Speculation of logic: Peirce

In a essay of 1895, Of reasoning in general, Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914) worked a speculation of human intelligence, and he didn’t said it but he has used the normal and philosophical method of Aristotle(b. Ch.384-322), this the speculative search, hence he has translated the truth, the human truth, this is the natural exercise: “Logic is the art of reasoning. The old times saw endless disputes as to whether logic was an art or a science. It is not worth while even to explain what those words were taken to mean. The present definition, respectable in its antiquity and superficiality, is intended merely to afford a rough preliminary notion of what this treatise is about. This chapter shall tell something more; but the student cannot expect to attain a real comprehension of the nature of logic till after he has gone through the book. The facts upon which logic is based come mostly within ordinary knowledge; though many escape ordinary notice. The science is largely, not wholly, one of rearrangement. Article 2. Reasoning is the process by which we attain a belief which we regard as the result of previous knowledge. Some beliefs are results of other knowledge without the believer suspecting it. After a sojourn among young people exclusively, an acquaintance met may seem to have aged more than he really has. This is a case of error. But not all such results are erroneous. A stranger with whom I am dealing may make an impression of being dishonest owing to indications too slight for me to know what they are. Yet the impression may be well founded. Such results are usually set down to "intuition." Though inferential in their nature, they are not exactly inferences. Again, a given belief may be regarded as the effect of another given belief, without our seeming to see clearly why or how. Such a process is usually called an inference; but it ought not to be called a rational inference, or reasoning. A blind force constrains us. Thus, Descartes declares himself obliged to believe that he exists because he remarks that he thinks. Yet he seems to doubt (in that stage of his inquiry) whether everything that thinks exists.”, Through inference we must think  to common intuition, the verb infer is from the Latin inferred, this is to bring in, that during centuries, as occurred for every word, has changed its mean, and now it is means to understand, to intuit. The word illation signifies a process of inference. Reasoning, in general, is sometimes called ratiocination. Argumentation is the expression of a reasoning. Argument may be mental or expressed. The belief to which an inference leads is called the conclusion, the beliefs from which it sets out are called the premises. (Sometimes written premisses) The fact that the premises necessitate the truth of the conclusion is called the consequence, or following of the conclusion from the premises.”; it is the description of normal think and intuition, certainly the judges are that he has described the obviousness, certainly, but it is so obvious that nobody has described before; and the premisses that Peirce has mentioned are the necessary argument so that every think has a logic conclusion; if we think well this think and this written of Peirce we can also, in opinion of author, that it is alone semiotic; in fact the description of think is semiotic, that we reading, can intuit because the description through the scripted signs enables to us of understand the significance, and report it to our daily experience, but read and recognize the signs, to understand the significance, because we can report it to our daily experience it is semiotic, because we understand some sign and we are informed about something. Regard to believes Peirce said: “Belief is a state of mind of the nature of a habit, of which the person is aware, and which, if he acts deliberately on a suitable occasion, would induce him to act in a way different from what he might act in the absence of such habit.”; the semiotic exam continues because Peirce, in same essay, said: “Thus, if a man believes a straight line to be the shortest distance between two points, then in case he wishes to proceed by the shortest way from one point to another, and thinks he can move in a straight line, he will endeavor to do so. If a man really believes that alcohol is injurious to him, and does not choose to injure himself, but still drinks for the sake of the momentary satisfaction, then he is not acting deliberately. But a habit of which we are not aware, or with which we are not deliberately satisfied, is not a belief. An act of consciousness in which a person thinks he recognizes a belief is called a judgment. The expression of a judgment is called in logic a proposition. The step in bold are necessary to understand the semiotic that after I have mentioned; “If a man really believes that alcohol is injurious to him, and does not choose to injure himself, but still drinks for the sake of the momentary satisfaction”, it is semiotic examination; because we can understanding from the daily reality the need of a man that drinks alone to pleasure but without to be drunk, and the description of judge is other step of semiotic science, because give to us an explication that is normal absolutely, daily and logic, hence nothing that can be important, but if we think it in semiotic sense and we report it to a semiotic code also the daily become interesting. Regard to sign Peirce given this judge: “A sign is a thing which serves to convey knowledge of some other thing, which it is said to stand for or represent. This thing is called the object of the sign; the idea in the mind that the sign excites, which is a mental sign of the same object, is called an interpretant of the sign. Signs are of three classes, namely, Icons (or images), Indices, and Symbols.”.   

