Dear Colleague,
You are invited to participate in the next session of the Logic and Religion
Webinar Series which will be held on January 25 (THIS THURSDAY), 2024, at 4 pm
CET with the topic:
Time zones: 10:00 am in New York; 12:00 pm in Brazil; 4:00 pm in Paris; 5:00 pm
in Jerusalem; and 8:30
Jon, Helmut, List,
I don't disagree with your analysis. But what it shows is that abstract
analysis provides zero information about any particular case.
Peirce revolutionized the field of logic, he made major contributions to
methods of reasoning, to methods of analysis and to methods of repre
Helmut, List:
HR: it is the interpreter, who does the inference ... it is the
interpreter, who receives the sign, and then forms the interpretant
As I have said before, this is true in the sense that the interpreter's
mind is *another *sign, which *co-determines* the dynamical interpretant alon
Helmut,
That is certainly true: "I find it a bit problematic to say, that the sign
determines the interpretant, because the sign doesn´t infer, it is the
interpreter, who does the inference."
In fact, Peirce said many times in many ways that signs grow. The
interpretation of any mark (sign
Jon, Cecile, List,
Jon, in your first paragraph you wrote about inference. I agree. Therefore I find it a bit problematic to say, that the sign determines the interpretant, because the sign doesn´t infere, it is the interpreter, who does the inference. But ok, I guess we might say, that Peirce
