Re: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis that Pragmatism must Navigate its Middle Way Between

JA: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/8635
AM: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/8636
JA: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/8637

Aaron,

Let me return to your first remark on definition to clear up one point.

AM: I'm not sure if the previous posts about metaphysics spurred
     your latest post, but I found something recently that I found
     interesting.  I was doing some research on Aristotle's notion
     of essence and I came across the following from Marc Cohen at:
     http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics

AM: He reiterates these ideas in Ζ.4: “there is an essence of just those things
     whose logos is a definition” (1030a6), “the essence of a thing is what it is
     said to be in respect of itself” (1029b14).  It is important to remember that
     for Aristotle, one defines things, not words. The definition of tiger does not
     tell us the meaning of the word ‘tiger’; it tells us what it is to be a tiger,
     what a tiger is said to be in respect of itself. Thus, the definition of tiger
     states the essence — the “what it is to be” of a tiger, what is predicated of
     the tiger per se.

The relation between "defining a thing" and "defining a word" is fairly clear.
The primary purpose of a definition is always to define the thing, the subject
matter in question -- as the etymology says, to bound, delimit, or distinguish
its semiotic object.  But the definition itself is a form of words (or a form
of any other signs and symbols that we have to some degree under our control).
Consequently, the definition serves to clarify any other word that we use to
indicate the subject matter in question, as we do when we write an equation
between a definiendum and a definiens.  As a result it makes perfectly good
sense to say that the definition defines that word also.

Incidentally, Peirce's approach to definition and the related subject of
determination has come up repeatedly in our discussions, most especially
in connection with his definitions of logic and signs.  I once collected
a budget of his statements about determination and more recently started
a collection of his statements pertaining to definition, but got waylaid
by other business. At any rate, here is a link to what I gathered so far:

• http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey/EXCERPTS

I had also begun some commentary on my blog, beginning at this location:

• http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/05/30/definition-and-determination-1/

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
_______________________________________________
Inquiry mailing list
[email protected]
http://stderr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/inquiry