Alessandro Lusana

 American semiotic: Charles Sanders Peirce

The true father of semiotic matter is emerged, the true father for methodologic system, because for the philosophical is Aristotle(b.Ch. 384-322), Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914) is the true father, in an his essay, What is a sign, in year 1894, he written: “There are three kinds of signs. firstly, there are likenesses, or icons; which serve to convey ideas of the things they represent simply by imitating them. Secondly, there are indications, or indices; which show something about things, on account of their being physically connected with them. Such is a guidepost, which points down the road to be taken, or a relative pronoun, which is placed just after the name of the thing intended to be denoted, or a vocative exclamation, as "Hi! there," which acts upon the nerves of the person addressed and forces his attention. Thirdly, there are symbols, or general signs, which have become associated with their meanings by usage. Such are most words, and phrases, and speeches, and books, and libraries. Let us consider the various uses of these three kinds of signs more closely.”, the words: “ Such is a guidepost”, is a, indication very much important because the semiotic is such; this is the guidepost, that is normal reference that we use and, the psychology wasn’t the preferred matter of Peirce also because it was a matter very marginal, anyway the guidepost that we use both consciously and unconsciously but it is always present, but it is a sign or more signs, that we have in our mind. He continued: “Let us consider the various uses of these three kinds of signs more closely. Likenesses. Photographs, especially instantaneous photographs, are very instructive, because we know that they are in certain respects exactly like the objects they represent. But this resemblance is due to the photographs having been produced under such circumstances that they were physically forced to correspond point by point to nature.”; it is the birth of semiotic, the speculation of a sign or other on the photos that gives to us precise indications; the read is saying: “It is normal”, and answer is: “It so normal that nobody has descripted before”, Robert Musil(1880-1942) has said: “The monument is so great that nobody sees it”; this mention is opportune and necessary because doesn’t explains what is the semiotic, but enables for two motives: the first is that allows of identification of method of semiotic, the importance of sign, now took as the matter of study, the second consideration is that this exercise is absolutely normal, daily, habitual therefore we hasn’t considered that this exercise can become a matter of study, because it is the obviousness. Peirce has though also an hierarchy for the signs: the first is naturally the evidence of a photos, where the nature is evident, here other considerations are useless: “In that aspect, then, they belong to the second class of signs, those by physical connection. The case is different, if I surmise that zebras are likely to be obstinate, or otherwise disagreeable animals, because they seem to have a general resemblance to donkeys, and donkeys are self-willed.”, the clearest explication of semiotic is in this example, because Peirce explain, through the example, the capacity of mankind of supposition, that it can makes for alone the signs, the zebra can resemble to donkey, but it are alone surmises, that man can give for the sign or behavior of animals; in short it is the semiotic, hence the methodologic father of Semiotic is Charles Sanders Peirce.

Alessandro Lusana     

    

 

The evolution of Heraclitus: Charles Peirce

Through the word synechism, very low m can understand what is from ancient Greek, somebody can misunderstand and thinks to a recipe of a foreign dish, but it is alone a philosophical think, that the author, this is Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914), explained in one his essay: “The word synechism is the English form of the Greek, from συνεκισμός from συνεκης continuous. For two centuries we have been affixing -is and -ism to words, in order to note sects which exalt the importance of those elements which the stem-words signify. Thus, materialism is the doctrine that matter is everything, idealism the doctrine that ideas are everything, dualism the philosophy which splits everything in two. In like manner, I have proposed to make synechism mean the tendency to regard everything as continuous. For many years I have been endeavoring to develop this idea, and have, of late, given some of my results in the Monist. carry the doctrine so far as to maintain that continuity governs the whole domain of experience in every element of it. Accordingly, every proposition, except so far as it relates to an unattainable limit of experience (which I call the Absolute), is to be taken with an indefinite qualification; for a proposition which has no relation whatever to experience is devoid of all meaning.3 I propose here, without going into the extremely difficult question of the evidences of this doctrine, to give a specimen of the manner in which it can be applied to religious questions. I cannot here treat in fall of the method of its application. It readily yields corollaries which appear at first highly enigmatic; but their meaning is cleared up by a more thoroughgoing application of the principle. This principle is, of course, itself to be understood in a synechistic sense; and, so understood, it in no wise contradicts itself. Consequently, it must lead to definite results, if the deductions are accurately performed.” Important note that is explicative for this concept is the following; it is true, the three dimension of space are generally with synechism Pierce find other dimension that are right, because the space is various but it is the speculative philosophy; the analysis that Pierce made regard this step is upshot of a think that he called: “…is a purely scientific philosophy…”. The conception of Pierce regard the space that is continuous is an evolution of Heraclitus, but with other sense, what? In geometrical words we can imagine that Heraclitus, with his πάντα ρει this is everything passes as the water of a river, he has imagined a line long, but alone straight, instead Pierce has imagined the extension of space everywhere, in fact he has spoken about the metempsychosis, that is transmutation of soul from a body to other after the death, and the deny that is in following words, above all, about the angles is an evolution of Heraclitus, because everything passes, but the direction can be other and not alone straight: “Thoroughgoing synechism will not permit us to say that the sum of the angles of a triangle exactly equals two right angles, but only that it equals that quantity plus or minus some quantity which is excessively small for all the triangles we can measure. We must not accept the proposition that space has three dimensions as strictly accurate; but can only say that any movements of bodies out of the three dimensions are at most exceedingly minute.” For the metempsychosis Pierce said, without mention of this religion: “But, further, synechism recognizes that the carnal consciousness is but a small part of the man. There is, in the second place, the social consciousness, by which a man's spirit is embodied in others, and which continues to live and breathe and have its being very much longer than superficial observers think. Nor is this, by any means, all. A man is capable of a spiritual consciousness, which constitutes him one of the eternal verities, which is embodied in the universe as a whole. This as an archetypal idea can never fail; and in the world to come is destined to a special spiritual embodiment.”, and he added, regard the general conception of synechysm: “I have said enough, I think, to show that, though synechism is not religion, but, on the contrary, is a purely scientific philosophy, yet: should it become

generally accepted, as I confidently anticipate, it may play a part in the onement of religion and science.”

Alessandro Lusana

 

 

 A Medieval copy of Aristotle: Ockham

The Semiotic studies the significance of words and their use, hence their mean, an example: an offence to somebody on the street is an offence to somebody that we can know or not, the same offence in theatre is laughable, because the context is different, whereby it isn’t an offence but a cute of script; thereby the words have more means in the different context, it is simply obvious, but I must say it because the code of Semiotic isn’t much know, this is it isn’t obvious; I am considering the code of Semiotic, that alone during the 19^th century has been codified, but the matter, or conceptual matter, necessary to successive formulation is explained involuntary from Aristotle. The semiotic sense that in Nominalism of Ockham we can find in the following step: “I say that spoken words are signs subordinated to concepts or intentions of the soul not because in the strict sense of signify they always signify the concepts of the soul primarily and properly. The points is rather that spoken words are used to signify the very things that are signified something a spoken word signify the something signified by a particular concept of the mind. If that the concept were to change its signification, by that fact alone it would happen that the spoken word would change its signification, even in the absence of any new linguistic convention”. May William dreaded that he didn’t be quite clear, hence has added also this step, mentioning the father of semiotic, this is Aristotle: “This is all that Aristotle means when he says that spoken words are signs of the impression of the soul and Boethius  means the same  thing when he says that spoken words signify concepts. In general, whenever writers say that all spoken words secondarily signify the thing impression of the soul primarily signify. Nonetheless, it is true that some spoken words primarily designate impressions of the soul as will be shown later.”, An error is present in this description of Ockham because he thought that De interpretatione of Boethius was a independent book of same philosopher, instead it was a translation from Περί έρμηνείας of Aristotle, that Ockham could not read because he didn’t know the ancient Greek; therefore he has took from same author, this is Aristotle, an interpretation, he could not know it, but he has given to us an important datum, what is? Simple that Aristotle is philosophic father of semiotic instead that Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914) and Ferdinand de Saussure(1857-1913), they have given more precise indication regard the codes and method, for interpretation and use the semiotic, but they have rightly given the methodologic codes, but the first use, although isn’t official, is from Aristotle from the Analytic and form the Περί έρμηνείας; there is the first conceptual definition and use, although, I repeat, involuntary of semiotic. This hypothesis is confirmed from the steps that Ockham has took and he has almost copied: “Now, there are certain difference among these three kinds of terms. For one thing the concept or impression of the soul signifies naturally; whereas the spoken or written term signifies only conventionally. This difference given rise to a further difference. We can decide to alter the signification of a spoken or written term, but no decision or agreement on the part of anyone can have the effect of altering the signification of a conceptual term.”. The Semiotic studies the significance of words and their use.

Alessandro Lusana     

               

 

Scholastic semiotic: William Ockham

A philosopher of Scholastic is a philosophical address that, during Middle age 13^th and 14^th centuries, was the principal school for philosophers that from convent schools was extended to Universities, as for examples that of Paris, Oxford, Bologna, Napoli and other; a exponent of this address was William from Ochkam(1280-1349), British Franciscan that taught in Oxford, and in a his book he explains the nominalism; but we can think this philosopher as semiotic post Aristotle(384-322), because for me Aristotle is the first semiotic in the philosophy; the semiotics, that has had his independence as single matter alone in 19^th century, but that has its origin in Aristotle, that William from Ockham has read through a translated book that he mentions, as the Analytics, this is the syllogism, may from the De interpretatione of Boethius(480-526 b.Ch), that has descripted the Analytics of Aristotle, anyway William gives some relevant motive for this analysis semiotic alone: “All those who treat of logic try to show that arguments are composed of proposition of terms. Thus a term is simply a component part of a proposition. When he defines the notion of a term in the first book of the Prior Analytics, Aristotle says, “I call that a term into which a proposition is resolved(for example the predicate or that of which it is predicated) when it is asserted or denied that something is or is not the case.” Although every term is(or could be) a part of a proposition, not all terms are the same kind. Thus, to gain a full understanding of a nature of terms one must know some of the divisions that are drawn among them. As Boethius points out in Commentary on the book of De Interpretatione, discourse is of three types, the written, the spoken, and the conceptual(this last existing inly in the mind). In the same way there are three sorts of terms, written, spoken, and conceptual”. It is alone a speculative, hence Aristotelian, description of logic organization of concept that after we organize rationally, or at last we try, but it is alone semiotics, in Medieval time, that took from other authors this is Aristotle and Boethius, that are before of Scholastic but Ockham is in the Scholastic and interesting is the follow that indirectly Aristotle has in the Middle age, that is a datum by now certain, because Aristotle is every present until the philosophy of 19^th century; therefore in Middle age, also in Pagan authors as Saint Thomas from Aquino(1225-1274), in the Summa theological; whereby Aristotle is a presence always present, at last in intellectual traits, but to semiotic level, except Boethius, he is absent; the merit of Ockham is that he took the basilar concepts od Nominalism, but after he developed this concept through the semiotics, that is the first clear example of semiotics, and I say the first because Aristotle has had the sake of explication of logic search, thereby the syllogism is a tool or method alone, that Aristotle has explained, but his principal duty was the explication of search not certainly the semiotics, Ockham instead uses the semiotics, and for him the valor is alone the words, hence the semiotics.

Alessandro Lusana    

            

 

 

 

    

 Platonic essence

The Platonic essence I mean that the real essence of everything, that Plato(427-347) seen in essence; this is in  the nature of everything, I take typical example that Plato used, this is the essence of a horse is “cavallinite”, the nature of the horse, that for Plato is the correspondent ideas in the word of ideas, he thinks that it is the nature of the horse, and Antisthenes(436-366 b.Ch), cynic philosopher, that answered to Plato: “Dear Plato I see the horse but not essence of horse”, because for Antisthenes alone that is visible exists, other is alone the fantasies. It is certain but we can think that Plato with essence of horse or everything meant the essence but both that of word of ideas and that real, because the translation of in the real word become a concept material; hence the essence is real and no certainly abstract or alone ideal, as the real is everything that is in the word of ideas. I want alone add this my opinion to common concept of Plato as an idealist philosopher, this is that thinks the real word as a translation of ideal word, it is the mean that I think for idealist, and no in Hegelian sense; for me Plato think the translation od ideal word in the real word, but this translation, becoming real, must become also concrete; therefore also the cavallinite is real, and it is the real essence, and we can think it so, the concrete essence, this is the together of characteristic of everything, that in human gender are much, for example a stone is different, from other, for his nature although both were stones, for the man is same but our characteristic is in the character, in our wit, in our brain, that is the source of our wit; the difference is in it, this is in our nature, that is formed from the education, from the social context where we are born, and other; it is our essence, and I think that Plato has considered the nature of man and of everything but thinking to real essence, this is the translation in the concrete word, that is the real representation, although imperfect, but speculative of the ideas word; hence also the essence is an translation and also it becomes real; thereupon when Antisthenes critics Plato, saying that he doesn’t see the essence, for Plato the essence is evident; because in a man or horse the essence is evident in the external characteristic, that is the form animal or human, but after the formal shape the essence is internal, and Plato considers it as the nature of word of ideas, this is the true nature of everything, that is hide until it is expressed evidently, that is the nature of something, whereby neither Antisthenes neither other can see it, because Plato has considered alone the interior part of everything.

