List, Helmut, John:
Helmut: You bring in the nature of a musical composer into the semantic
tensions between the domains of discourse called "Nominal : Realism”.
This is most appropriate.
Because this moves the conversation into the move general puzzle about how
various symbol systems interrel
Jerry, John, List,
It would be interesting to ask somebody who has been born blind. A word is a string of letters, and a melody a string of sounds. But the perceived thing of a word is a term, and that is not a string. A melody perceived neither is.
Maybe to call that, what it is, a picture or a
It is interesting and clear that there is a spectrum of thinking that goes
from images through words.
Someone with brain chops will figure that out and create a theory no doubt,
But it seems obvious to me that regardless of how anyone thinks words are
the basis of the entire crucial area of existe
John, List:
> On Feb 16, 2017, at 7:17 AM, John Collier wrote:
>
> From talking with colleagues, some say they think only in words and others,
> like me, say they think mostly in diagrams or in physical feelings that I
> attach no words to (and probably couldn’t in many cases). Although I am
List,
I think that I mostly think in diagrams and pictures, even when I think about words. I think that at this point, there is helpful Peirces three modes of consciousness: Primisense, Altersense and Medisense. They are connected with the three categories, and with the three object relations as
Thanks!
Søren
From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15. februar 2017 00:29
To: Søren Brier
Cc: Clark Goble; Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
Hi Soren,
EP 2: 463.
Best,
Jerry
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Søren Brier
mailto:sbr
Where can I find Peirce’s: An Essay toward Improving our Reasoning in Security
and Liberty, from 1913??
Best
Søren
From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com]
Sent: 14. februar 2017 21:24
To: Clark Goble
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism
On Feb 16, 2017, at 6:17 AM, John Collier wrote:One of the hardest things for me in learning analytic philosophy (after original training and work in physics) was to think in words.Yes, the undue focus on the language turn in analytic philosophy has not necessarily been positi
pui.edu
Subject: 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
, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: Thursday, 16 February 2017 3:54 PM
To: John Collier ; Benjamin Udell ;
peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
I fully agree. I think mostly in diagrams and
; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 8:17 AM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
From talking with colleagues, some say they think only in words and others,
like me, say they think mostly in diagrams or in physical feelings that I
attach no words to
@list.iupui.edu
Subject: 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
come into existence, when it does come into existence. Of such a habit one
may be conscious of a symptom; but to speak of being directly conscious of a
habit, as such, is nonsense.]] — Peirce, EP2:269
From: Eric Charles [mailto:eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15-Feb-17 11:17
To:
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 defec
Words are not merely psychological counters or tokens as it were. They are
philosophical in nature because word and language occupy a crucial point in
reality.
The fundamental action of words is to massively limit the immense reality
of the vagueness from which the word springs, somewhat as ovulat
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 s
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 people with limited brain damage
> 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 referring to the typical
> thinking, or
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 ackno
t; *From:* Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 14. februar 2017 21:24
> *To:* Clark Goble
> *Cc:* Peirce-L
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
>
>
>
> Eric, list:
>
>
>
> Here is how I understand the nature of your thought:
>
>
Eric, list:
Here is how I understand the nature of your thought:
You consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings,
you conceive the object of claiming about the nature of other people’s
thoughts to have. Then your conception of these effects, which makes you
raise yo
> On Feb 14, 2017, at 8:41 AM, Eric Charles
> wrote:
>
> Yikes! My inner William James just raised an eyebrow. This is probably a
> separate thread... but how did we suddenly start making claims about the
> nature of other people's thoughts?
>
> "People think, not so much in words, but in i
Conclusion
>> ...with the additional format rules about 'universal', distribution,
>> negatives, etc etc..' Nothing to do with words per se.
>>
>> Words are meaningful, in my view, only in specific contexts; they gain
>> their meaning within the context...and
Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier
From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 14 February 2017 1:48 AM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
On Feb 11, 2017, at 6:40 PM, John Collier
> On Feb 11, 2017, at 6:40 PM, John Collier wrote:
>
> Full blown logical empiricism arises only with verificationism, which I think
> was the biggest error ever made by otherwise sensible philosophers. We are
> still suffering the consequences. I hasten to add that, although he was
> sometim
; p>On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Edwina Taborsky
> wrote:
>
> Sorry, Jerry, I don't agree. It's not the words; it's the format that
> counts. People think, not so much in words, but in images and diagrams
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
lt;mailto:baud...@gmail.com>; Peirce-L <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
*Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 2:02 PM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
Dear Edwina, list:
When you say it's not the words but the format that counts; is that
like saying, it's not the
ithin a format.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Jerry Rhee
>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky
>> *Cc:* John Collier ; Benjamin Udell
>> ; Peirce-L
>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 2:02 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L]
that
>> counts. People think, not so much in words, but in images and diagrams
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Jerry Rhee
>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky
>> *Cc:* John Collier ; Benjamin Udell
>> ; Peirce-L
>> *Sen
ry Rhee
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky
> *Cc:* John Collier ; Benjamin Udell
> ; Peirce-L
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 2:02 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
>
> Dear Edwina, list:
>
> When you say it's not the words but the format that counts;
contexts; they gain their
meaning within the context...and the context operates within a format.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jerry Rhee
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: John Collier ; Benjamin Udell ; Peirce-L
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2017 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] No
c:* John Collier ; Benjamin Udell
> ; Peirce-L
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 1:25 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
>
> Dear list:
>
>
>
> If words are only birds, then:
>
>
>
> “CP 5.189 is NOT a syllogism!”
>
>
>
>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2017 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
Dear list:
If words are only birds, then:
“CP 5.189 is NOT a syllogism!”
“CP 5.189 is not *the* pragmatic maxim, nor even *a* pragmatic maxim in the
same sense, so it is certainly not *the
it ignores what's going on within that
> semiosic action.
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* John Collier
> *To:* Benjamin Udell ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 11, 2017 8:40 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Real
riginal Message -
From: John Collier
To: Benjamin Udell ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 8:40 PM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
Interesting, Ben. How words change in meaning and connotation. Although mist
of the negative references a
: Saturday, 11 February 2017 10:35 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
Even in the days of the Century Dictionary (late 19th to early 20th Century),
"empiric" and "empirical" had rather negative connotations. See the definitions
of &
to tie empiricism to
> the use of the word are pretty poor examples of scholarship.
>
> John Collier
> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate Philosophy, University of
> KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: kirst...@sa
Professor and Senior Research Associate Philosophy,
University of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier
> -Original Message-
> From: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi]
> Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2017 5:58 PM
> To: Jerry LR Chandler
> Cc
John:
> On Feb 11, 2017, at 1:06 PM, John Collier wrote:
>
> In any case, the recent attempts on this list to try to tie empiricism to the
> use of the word are pretty poor examples of scholarship.
>
This is even more surprising!
What is it about the concept of a “word” that bothers you so
LR Chandler
> Cc: Edwina Taborsky ; John Collier
> ; Peirce-L
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
>
> I share your surprise, Jerry.
>
> Kirsti
>
> Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 5.2.2017 19:26:
> > John, Edwina, List:
> >
> > I
emes of both empiricism and idealism.
Edwina
- Original Message -
FROM: John Collier
TO: Edwina Taborsky ; Peirce-L
SENT: Sunday, February 05, 2017 11:12 AM
SUBJECT: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
I don’t agree. Edwina. Empiricism started in the Middle ages and
went through periods of pro
Hi John,
I just wish to remind that Pythagoreans brought together music and
measurement. Ancient Greek tradition did not start with Plato and
Aristotle. - The monochord, together with the idea of Universal Lyra was
the srarting point to both Plato and Aristotle.
Which is full accord with pos
> 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
> 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
e World', which focuses on economics,
city-states, and technology.
Ideologically - one saw the emergence of a focus on the individual capacity
to observe and reason.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: "John F Sowa"
To:
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: [P
On 2/5/2017 12:38 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
that knowledge is derived from the evidence of the senses, is as old
as Aristotle - who espoused just that [along with the use of reason].
