasping
what remains a mystery. He knew of course that most speech is not
responsive to t
Supp: He said: "Was sich überhaupt sagen läßt, läßt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muß man schweigen.“ "What can be said at all, can be said clearly, and what cannot be talked about, must be silent about". Assuming, that a good philosopher usually does not utter tauto
John, list,
maybe they just have been angry when saying so? Didn´t Wittgenstein too say something inquiry-blocking like that once? I vaguely recall that he said something like: "About (this or that) you must not speak". I don´t remember, was it about what you cannot define, what you cannot imagin
On 6/2/2018 3:45 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
some of these dualities (e.g.: Nominalism/universalism,
semantics/semiotics, linguistic turn/cognitive turn,
empiricism/metaphysics) are not necessarily antinomies, but may
be regarded for theses/antitheses, that may merge to syntheses,
dialectically.
Supplement: Maybe too, I suffer from disharmonyphopia, or am harmony-addicted, so always look for compatibility instead of contradiction. And I like Noam Chomsky.
John, list,
In the list I often sense, not only in your posts, a strong antipathy against certain philosophers and their theor
John, list,
In the list I often sense, not only in your posts, a strong antipathy against certain philosophers and their theories. On one hand I understand that, because I have felt something like that too, against Skinner and his behaviourism. Not to speak of Nietzsche, his resentful refution-at
Mary,
My previous post was intended for John alone. Please ignore it.
I apologize for my mistake.
Please don't apologize. I'm glad to get the free advertising.
reading Joyce’s ouevre, reading Peirce (whom I think Joyce read in 1903-4
when he reviewed FCS Schiller’s book on pragmatism in a D
Jerry,
I've been tied up with some critical deadlines, which require me
to curtail my email activities. I'll reply to your comments next
week. But I just wanted to mention an article in which I discuss
issues related to the following exchange:
Wittgenstein's language games represent the essen
List, John:
> On May 24, 2018, at 8:01 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
>> JLRC Wrote:
>> he foresaw the grammatical constraints in his (1860’s)
>> specification of the breadth and depth of information.
>
JFS responded:
> Without seeing a quotation, I don't know exactly what you're
> referring to. Bu
List, John:
(N.B. This post includes substantial technical material. I conjecture that it
is readable for a substantial subset of the readers of this list serve. No
apologies, just my views expressed within the lexical field of the natural
sciences.)
Before responding to your insightful commen
On 5/23/2018 2:14 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
This is because CSP logic, which he repeatedly said was based on
chemistry failed and the reasons why it failed to represent chemical
logic now very clear, at least to me.
Peirce never used the term "based on". It would be better to say
"an analo
List, John:
My thoughts were on a different pattern of syzygy.
Comments after your post and after your slide.
You will note that I am being very very picky in these comments.
This is because CSP logic, which he repeatedly said was based on chemistry
failed and the reasons why it failed to repres
On 5/22/2018 1:22 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
Of particular interest is Venn’s views on the role of “=“ sign.
Copula? Or predicate?
Or, in view of symbolization of the modern logic of set theory,
should the “=“ sign be banned altogether?
Wittgenstein's answer in the Tractatus is simple: T
List, John
Thanks for these IMPORTANT historical references!
> On May 19, 2018, at 10:44 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
> That led me to Venn's articles from 1880, which may have had a
> significant influence on Peirce's thinking about graph logics.
> They're in the 1880 proceedings of the Cambridge
29 matches
Mail list logo
