Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

ONT Pierce's three kinds of representations




Jon,
this is quote is interesting, to speak of Pierce's views,
but it doesn't even begin to address interesting logical phenomenon
like variables. unless a variable like P is intended to be a symbol.
But the way I read this, it is the VALUE of P that is intended to be 
the symbol instead of the variable itself.

if an entire book is a proposition, as I read Pierce below,
then presumably each copy of the book is a variable whose value
is the proposition.

But modern predicate logic would have problems with saying X, Y, and Z
are all 'constants' whose value is the same propositional value.
since they really aren't variables in that case.

Propositional logic probably would have problems with it too, as I
understand any given proposition is only one variable. It goes against
the rules as I understand them to have P=some proposition, and Q=the same
proposition. because P and Q are expected to be independent, and this
situation makes them two names for the same proposition.

Or am I just confused about this?

David


> 
> 
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
> 
> | For this purpose, I must call your attention to
> | the differences there are in the manner in which
> | different representations stand for their objects.
> |
> | In the first place there are likenesses or copies -- such as
> | 'statues', 'pictures', 'emblems', 'hieroglyphics', and the like.
> | Such representations stand for their objects only so far as they
> | have an actual resemblance to them -- that is agree with them in
> | some characters.  The peculiarity of such representations is that
> | they do not determine their objects -- they stand for anything
> | more or less;  for they stand for whatever they resemble and
> | they resemble everything more or less.
> |
> | The second kind of representations are such as are set up
> | by a convention of men or a decree of God.  Such are 'tallies',
> | 'proper names', &c.  The peculiarity of these 'conventional signs'
> | is that they represent no character of their objects.  Likenesses
> | denote nothing in particular;  'conventional signs' connote nothing
> | in particular.
> |
> | The third and last kind of representations are 'symbols' or general
> | representations.  They connote attributes and so connote them as to
> | determine what they denote.  To this class belong all 'words' and
> | all 'conceptions'.  Most combinations of words are also symbols.
> | A proposition, an argument, even a whole book may be, and
> | should be, a single symbol.
> |
> | CSP, CE 1, pages 467-468.
> |
> | Charles Sanders Peirce,
> |"The Logic of Science, or, Induction and Hypothesis",
> | Lowell Institute Lectures of 1866, pages 357-504 in:
> |
> |'Writings of Charles S. Peirce:  A Chronological Edition',
> |'Volume 1, 1857-1866', Peirce Edition Project,
> | Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1982.
> 
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>