Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's classification of the sciences

Dear John, and list >John: Before getting into the details, I'd like to emphasize that >my primary interest in drawing CSPscience.jpg is in the >dotted lines that show dependencies among the sciences. > >>Tommi: Peirce's classification of sciences with the definitions of the different sciences

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's classification of the sciences

Dear Jerry, list It is not quite clear to me what you are referring to by terms retrospective and synthetic philosophy - I suppose that you refer to the difference of philosophia prima and ultima (according to Peirce). On 28.8.2017 21:20, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: Tommi, List: Your post

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's classification of the sciences

Dear Tommi, Before getting into the details, I'd like to emphasize that my primary interest in drawing CSPscience.jpg is in the dotted lines that show dependencies among the sciences. Tommi Peirce's classification of sciences with the definitions of the different sciences was once for me one

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's classification of the sciences

Tommi, List: Your post bring to the front (at least for me) a central problem of philosophy, especially of synthetic philosophy in contrast to retrospective philosophy. EP 2:372. > On Aug 28, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Tommi Vehkavaara wrote: > > > CP 1.232 "Now if we are to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's classification of the sciences

Dear John, Gary F., and list Peirce's classification of sciences with the definitions of the different sciences was once for me one of the keys that systematized my reading of Peirce's other writings and made them much more understandable. On issue that have puzzled my mind is to which

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's classification of the sciences

Stephen CR, Gary F, and Kirsti, I also received some offline comments, which I'll start with. And I'm including a slightly revised copy of CSPsciences.jpg. Anon Might it be useful to label/annotate the relationships and have a legend which describes the motivations behind the divisions via the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's classification of the sciences

Fantastic, John. Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 25, 2017, at 15:17, John F Sowa wrote: > > I drew the attached CSPsciences.jpg to illustrate Peirce's > "Outline Classification of the Sciences", CP 1.180-202 > or EP 2.258-262 (1903). > > The dotted lines show dependencies: the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's classification of the sciences

This makes perfect sense in relation to Peirce but I do not think it fulfills what Peirce might have conceded is a more useful and pragmaticist effort to create the world in which triadic thinking would not be an academic cul de sac but rather a theater of understanding based on his musings and

[PEIRCE-L] Peirce's classification of the sciences

I drew the attached CSPsciences.jpg to illustrate Peirce's "Outline Classification of the Sciences", CP 1.180-202 or EP 2.258-262 (1903). The dotted lines show dependencies: the category at the lower end of each line depends on the one at the higher end. Only two sciences have no dependencies