Re: Peirce on Definition and Determination

Note 5 (cont.)

Re: C.S. Peirce • On the Definition of Logic
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/06/01/c-s-peirce-%E2%80%A2-on-the-definition-of-logic/

Peirce defines logic as “formal semiotic”.  We know “semiotic” is the
doctrine or theory of signs, but the current passage leaves us with
a promissory note on the meaning of “formal”.  Luckily, though, it
is easy enough to find other places where he tells us that “formal”
is pragmatically synonymous with “normative”, and that puts logic
squarely within the normative sciences, as classical tradition
always said it ought to be.

Peirce defines a sign in relational terms, as one role out of three,
the other two roles being the role of its interpretant sign and the
role of its object.  This is a very different matter from defining
an essence, that is, an inalienable, inherent, intrinsic property
of a “thing in itself”.

Peirce is emphatic about the independence of his joint definition
from any reference to human cognition, just as normative sciences
ought to be orthogonal to descriptive sciences, and yet he insists
that his “non-psychological conception of logic” virtually inheres
in the general idea of logic, however incognito it many abide there.

Regards,

Jon

-- 

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache