SUO: Re: Re: Ontology
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dawidowicz, Edward RDECOM CERDEC C2D" <Edward.Dawidowicz@us.army.mil>
To: "'Jay Halcomb'" <email@example.com>; "John F. Sowa" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:27
Subject: RE: Re: Ontology
> 1. The number of volumes in your personal library is very impressive
> indeed. I also agree with you that it is important to keep a good balance
> between the books on philosophy and logic. (I also know that that was not
> the point that wanted to make)
> 2. I also agree that one should be impartial and objective as best as
> one can be and differentiate, as you correctly emphasized, between
> = acknowledge, credit2=praise". Also the quote found by you showing how
> Russell references C. S. Pierce demonstrates that not only do you possess
> good size personal library, but also make a good use of it.
I do like to read, among other things :)
> 3. Also you have stated to John S. "Both Whitehead and Russell were
> certainly acquainted with Peirce and acknowledged the acquaintance in
> numerous places. They made assessments of Peirce's work which differ from
> your own and which you dislike."
> That statement is true, but only in part. What is wrong is that while
> Whitehead and Russell were acquainted with Pierce rather well they held
> credits Pierce deserved.
Ah.. that is the issue, though. Opinions of either of these folk's relative
worths vary, both historically and today. How should they not? I am simply
bringing a little 'correctionism' or balance to John's opinions. For my own
part, I often disagree with Russell -- or with Peirce. Philosophy is
generally disputatious and should not be any other way. Russell was a man
who often revised his opinions and who often disagreed with himself, in
particular. In fact, that was part of his appeal, I should say -- he strived
to be undogmatic. We all fail in this to some degree, though, in the end;
that is the human predicament -- or the philosophical predicament.
>Why did this happen? John S. cab offer you a
> better account, but I think that C. S. fell out of grace with the 'gods'
> his period and suffered the consequences (reflected, as you know, in the
> comments of Whitehead and Russell) and finally disappearing from the
> worldwide limelight to some secluded place in Pennsylvania. If not for a
> few champions we would hardly have known his name today. Jay, don't you
> think that Pierce, based on his contributions alone, deserves his
> and to have a few candles of justice to be lit in his name?
I'm not a Pragmatist myself -- that is a philosophical position with many
twists and turns of its own to spell out -- but certainly Peirce did much
valuable work, and I would 'light a candle' for him. But so did Russell, of
As I said, let John or anyone else champion away -- according to their own
lights. As we know, the devil is in the details. Opnions vary and will
always do so, particularly in the details.
> PS. If and when you get a chance please say hello from me to Adam Pease.
> Edward Dawidowicz
> US Army, CECOM, RDEC
> Myer Center
> Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703
> Voice (732) 427-4122
> Fax (732) 427-3440
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Halcomb [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:39 PM
> To: John F. Sowa
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
> Subject: SUO: Re: Ontology
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John F. Sowa" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: "Jay Halcomb" <email@example.com>
> Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>;
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 14:41
> Subject: Re: Ontology
> > Jay,
> > My history is not "revisionist", it is correctionist.
> > If you have any doubts about my historical remarks,
> > don't rely on secondary sources -- go to the originals.
> > As Casey Stengel used to say, "Ya could look it up."
> Look it up yourself, John, and you will find where you're wrong. I have
> 10,000 books in my personal library; perhaps a 1,000 of these are
> philosophical, perhaps a 1,000 are mathematical. See below.
> > > ... this is not at all accurate or fair, and the remark
> > > continues your usual vein of revisionist history.
> > I am more than fair to Russell. He added nothing to the
> > notation he adopted from Peano, which Peano credited to
> > Peirce. Yet logicians continue to call it "Peano-Russell
> > notation."
> Yes, many do, perhaps most. Much of the actual symbology we use was
> by Russell (and later Whitehead and Russell) from Peano (and certainly
> augmented by R-W, also). Why should logicians not so credit it?
> > Whitehead, Russell's mentor and senior coauthor,
> > at least gave credit to Peirce in his 1898 book _Universal
> > Algebra_.
> >But Russell credited only Peano and Frege, and
> > omitted any reference to Peirce, who actually invented
> > the notation he adopted.
> The last statement is erroneous in either sense: credit1 = acknowledge,
> credit2=praise. Check out Russell's Principles of Mathematics, for
> which has several references to Peirce, some creditable2, some critical.
> Here's one which is a blend:
> P. 23: "The calculus of relations is a more modern subject than the
> of classes... the subject was first developed by C.S. Pierce.... Peirce
> Schroder have realized the great importance of the subject, but
> unfortunately, their methods, being based, not on Peano, but on the older
> symbolic logic derived (with modifications) from Boole, are so cumbrous
> difficult that most of the applications which ought to be made are
> practically not feasible. In addition to the defects of the old Symbolic
> Logic, their method suffers technically (whether philosophically or not I
> not at present discuss) from the fact that they regard a relation
> essentially as a class of tuples... This view is derived, I think,
> unconsciously, from a philosophical error..." Etc.
> Both Whitehead and Russell were certainly acquainted with Peirce and
> acknowledged the acquaintance in numerous places. They made assessments of
> Peirce's work which differ from your own and which you dislike.
> Champion away, if you like, but be accurate.