[PEIRCE-L] Re: Nominalism vs. Realism

Eric, List, Correcting typos and adding remarks ... We are passing through decohering times, so let me link to a couple of things I wrote on this issue that state my current view well enough and are probably more coherent than I could come up with on short notice: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism

Hi Eric, List, Let me address the last question you ask: what practical difference does makes in your or my action as to which side of this debate one happens to be on? Peirce suggests that the longstanding debates between nominalists and realists over questions concerning the reality--or lack

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism

Eric, List: Welcome! A couple of issues come to mind. - Is there anything real that cannot, in principle, be known by humans? The nominalist says yes, the realist says no. - Are there real laws of nature that govern existing things and events? The nominalist says no, the realist says

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism

Hi Eric, Welcome to the list! Looking at what Lady Welby in *Meaning and Metaphor* says of Jowett, he the famous translator of Plato’s works and possessing the proper sensibility: “In his “Dialogues of Plato” Professor Jowett warned us twenty years ago of our linguistic dangers, repeating

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism

Dear Eric, Here is one practical implication. Is a human really by nature, as Aristotle said, a zoon politikon, a political (polis or community) animal, determined to live well, whose end is to be found in the good life of the community? Or is a human by nature simply an animal, determined,

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Nominalism vs. Realism

Eric, Welcome the List ! It's Friday night and I have the feeling you'll get more advice mere mortals can handle so I'll limit myself to one or remarks. Looking back over the month and the last couple of decades on the List I think the interminable quality of many debates about Nominalism vs.

[PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism

Oh hey, my first post to the list I must admit that I find much of the recent discussion baffling. In part, this is because I have never had anyone explain the Nominalism-Realism distinction in a way that made sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I think I understand the argument in the ancient co

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

John, List: JFS: A willingness to accept intentions, laws, and nominalizations as quantifiable entities distinguishes realists from nominalists. This is a very interesting way to frame the debate. Could you please elaborate on it, or perhaps just point me to a good online resource (or several)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

John - I'm not sure I see your point about the 'mediating act'. I tend to steer clear of linguistics, but I view your example as a mechanical transfer of the book from Sue to the child. 'Naming' the book as a symbol of a birthday gift doesn't, to me, suggest mediation. To me, mediation brings

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy -- Values Trump Virtues

Why I Go for Values over Virtues A fellow admirer of Peirce who has written extensively about his thought has questioned my distinction between values and virtues. I have seen virtues as Aristotle’s list of such terms as honor, prudence and courage. There is no real inter

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

On 1/26/2017 6:13 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: the putative distinction between the semeiotic triad seen /as a single triadic entity/ /versus/ the triad *as expressing three relations* seems to me to one worth entertaining in considering what is really a fundamental aspect of Peircean semeiotics. I