----- Original Message -----

From: Kirsti Määttänen

To: Peirce Discussion Forum

Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:14 AM

Subject: [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all about?

List,

First: Thank you, Joe very much for the NEW ELEMENTS & the incentive for a detailed discussion. I've just read the first part of the mails on the thread & the text, with keen interest, though only once.

What I wish to do, is to stick with the question "What is it all about?" for a while. I have a special interest in this particular question, related to a method I originally developed for a Peircean course on text and argument analysis for students working on their PhD or Master's theses. I've described some aspects of it in discussions with Gary, first ON, then OFF Peirce-list, soon after joining the list a couple of years ago. Since then, I've had reason to reconsider what would be the best way to convey the most basic idea in it. As one result I decided to name it Dialogical Argument Analysis. Now I'm planning to write a paper of the method next summer, based on my notes for the lectures and tasks for the students. First in Finnish, perhaps later in English. So my motive in this comes partly from furthering that plan.

I hope this does not interfere with the plans Joe has in mind. If it does, please just tell me so, Joe!

There may well be a host of more or less similar methods, which I do not know of. But, as I've always found it best, for me that is, to let my own experiences lead the way, I'll stick to that also now. Also, I may add, my aim with the method is not particularly to present something new, but to explicate (in Peircean terms) and make more systematic (in a Peircean way) what we all ordinarily do when we try to find out what various writings are all about - or when we, deliberately and consciously or spontaneously, have other questions in mind, with which we hope the text in question may be helpful in finding an answer.

Well, hope you haven't got all bored with the lengthy introductory part - if so, I apologize & trust those of you have, have already resorted to delete button. And to those, who haven't, a word of warning: What follows is very boring!

Now I'll try and apply some of the basic rules of the method to NEW ELEMENTS, just to see where it leads, for a start.

First, I agree with Bernard, who wrote that he finds it best

BM:... to go directly to the text of New Elements because I think it to be the most immediate way of dealing with the question "So what is it all about?" (as well as answering it).

As Peirce quite frequently notes, we must start with what we have. So, what do we have here?
In simplest terms, we have a text, a question, and an interest to find a reasonably well grounded answer, as economically as possible.

What is needed is a method, preferably as Peircean as possible, suitable for present purposes.

In simplest terms, a method consists of a guiding principle and a reasonably systematic way of proceeding from a question to an array of answers, which may then be critically examined, in order to proceed from (some of) them to new questions, etc.

With a question like: What is this all about? the first step I've found the best is to see if, and what the author explicitly states. That is: stick to quotes from the text. As few as possible and as short as possible, but not too few or too short for the purpose of getting on with the task & without losing anything essential from the text as a whole.

Bernard already took up one citation:
1) "A scholium is a comment upon the logical structure of the doctrine. This preface is a scholium." (EP2, p. 303).

So, in most general terms, it is all about logical structure. And, less generally, about the logical structure of a doctrine.

I'd provisionally add three more:

2) CP: "Logic, for me, is the study of the essential conditions to which signs must conform in order to function as such."

3) CP: "It is the Proposition which forms the main subject of this whole scholium; (...)"
/fontfamily>
4) CP: "We can now see what judgment and assertion are. (...)" [n the last paragraph, just before final conclusions. So, it must be an integral part of what the whole, as a whole, is all about.]

/fontfamily>Let's see, then, what we can make up of these four short citations (There most probably are more to be found in the text, but they may be added later, if necessary).

So, NE is a comment upon the logical structure of a doctrine, the general nature of which is explicated in citation 2). Citation 3) is about the main subject of this scholium, the proposition. - So far, so good.

But 4) presents a small, but not perhaps insignificant, problem. It is nor clear enough from these short citations only, taken out of their respective contexts, how judgement and assertion relate to 1)-3). So, lets see if it's helpful to take a somewhat longer citation of one or more. My first candidate for this is 3):

3) CP: "It is the Proposition which forms the main subject of this whole scholium; for the distinctions of vague and distinct, general and individual are propositional distinctions. I have endeavored to restrain myself from long discussions of terminology. But here we reach a point where a very common terminology overlaps an erroneous conception. Namely those logicians who follow the lead of Germans, instead of treating of propositions, speak of “judgments” (Urtheile). They regard a proposition as merely an expression in speech or writing of a judgment. More than one error is involved in this practice."/fontfamily>

Well, this is clearly too long for the present purpose, so I'll make a tentative shortened version of it:
3) CP: "It is the Proposition which forms the main subject of this whole scholium; [...] those logicians who follow the lead of Germans, instead of treating of propositions, speak of “judgments” (Urtheile). They regard a proposition as merely an expression in speech or writing of a judgment. More than one error is involved in this practice."/fontfamily>

- From this one can infer that it is about critical comments on how the relation between proposition and judgement are to be understood, especially in relation to what it is that is expressed in speech or writing. - If the rule of sticking to quotes were followed in strictest terms, then one ore more quotes with the term "assertion" should be added. But let's loosen the rule, and take the "what is expressed in speech or writing" to be an assertion.

Let's also skip the next step, which would be to explicate, write down, the first provisional answer to the question, inferred from quotes only.

Then it would be time to choose the most general of the ideas in the provisional answer, and read the first, introductory part of the paper, from the angle given by the idea. To me it clearly seems to be: "This is all about logical structure." - I already tried it, and to me it worked just fine. But I'll leave it to the next mail, if there is to be one.

Just one more comment:

Bernard also wrote:

BM: I think more and more that the only topic on which this text is all about is nothing but METAPHYSICS.

This I find very intriguing. Metaphysics is what Peirce explicitly says he wishes to avoid here. So, in terms of quotes, the answer would be negative. Still, it may not be the case. In fact, I'd tend to affirm the idea. Provisionally, of course.

Best,

Kirsti

Finally, I have a basic reservation in dealing with Peirce's work from the point of view of its expected audience. I think that Peirce never elaborated his contributions for any audience except for this audience that he used to call the Truth. When he tried to make something like that, for example an elementary book in mathematics, the manuscript was judged too much original to be published by the editors. May be that in some circumstances the case could be made that he was making a specific discourse but it would have to be strongly justified by the defender of such a view, I think.

Bernard took up:

BM: The first thing that always appeared strange to me is that Peirce is beginning with a long development about Euclid's exposition. But we know that precisely a great revolution had already taken place in mathematics under the auspice of non euclidian geometries. I think Peirce is here just saving what had made the value of euclidian geometry in his view, the deductive method as well as the associated style of exposition.

This style amounts to some general and abstract statements, which are just set down in order to show their necessary consequences. The logical structure of the exposition has not to be made explicit because it is to the reader's activity to realize it for himself.
In brief I think Peirce is revisiting the basic points of his semiotic doctrine of the time, in order to see what he could further make of it, but without ordering nor explaining it, that is to say without making any kind of argument in the proper sense.

/fontfamily>

Kirsti Määttänen
<kirstima <at> saunalahti.fi>/fontfamily>

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.25/246 - Release Date: 1/30/2006

BM: I think more and more that the only topic on which this text is all about is nothing but METAPHYSICS.

KM: This I find very intriguing. Metaphysics is what Peirce explicitly says he wishes to avoid here. So, in terms of quotes, the answer would be negative. Still, it may not be the case. In fact, I'd tend to affirm the idea. Provisionally, of course.

From: Joseph Ransdell

To: Peirce Discussion Forum

Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 10:56 AM

Subject: [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all about?

Kirsti and list:

 

Kirsti says (full message appended below):

 

First: Thank you, Joe very much for the NEW ELEMENTS & the incentive for a detailed discussion. I've just read the first part of the mails on the thread & the text, with keen interest, though only once.

What I wish to do, is to stick with the question "What is it all about?" for a while. I have a special interest in this particular question, related to a method I originally developed for a Peircean course on text and argument analysis for students working on their PhD or Master's theses. I've described some aspects of it in discussions with Gary, first ON, then OFF Peirce-list, soon after joining the list a couple of years ago. Since then, I've had reason to reconsider what would be the best way to convey the most basic idea in it. As one result I decided to name it Dialogical Argument Analysis. Now I'm planning to write a paper of the method next summer, based on my notes for the lectures and tasks for the students. First in Finnish, perhaps later in English. So my motive in this comes partly from furthering that plan.

I hope this does not interfere with the plans Joe has in mind. If it does, please just tell me so, Joe!

 

REPLY:

 

I have no objection myself, Kirsti, if you understand that it is entirely up to you, i.e. I won't be altering anything I do in order to make your study work and you shouldn't expect anyone else to be doing that either.  You can of course make methodological suggestions or otherwise try to shape what happens yourself -- as can anyone else -- but no one should feel required to cooperate with you, as distinct from taking your advice because it sounds like it might really improve the discussion in some way.  Bear in mind, though, that PEIRCE-L remains a forum without any special agenda and the conversation concerning the New Elements is likely to be far less structured overall than it might be if this were a discussion list set up for the special purpose of a controlled discussion of that paper.  

 

This might be a good place to quote a relevant passage from Plato's Theaetetus.  The context is a little different than is appropriate here -- he has in mind people in politics and public affairs -- but suitable changes being made, the point to quoting it would be clear enough:

 

SOCRATES: . . . Those who have been trained in philosophy and liberal pursuits are as unlike those who from their youth upwards have been knocking about in the courts and such places [i.e. places of public discussion generally] as a freeman is in breeding unlike a slave.

THEODORUS: In what is the difference seen?

SOCRATES: In the leisure spoken of by you, which a freeman can always command: he has his talk in peace and, like ourselves, he wanders at will from one subject to another, and from a second to a third, -- if the fancy takes him he begins again, as we are doing now, caring not whether his words are many or few; his only aim is to attain the truth. But the lawyer is always in a hurry; there is the water of the clepsydra [i.e. the clock] driving him on, and not allowing him to expatiate at will: there is his adversary standing over him, enforcing his rights; the affidavit is recited at the time: and from this he must not deviate. He is a servant, and is continually disputing about a fellow servant before his master, who is seated, and has the cause in his hands; the trial is never about some indifferent matter, but always concerns himself; and often the race is for his life. The consequence has been, that he has become keen and shrewd; he has learned how to flatter his master in word and indulge him in deed; but his soul is small and unrighteous. His condition, which has been that of a slave from his youth upwards, has deprived him of growth and uprightness and independence; dangers and fears, which were too much for his truth and honesty, came upon him in early years, when the tenderness of youth was unequal to them, and he has been driven into crooked ways; from the first he has practised deception and retaliation, and has become stunted and warped. And so he has passed out of youth into manhood, having no soundness in him; and is now, as he thinks, a master in wisdom. Such is the lawyer, Theodorus. Will you have the companion picture of the philosopher, who is of our brotherhood; or shall we return to the argument? Do not let us abuse the freedom of digression which we claim.

THEODORUS: Nay, Socrates, not until we have finished what we are about; for you truly said that we belong to a brotherhood which is free, and are not the servants of the argument; but the argument is our servant, and must wait our leisure. Who is our judge? Or where is the spectator having any right to censure or control us, as he might the poets?

 

Joe Ransdell

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Kirsti Määttänen

To: Peirce Discussion Forum

Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 7:14 AM

Subject: [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all about?

List,

First: Thank you, Joe very much for the NEW ELEMENTS & the incentive for a detailed discussion. I've just read the first part of the mails on the thread & the text, with keen interest, though only once.

What I wish to do, is to stick with the question "What is it all about?" for a while. I have a special interest in this particular question, related to a method I originally developed for a Peircean course on text and argument analysis for students working on their PhD or Master's theses. I've described some aspects of it in discussions with Gary, first ON, then OFF Peirce-list, soon after joining the list a couple of years ago. Since then, I've had reason to reconsider what would be the best way to convey the most basic idea in it. As one result I decided to name it Dialogical Argument Analysis. Now I'm planning to write a paper of the method next summer, based on my notes for the lectures and tasks for the students. First in Finnish, perhaps later in English. So my motive in this comes partly from furthering that plan.

I hope this does not interfere with the plans Joe has in mind. If it does, please just tell me so, Joe!

There may well be a host of more or less similar methods, which I do not know of. But, as I've always found it best, for me that is, to let my own experiences lead the way, I'll stick to that also now. Also, I may add, my aim with the method is not particularly to present something new, but to explicate (in Peircean terms) and make more systematic (in a Peircean way) what we all ordinarily do when we try to find out what various writings are all about - or when we, deliberately and consciously or spontaneously, have other questions in mind, with which we hope the text in question may be helpful in finding an answer.

Well, hope you haven't got all bored with the lengthy introductory part - if so, I apologize & trust those of you have, have already resorted to delete button. And to those, who haven't, a word of warning: What follows is very boring!

Now I'll try and apply some of the basic rules of the method to NEW ELEMENTS, just to see where it leads, for a start.

First, I agree with Bernard, who wrote that he finds it best

BM:... to go directly to the text of New Elements because I think it to be the most immediate way of dealing with the question "So what is it all about?" (as well as answering it).

As Peirce quite frequently notes, we must start with what we have. So, what do we have here?
In simplest terms, we have a text, a question, and an interest to find a reasonably well grounded answer, as economically as possible.

What is needed is a method, preferably as Peircean as possible, suitable for present purposes.

In simplest terms, a method consists of a guiding principle and a reasonably systematic way of proceeding from a question to an array of answers, which may then be critically examined, in order to proceed from (some of) them to new questions, etc.

With a question like: What is this all about? the first step I've found the best is to see if, and what the author explicitly states. That is: stick to quotes from the text. As few as possible and as short as possible, but not too few or too short for the purpose of getting on with the task & without losing anything essential from the text as a whole.

Bernard already took up one citation:
1) "A scholium is a comment upon the logical structure of the doctrine. This preface is a scholium." (EP2, p. 303).

So, in most general terms, it is all about logical structure. And, less generally, about the logical structure of a doctrine.

I'd provisionally add three more:

2) CP: "Logic, for me, is the study of the essential conditions to which signs must conform in order to function as such."

3) CP: "It is the Proposition which forms the main subject of this whole scholium; (...)"
/fontfamily>
4) CP: "We can now see what judgment and assertion are. (...)" [n the last paragraph, just before final conclusions. So, it must be an integral part of what the whole, as a whole, is all about.]

/fontfamily>Let's see, then, what we can make up of these four short citations (There most probably are more to be found in the text, but they may be added later, if necessary).

So, NE is a comment upon the logical structure of a doctrine, the general nature of which is explicated in citation 2). Citation 3) is about the main subject of this scholium, the proposition. - So far, so good.

But 4) presents a small, but not perhaps insignificant, problem. It is nor clear enough from these short citations only, taken out of their respective contexts, how judgement and assertion relate to 1)-3). So, lets see if it's helpful to take a somewhat longer citation of one or more. My first candidate for this is 3):

3) CP: "It is the Proposition which forms the main subject of this whole scholium; for the distinctions of vague and distinct, general and individual are propositional distinctions. I have endeavored to restrain myself from long discussions of terminology. But here we reach a point where a very common terminology overlaps an erroneous conception. Namely those logicians who follow the lead of Germans, instead of treating of propositions, speak of “judgments” (Urtheile). They regard a proposition as merely an expression in speech or writing of a judgment. More than one error is involved in this practice."/fontfamily>

Well, this is clearly too long for the present purpose, so I'll make a tentative shortened version of it:
3) CP: "It is the Proposition which forms the main subject of this whole scholium; [...] those logicians who follow the lead of Germans, instead of treating of propositions, speak of “judgments” (Urtheile). They regard a proposition as merely an expression in speech or writing of a judgment. More than one error is involved in this practice."/fontfamily>

- From this one can infer that it is about critical comments on how the relation between proposition and judgement are to be understood, especially in relation to what it is that is expressed in speech or writing. - If the rule of sticking to quotes were followed in strictest terms, then one ore more quotes with the term "assertion" should be added. But let's loosen the rule, and take the "what is expressed in speech or writing" to be an assertion.

Let's also skip the next step, which would be to explicate, write down, the first provisional answer to the question, inferred from quotes only.

Then it would be time to choose the most general of the ideas in the provisional answer, and read the first, introductory part of the paper, from the angle given by the idea. To me it clearly seems to be: "This is all about logical structure." - I already tried it, and to me it worked just fine. But I'll leave it to the next mail, if there is to be one.

Just one more comment:

Bernard also wrote:

BM: I think more and more that the only topic on which this text is all about is nothing but METAPHYSICS.

This I find very intriguing. Metaphysics is what Peirce explicitly says he wishes to avoid here. So, in terms of quotes, the answer would be negative. Still, it may not be the case. In fact, I'd tend to affirm the idea. Provisionally, of course.

Best,

Kirsti

Finally, I have a basic reservation in dealing with Peirce's work from the point of view of its expected audience. I think that Peirce never elaborated his contributions for any audience except for this audience that he used to call the Truth. When he tried to make something like that, for example an elementary book in mathematics, the manuscript was judged too much original to be published by the editors. May be that in some circumstances the case could be made that he was making a specific discourse but it would have to be strongly justified by the defender of such a view, I think.

Bernard took up:

BM: The first thing that always appeared strange to me is that Peirce is beginning with a long development about Euclid's exposition. But we know that precisely a great revolution had already taken place in mathematics under the auspice of non euclidian geometries. I think Peirce is here just saving what had made the value of euclidian geometry in his view, the deductive method as well as the associated style of exposition.

This style amounts to some general and abstract statements, which are just set down in order to show their necessary consequences. The logical structure of the exposition has not to be made explicit because it is to the reader's activity to realize it for himself.
In brief I think Peirce is revisiting the basic points of his semiotic doctrine of the time, in order to see what he could further make of it, but without ordering nor explaining it, that is to say without making any kind of argument in the proper sense.

/fontfamily>

Kirsti Määttänen
<kirstima <at> saunalahti.fi>/fontfamily>

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.25/246 - Release Date: 1/30/2006

---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber ransdell4 <at> cox.net

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.25/246 - Release Date: 1/30/2006