Alessandro Lusana       

         

 The nascent States

The birth of States in USA is summary descripted from Philip Mazzei (1730-1816) he begun with the Connecticut, he says, but I want also stress that the merchant of colonies was well present, and it is motive of the end of “revolution”, because the England needed alone the harbors: “A colony of Connecticut have to his origin to Massachusetts for the same motives of Rhode Island and his birth is same of epoch . During the year 1636 a great number of persons, disliked above all for religion, they quit, with their ministers Newtown, Dorchester,Watertown and Rocksbury, and they come and stopped on the bank of river Connecticuct, where they founded the cities of Hartford , Watersfîeld, Windfor, Springfield , and Ceux, and they were met out of borderline of Massachussets and they will meet in Hartford, and they agree about the way for the govern, and they will voted the judges. The year after some emigrant from England made the same thing in New Haven, that they founded on the bank opposite of Long Island. The two small colonies of Hartford de New Heaven continued to be governed separately, until they were reunited with the name of colonies of Connecticut, fo0r the document of Charles 2th in 23th April 1662. Around the foundation of New Hampshire. Among the big names of taxes on the merchant of captain Mason had reached among the different times from the assembly of Plymouth, and that are the source of eternal process, he has reached one in year 1629, and that he given to whole state of New Hampshire, and today is valid, and a part of near colonies near. An other name both his and that of Ferdinand Gorges agreed for a part of country given before. The 19^th August 1635 Charles given a paper to mason for gratification for the same country enclosed of 1627, and more to him he given the right of govern and bestow the honors…”. About de foundation of Maryland. The Lord Baltimore Se Guillaume Penn, founders of colony of Maryland and Pennsylvania were the first that reached the papers that the king of England given. Among who is passed from England to colonies for the religion cause, the knight George Calvert and the secretary of State, after Lord Baltimore. During the end of reign of James 1th he come to Virginia with somebody of different sects, that have had the same motive for exile. They being the zealous Catholic, but they were bad received for the adherence to Anglican religion, hence he turned to England, for asked to Charles 1th a paper through he can extent the Virginia state beyond the Potomac river, borderline that the residents haven’t crossed…this paper is dated 1632…The residents of Virginia protested again the dissolution of their territory, but they could not to avoid it. Lord Baltimore called his country Maryland to honor of Mary, marriage of Charles 1th, and he called to govern Léonard Calvert, his brother, Jeremy  Hawley and Thomas Cornwallis…During the civil war in England(1642-1649), Oliver Cromwell(1599-1658) got away to Lord Baltimore of his jurisdiction, and after Charles 2th given back it…”, and after with successor of Charles 2th got away again this power alone for religious motives, this power he took again during the reign of William 3th d’Orange(1650-1702), but a limit there was, this is that he must be the represent of a Protestant govern”. The important question is that the States by now freely nascent, and the real court of England was very tolerant toward the religion, and with William d’Orange it is more evident, because the politic sake overcomes that religious, and the symbolic act is a side of submission to king of England: “The kings wanted set new clauses on the papers that attests to their favor the right of reign and domain. For the example that to de Baltimore confirmed the oblige that every year have to give two arrows of Indian to the castle of Windsor”, it is could seem a cock up because a country that have had the fire weapons why needs of Indian arrows? Simple, absolutely nothing, but the homage was important because it attested the predominance of royal power also in the new word, it was alone a formal gift, that given to d’Orange the possibility of substitute de Baltimore with other if this homage there wasn’t, but evidently the motives for substitution of de Baltimore would have been other if he has been a very bad governor, but he was a very good governor, hence the formal homage was necessary to ascertain his fidelity to laic crow and no to religion. Mazzei as enlightenment took a principle of solidarity between the States, that then aren’t so, but he has stressed this moment: “The people made quick progresses in Maryland for some good motives. The Virgine given the food to emigrants until they took alone the necessary. The borderline toward the Indians were very narrow, and to residents in Maryland it wasn’t difficult kept the peace to them”. The history of States would be long and boring, also because without interest, but I want evidence that the England was interested alone the power of commerce. And after the “revolution” unique interest of England was alone it.

 Alessandro Lusana