But as a societal force, with its insistence that the individual and
that individual's direct contact with the w
for the historical emergence of the term in philosophy.I'm sure
> someone can answer that.
>
> Edwina
> - Original Message -
> From: Jerry LR Chandler
> To: Edwina Taborsky
> Cc: John Collier ; Peirce-L
> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 12:26 PM
> Subject
re someone
can answer that.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jerry LR Chandler
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: John Collier ; Peirce-L
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
John, Edwina, List:
I am more than a bit surpri
very well to disempower the
> extremes of both empiricism and idealism.
>
> Edwina
> - Original Message -----
> From: John Collier
> To: Edwina Taborsky ; Peirce-L
> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 11:12 AM
> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
>
>
r
To: Edwina Taborsky ; Peirce-L
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 11:12 AM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
I don’t agree. Edwina. Empiricism started in the Middle ages and went through
periods of profound social transformation since while being changed relatively
li
, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: Sunday, 05 February 2017 5:58 PM
To: John Collier ; Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
I think that even a philosophical ideology , eg, the 'classic form of
empir
er
To: Jerry LR Chandler
Cc: Peirce List ; Eric Charles ; Helmut Raulien
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 3:18 AM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - “The union of units unifies
the unity”
Jerry, I think we are using ‘empiricism’ differently. I was using it in the
cla
Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier
From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@mac.com]
Sent: Friday, 03 February 2017 3:20 AM
To: John Collier
Cc: Peirce List ; Eric Charles
; Helmut Raulien
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L
hn Collier ; Peirce List
Cc: Eric Charles ; Helmut Raulien
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism
John, List:
On Jan 31, 2017, at 1:05 AM, John Collier
mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za>> wrote:
2. Now, for the most important comment. It is almost certain that CSP's
notion of
John, List:
> On Jan 31, 2017, at 1:05 AM, John Collier wrote:
>
> 5. The assertion "Empiricists typically claim that we don't need anything
> more to do science.” appears rather problematic to me.
>
> I don’t see this, Jerry. A typical example of a contemporary empiricist who
> argues spec
John, List:
> On Jan 31, 2017, at 1:05 AM, John Collier wrote:
>
> 2. Now, for the most important comment. It is almost certain that CSP’s
> notion of abduction as a method to generate a possibility space came directly
> from the concept of proof of structure. It follows from his notion
Hi,
Modern positivism, the (future) mainsource of present analytical
philosphy has been excellenty described by John F. Sowa in the list.
Dichotomic divisions into two, like ontology and epistemology,is the
ground for this line of philosophy, by now taken as a common starting
point in eleme
://web.ncf.ca/collier
From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@mac.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2017 6:09 AM
To: John Collier ; Peirce List
Cc: Eric Charles ; Helmut Raulien
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism
John:
Thanks for your interesting and provocative insights.
By way
<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> From: Jerry LR Chandler
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 9:51:30 PM
> To: Eric Charles
> Cc: Peirce List; Helmut Raulien
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism
>
> Eric:
>
>> On Jan 28, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Helmut Raulie
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
> wrote:
>
> Regarding #2, once again you insist on assigning a pejorative label to my
> view. It is not Platonic, it is Aristotelian (and Peircean), since I clearly
> and consistently affirm that 3ns does not exist apart from 2ns (and 1ns).
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 1:05 PM, Eric Charles
> wrote:
>
> Well... that seems like a different sort of issue. That is a straight forward
> issue of whether we exist in a deterministic world, and that can't be
> nominalist-realist distinction, can it?
Even if this isn’t a deterministic world
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
> But I don't think that Peirce argued that the laws/symmetries are real,
> 'independent of the objects' for wouldn't that be similar to 'logically
> prior'??. My view is that the laws are real, as general operational forces
> but they
> On Jan 30, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt
> wrote:
>
> What you quoted from Clark was his description of "a very nominalist
> conception of thermodynamics." By contrast, I think that Peirce quite
> clearly held (1) that the mental (psychical law) is primordial relative to
> the mater
Eric, List:
With respect to probability, I am reminded (for obvious reasons) of this
passage.
