1 view

Skip to first unread message

Dec 1, 2021, 3:00:21 PM12/1/21

to Conceptual Graphs, Laws of Form, Ontolog Forum, Peirce List, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG

Cf: C.S. Peirce • On the Definition of Logic

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/06/01/c-s-peirce-on-the-definition-of-logic/

Selections from C.S. Peirce, “Carnegie Application” (1902)

<QUOTE CSP>

No. 12. On the Definition of Logic

Logic will here be defined as formal semiotic. A definition of a sign will be given

which no more refers to human thought than does the definition of a line as the place

which a particle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time. Namely, a sign is

something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant sign determined or created

by it, into the same sort of correspondence with something, C, its object, as that

in which itself stands to C. It is from this definition, together with a definition

of “formal”, that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic. I also make a

historical review of all the definitions and conceptions of logic, and show, not

merely that my definition is no novelty, but that my non-psychological conception

of logic has virtually been quite generally held, though not generally recognized.

(NEM 4, 20–21).

No. 12. On the Definition of Logic [Earlier Draft]

Logic is formal semiotic. A sign is something, A, which brings something, B,

its interpretant sign, determined or created by it, into the same sort of

correspondence (or a lower implied sort) with something, C, its object,

as that in which itself stands to C. This definition no more involves

any reference to human thought than does the definition of a line as

the place within which a particle lies during a lapse of time.

It is from this definition that I deduce the principles of logic

by mathematical reasoning, and by mathematical reasoning that,

I aver, will support criticism of Weierstrassian severity, and

that is perfectly evident. The word “formal” in the definition

is also defined. (NEM 4, 54).

</QUOTE>

Reference

=========

Charles S. Peirce (1902), “Parts of Carnegie Application” (L 75), published in

Carolyn Eisele (ed., 1976), The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce,

vol. 4, 13–73. Online ( https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/bycsp/L75/l75.htm ).

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/06/01/c-s-peirce-on-the-definition-of-logic/

Selections from C.S. Peirce, “Carnegie Application” (1902)

<QUOTE CSP>

No. 12. On the Definition of Logic

Logic will here be defined as formal semiotic. A definition of a sign will be given

which no more refers to human thought than does the definition of a line as the place

which a particle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time. Namely, a sign is

something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant sign determined or created

by it, into the same sort of correspondence with something, C, its object, as that

in which itself stands to C. It is from this definition, together with a definition

of “formal”, that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic. I also make a

historical review of all the definitions and conceptions of logic, and show, not

merely that my definition is no novelty, but that my non-psychological conception

of logic has virtually been quite generally held, though not generally recognized.

(NEM 4, 20–21).

No. 12. On the Definition of Logic [Earlier Draft]

Logic is formal semiotic. A sign is something, A, which brings something, B,

its interpretant sign, determined or created by it, into the same sort of

correspondence (or a lower implied sort) with something, C, its object,

as that in which itself stands to C. This definition no more involves

any reference to human thought than does the definition of a line as

the place within which a particle lies during a lapse of time.

It is from this definition that I deduce the principles of logic

by mathematical reasoning, and by mathematical reasoning that,

I aver, will support criticism of Weierstrassian severity, and

that is perfectly evident. The word “formal” in the definition

is also defined. (NEM 4, 54).

</QUOTE>

Reference

=========

Charles S. Peirce (1902), “Parts of Carnegie Application” (L 75), published in

Carolyn Eisele (ed., 1976), The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce,

vol. 4, 13–73. Online ( https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/bycsp/L75/l75.htm ).

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu