RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

Eric, this excerpt from my book (http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/cls.htm#3thought) may be helpful in adapting to Peirce’s usage of the word “thought”: Gary f. Peirce's concept of thought is both broader and deeper than the common usage of the word. Peirce wrote to William James in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

Eric, list: You said: “I have great love for Peirce and his work. But there are parts that I love less, particularly where Peirce ... seems to me to forget the parameters of his own argument.” If there should be inconsistencies in Peirce, my reaction is typically to treat myself as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

Eric, none of the statements that you quoted in your 2/14/2017 message originate with Peirce. Peirce held that logic generally involves icons (including diagrams and not only graphic-looking ones), indices, and symbols, and he saw all three kinds of signs as needed. Remember also that Peirce

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

Whoops, neglected the end. > On Feb 15, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Eric Charles > wrote: > > One can readily, for example, find individuals who (by all evidence) seem to > think more readily and more commonly in words than in "images and diagrams". > One can also find

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

> On Feb 15, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Eric Charles > wrote: > > Further, when Peirce elsewhere starts making broad pronouncements about > "thought" it oftentimes seems that he is referring solely to those rare > instances of clear thinking, but other times is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

Jerry, Clark, Thank you for the thoughtful replies. I have great love for Peirce and his work. But there are parts that I love less, particularly where Peirce ... seems to me to forget the parameters of his own argument. Peirce tells us what clear thinking is, while fully and responsibly