CSP: According to what has been said, the idea of probability essentially
belongs to a kind of inference which is repeated indefinitely. An
individual inference must be either true or false, and can sho
Jon, many thanks! Adding to the discussion:
Does that mean that if I told a nominalist that if I repeatedly shuffled a
> deck of cards, and then looked at the top card, there was a 1/4 *chance*
> of drawing a heart, they would say I was talking gibberish?
>
>
JAS: Probably not; but once you have
not a Platonist - and your
> view is Platonic.\
> That's all I'll say on this; I won't get into a debate.
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky
> *Cc:* Peirce-L
> *Sent:* Monday, January 30,
latonic.\
That's all I'll say on this; I won't get into a debate.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism
Edwina, List:
Eric, List:
Responses inserted below.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
> Jon,
> As I understand you,
John,
That first bit - on *ontological misogyny*, etc. - is fascinating and
clever! As a skewering of Quine et al, it seems to work well.
However, for the purposes of this discussion, it might be a bit of a bait
and switch.
Let us assume our antagonist is a misogynist, and that he will set it upo
non-individual general continuity.
>> Your attempts to confine Peirce to your discipline of chemistry, I think,
>> narrow his work.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> Edwina.
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt
>> *To:* E
way].
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Clark Goble
> *To:* Peirce-L
> *Sent:* Monday, January 30, 2017 11:23 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism
>
> On Jan 29, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
> wrote:
>
> I would not
are real, as general operational forces but
they have no power/reality except as 'articulated' within the objects. [This
may be what you meant anyway].
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Clark Goble
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [
List:
> On Jan 17, 2017, at 5:32 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
>
> But extending the dualism, even dichotomy of "ontology" and "epistemology" to
> Aristotle is not just a (big) bone, but a grave misrepresentation.
>
> This distinction is a modern one. - Still going strong, in spite of all
> On Jan 29, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
> wrote:
>
> I would not call it a "force," but I agree that the traditional debate is
> about whether there is something real (hence "realism") that all rabbits have
> in common to make them rabbits vs. "rabbits" merely being a name (hence
>
> On Jan 27, 2017, at 4:19 PM, Eric Charles
> wrote:
>
> I must admit that I find much of the recent discussion baffling. In part,
> this is because I have never had anyone explain the Nominalism-Realism
> distinction in a way that made sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I think I
> understand
nuary 29, 2017 8:35 PM
To: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism
Jeffrey,
I found this particular message of yours to be quite inspiring in explaining
the value of philosophical inquiry to non-philosophers. Would you have any good
examples of how these two metaphy
Edwinia:
Your horrendous mis-representation of the meaning of my sentence kills all
desire to explore this issue.
Cheers
Jerry
> On Jan 29, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
> Jerry Chandler - calm down. You are evading the issue, which is, that you
> claimed that 'many, if no
phy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
From: John Collier [colli...@ukzn.ac.za]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 8:01 AM
To: John F Sowa; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism
Quite, John. I could have been more c
F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
> Sent: Monday, 30 January 2017 4:33 PM
> To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism
>
>
> Peirce's contribution was to recognize that Kant's synthetic a priori could be
> replaced by abduction. Th
John C and Edwina,
JC
Nominalism is a weaker hypothesis than Realism, so if something is
consistent with realism, then it is consistent with nominalism. Locke,
for example, distinguished between the nominal essence and the real
essence. The former tells us what we think something is like, while
Collier
To: Jerry LR Chandler ; Eric Charles
Cc: Peirce List ; Helmut Raulien
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 5:36 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism
Jerry, List,
Nominalism is a weaker hypothesis than Realism, so if something is consistent
with realism, then it is
Eric Charles
Cc: Peirce List; Helmut Raulien
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism
Eric:
On Jan 28, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Helmut Raulien
mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de>> wrote:
In my view of sytems theory, a system is more than it´s parts, of course, and
what is more, is real and natural. But
Jerry Chandler - calm down. You are evading the issue, which is, that you
claimed that 'many, if not most, biosemioticians are nominalists.' I question
this claim, since biosemiotics is based around the semiosis of Peirce - which
rejects nominalism.
