[PEIRCE-L] Ambiguities in the word 'subject'

Jon and I had an offline exchange. He sent me a list of offline comments by readers who were also misled by the ambiguity in the word 'subject'. See the *anonymous* comments below. A mistaken interpretation of just one word is not a big deal. But Jon's claim that a subject could be a Seme contr

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Subjects and Predicates (was The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism)

On 3/21/2019 5:58 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: JFS: No version of logic after syllogisms made a binary distinction between subject and predicate. That statement is false. According to my dictionary, a "subject" is defined as "the term of a logical proposition that denotes the entity of which

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Subjects and Predicates (was The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism)

John, Gary F., List: I am replying under this thread topic for reasons that will become apparent. I agree with John that "every EG expresses a proposition"--including "a line of identity, by itself"--and therefore is a medad in the sense of *having no blanks*. CSP: In a complete proposition the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

Jerry: Well, we are now making some minor progress, not precise progress but rough progress. You wrote: " JAS We simply prefer different but equally valid (and equally Peircean) analyses of a proposition--you throw everything possible into the predicate, leaving only an indicated subject; I thr

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Subjects and Predicates (was The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism)

John, List: > On Mar 21, 2019, at 3:01 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > No version of logic after syllogisms made a binary distinction >between subject and predicate. Again, I find this dogmatic statement to be a personal claim that is without general scientific meaning. This statement is simp

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Subjects and Predicates (was The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism)

John, List: JFS: No version of logic after syllogisms made a binary distinction between subject and predicate. That statement is false. According to my dictionary, a "subject" is defined as "the term of a logical proposition that denotes the entity of which something is affirmed or denied," an

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Subjects and Predicates (was The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism)

List, Jon, John: Comments are interspersed. > On Mar 21, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > John, List: > > JFS: You're grasping at straws to salvage a lost cause. > This is not even an argument. The sentence does reflect on its author’s capacities. > I have made my case, a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

Joseph, List: O! It appears that I misread your question and that my statement was slightly ambiguous. Let us distinguish two meaning. Without going into my personal philosophy of mathematics, I offer the following: 1. Roughly speaking, a mathematical equivalence relation is defined (descr

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

Jerry: It is a trivial question. You made the following statement: "Logical equivalence has a precise mathematical meaning." I asked: "What is the precise mathematical meaning of "logical equivalence?"" This should not present any undue stress on your ability to answer. It does not appear th

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Subjects and Predicates (was The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism)

On 3/21/2019 11:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: Natural languages are anything but precise, and as Peirce himself affirmed, even in logic the dividing line between the subject and predicate within any given proposition is somewhat arbitrary. That statement is partly false, and rest is misleadin

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

List, Joseph: Exactly what is an equivalence relation? Is it possible for any two “instants” to be exactly the same as one another? Are we dealing with reality or merely mathematical jargon? Joseph Simpson post is very strange… Is he for or against the concept of “exact equivalence relationsh

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

Jerry: You wrote: "Logical equivalence has a precise mathematical meaning. No such equivalence relationship is possible, linguistically, either logically, propositionally, syntactically or semantically." What is the precise mathematical meaning of "logical equivalence?" Take care, be good to y

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

List, John > On Mar 20, 2019, at 8:34 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > JAS >> We simply prefer different but equally valid (and equally Peircean) >> analyses of a proposition--you throw everything possible into the >> predicate, leaving only an indicated subject; I throw everything >> possible into th

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

List, John: > On Mar 21, 2019, at 10:07 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Peirce's terminology for EGs evolved over the years from 1897 to 1911. I believe that this judgment is a extraordinary shallow and incomplete view of the bedrock of CSP’s philosophy and particularly in the origin of his “exist

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism

List, John > On Mar 20, 2019, at 3:14 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 3/20/2019 11:37 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: >> I thought a Medad was (by definition) a graph with no loose ends. > > NEM 3:164 (or p. 4 of eg1911.pdf) says > "A graph or graph instance having 0 pe

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Subjects and Predicates (was The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism)

John, List: JFS: You're grasping at straws to salvage a lost cause. I have made my case, as carefully and thoroughly as I could at each round of the exchange; those reading along can decide for themselves which of us has been more persuasive. JFS: And when you're relating two different notati

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Subjects and Predicates (was The Bedrock Beneath Pragmaticism)

On 3/20/2019 10:57 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: Peirce did not say, "Every sentence in English contains a grammatical subject and a grammatical predicate"; he said, "Every proposition contains a Subject and a Predicate." You're grasping at straws to salvage a lost cause. The title of the manu