> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:01 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
>
> Here is my answer. Triadic thinking is conscious consideration by
> individuals. The first stage is that vague reality that comes up as a sign
> and ends up becoming more likely a word than anything else. That enables
> consideration, a
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 5:25 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard
> wrote:
>
> If we try to understand the differences between positions that, like Mill's,
> are more radically nominalist in orientation and those, like Peirce's, that
> are more radically realist, by focusing solely on matters of metaphysic
I keep wondering to what these wonderful posts refer. I am not being
ironical or sarcastic. Jeff's first paragraph sweeping description of
first, second and third is beautiful. But to what does it refer? What is
its practical effect? How is it used?
Here is my answer. Triadic thinking is conscious
Dear list:
It is statements like the following that makes the whole matter of adopting
CP 5.189 and not CP 5.402 that much more baffling.
“When it comes to matters of methodology and putting the pieces in their
proper order, I support these sorts of moves.” ~Jeff
Oh well, I suppose this ye
Clark, List,
The central point I am making is that Peirce works out conceptions concerning
the nature of the real first and foremost within the context of the normative
theory of logic. He develops a nominal conception of the real that is needed
for the sake of an account of deduction, and the
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard
> wrote:
>
> As an example, why don't we compare historical examples of nominalist and
> realist positions in logic, such as what we find in Mill's System of Logic
> and Peirce's logical theory. When we do, we find very different philosophi
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 11:09 AM, Eric Charles
> wrote:
>
> There, as now, I'm not convinced that being a nominalist or realist would
> adhere one to a particular sense of right or wrong in such a case. I would
> imagine it was relatively trivial to argue in favor of, or against, dividing
> the
Dear list:
There IS a simple way to avoid *never* running out “of” ways to talk *about*
something that harmonizes *the* knowable and unknowable while getting
_nowhere_ .
Hth,
Jerry R
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
> Charles, list,
>
> I think that it will be quite dif
Charles, list,
I think that it will be quite difiicult to deduce practical implications
from the ideas of nominalism and realism as bare isms. Even the laws of
mechanics require application to examples in order to be understood.
Society is not only complex but complexly reflexive, with a kind
Jon A., List:
I thought that might be your point (no pun intended), but I wanted to make
sure. As I see it, mathematical continuity in its various forms serves as
a useful model of real continuity. In particular, the line with its
(actual and potential) points is a *diagram *of a true continuum
Jon,
I think all you're missing here is the difference between
metaphysical theory and the practice of scientific inquiry.
There are of course mathematical adventures in nonstandard
analysis and element-free categories that vie with anything
dreamt of in the metaphysical imagination, but the humd
Jon A., List:
It does not seem right to me to say that, from Peirce's perspective, a
continuum is "constituted of individuals" or that a truly continuous line
"consists of individual points." My impression is that instead he saw the
continuum or line as the more fundamental entity, such that its
Jeff, List:
Peirce's architectonic required that metaphysics must derive its principles
from logic, rather than the other way around. My impression is that there
is not consensus on this arrangement, and in particular, that at least some
nominalists would insist that metaphysics is more basic tha
o~o~o~o~o~o~o
On 2/6/2017 9:31 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
JAS:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-02/msg00043.html
Is it right to say that “generals are constituted of individuals”?
For Peirce, generality is continuity, and my understan
Eric, Ben, List,
Would it make any difference if, in addition to the different interpretations
of the regularities concerning the apples in the orchard, we also included
different interpretations of the principles of reasoning? As an example, why
don't we compare historical examples of nominal
Ben,
There was an attempt, on the earlier thread I initiated, to provide an
example similar to your east-west divide of the apple field. There, as now,
I'm not convinced that being a nominalist or realist would adhere one to a
particular sense of right or wrong in such a case. I would imagine it wa
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 7:58 AM, Eric Charles
> wrote:
>
> I was rather satisfied with having decided, aided by the list discussion,
> that - from a pragmatist perspective - nominalists were just people who
> denied that collective inquiry into categories leads to convergence of ideas.
This mig
Ben, List:
I agree that Peirce's realism still recognized the
indexical/reactive/resistant aspect of individual existence (2ns). My
thought was to identify conceivable practical differences between extreme
versions of the two views in an effort to clarify any such differences that
may exist betwe
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 7:19 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
> Yes, I agree with your outline of the neglect of Aristotle during the period
> when the Church controlled knowledge - and the 13th c. re-emergence of his
> works [Aquinas etc]..
I’m not sure it’s quite that simple. A lot of the texts, f
Eric, Jon S., list,
I don't think that the nominalist and realist views are symmetrical as
you suggest with regard to generals and individuals. A Peircean realist
will say that individuals have some generality but still can only be in
one place at a time, unlike "more-general" generals, and wo
Edwina, List:
I agree with your comments, but they involve a shift in the meaning of
"individual" from "singular subject" (logical/metaphysical) to "human
being" (social/political). What I take Eric to be asking--and what has
come to interest me, as well--is whether there are other "conceivable
p
> On Feb 5, 2017, at 11:12 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
> At the beginning of the 13th c, the translations of Aristotle
> were denounced by theologians who had a vested interest in Plato.
> The fact that they were translated from Arabic sources also raised
> suspicions of heresy. But scientists suc
On 2/6/2017 9:19 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
I myself tend to view causality as more economic and population-size
driven than ideologically driven.
I agree. In fact, that's a major reason why the Homo saps were
so far ahead of the neanderthals in technology: they had a warmer
climate in Africa
Eric - great fun.
But, both the nominalist and the realist, when dealing with individual
'things', acknowledge that those individual things exist in time and space. So,
both can pick those apples quite happily in a similar fashion. [And after all,
that is one valid definition of 'realism']. And
JS said: In other words, the nominalist says that reality consists entirely
of individuals, so generals are only names we use to facilitate discourse;
while the (Peircean) realist says that reality consists entirely of
generals, so individuals are only names we use to facilitate discourse. If
so,
Jon A., List:
Is it right to say that "generals are constituted of individuals"? For
Peirce, generality is continuity, and my understanding is that no continuum
is "constituted of individuals," since no collection of individuals is
truly continuous.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 8:18
John- I fully agree. Yes, I agree with your outline of the neglect of
Aristotle during the period when the Church controlled knowledge - and the
13th c. re-emergence of his works [Aquinas etc]..
Although I myself tend to view causality as more economic and
population-size driven than ideologica
Jon, List,
I've been sticking to the minimal term set of “generals”
and “individuals”, partly because several years of real
and functional analysis and topology have attached other
meanings to words like “continuous” and “singular” that,
even though Peirce anticipated many aspects of them,
would
28 matches
Mail list logo