So I ask yet again, what's your evidence for
8 523-8354
From: Eric Charles
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:18 AM
To: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism
Jeff,
Thank you for the thoughtful answer. (And Jon for the links.) It will take me a
bit to digest and respond. My
> On Jan 29, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
> Jerry - my, I didn't know that you consider all biosemioticians to be
> nominalists.
Edwinia:
Neither did I!
Edwinia, this is just plain sloppy usage of language.
I wrote:
"Nevertheless, it appears to me, that many, if not most, b
re strong
>> Peirceans and focus on that level of non-individual general continuity.
>> Your attempts to confine Peirce to your discipline of chemistry, I think,
>> narrow his work.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> Edwina.
>>
>> - Original Message -
>
ity.
> Your attempts to confine Peirce to your discipline of chemistry, I think,
> narrow his work.
>
> Edwina
>
> Edwina.
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky
> *Cc:* Eric Charles ; Peirce-L
>
> *Sent:* Sunday,
hemistry, I think, narrow his work.
Edwina
Edwina.
- Original Message -
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Eric Charles ; Peirce-L
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism
Edwina, Eric, List:
I would not call i
Edwina, Eric, List:
I would not call it a "force," but I agree that the traditional debate is
about whether there is something *real *(hence "realism") that all rabbits
have in common to make them rabbits vs. "rabbits" merely being a *name *(hence
"nominalism") that we apply to many different indi
Eric:
> On Jan 28, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>
> In my view of sytems theory, a system is more than it´s parts, of course, and
> what is more, is real and natural. But in my opinion "natural" does not mean
> "good for us". A sytem that contains other systems,
Beyond statistics
Eric and list,
EC
My initial inclination is to say that everything you pointed to does
seem important, but doesn't seem obviously to hinge on anything I can
easily understand as a difference between nominalists and realists
The simplest explanation I have ever read was by Alonzo Church --
in a
l valid, even if contradictory. So - with Peirce [and
others] we have acknowledged that continuity of type suggests a real force that
is articulated/instantiated in 'tokens' of that force. That, in my view, is
the nature of realism.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Er
Eric, List:
I think that you have hit upon something that I recently brought up
here--why Peirce consistently preferred "general" to "universal" when
discussing realism vs. nominalism. It is related to his broad use of
"habit," even when referring to "laws of nature." These terms convey the
idea
Jon,
With regards to the second point, on whether there might not be natural
laws, I was thinking about things like "Order of nature", in which Peirce
points out that: "If we could find out any general characteristic of the
universe, any mannerism in the ways of Nature, any law everywhere
applicabl
Eric, List:
Actually, Peirce's definition of "real" was being such as it is regardless
of what any person or finite group of people thinks about it. Taken to the
third (pragmatic) grade of clarity, the "real" is that which *would *be the
object of the "final opinion"--the consensus of an indefini
goals as seeking more power, wealth and fame. Plato and Aristotle saw
>> these sorts of trends as harmful for the vitality of their classical Greek
>> culture. I believe that the growing prominence of these same sorts of
>> trends are equally harmful for the vitality of our own cont
Supp-supplement:
In my view of sytems theory, a system is more than it´s parts, of course, and what is more, is real and natural. But in my opinion "natural" does not mean "good for us". A sytem that contains other systems, like a society that contains individuals, or their communications, co
the use of nuclear weapons, etc.--to more immediate
>> questions about how they can employ various means in the focused pursuit of
>> such goals as seeking more power, wealth and fame. Plato and Aristotle saw
>> these sorts of trends as harmful for the vitality of their classical Greek
>> culture. I believe that the g
mporary culture.
>
> Yours,
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> Jeffrey Downard
> Associate Professor
> Department of Philosophy
> Northern Arizona University
> (o) 928 523-8354
>
> From: Jon Alan Schmidt [jonalanschm...@gmail.com]
> Sent
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo