[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Fabula Rasa

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:07:07 -0400
Message-id: <46C0577B.3080407@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Ingvar and Jon,    (01)

I agree that it's important to distinguish both aspects
and be conscious of which issue is being addressed in
any particular sentence (or paragraph or word).    (02)

 > Don't mix semantic questions such as 'what is the
 > correspondence theory of truth saying?' with epistemological
 > questions such as 'how do we know that a certain
 > statement is true?'.    (03)

On the other hand, Peirce treated both areas in a more
integrated way.  In fact, one major advantage of the
philosophy of science is that it addresses both aspects
together.  However, Peirce addressed *every* aspect of
cognition for *every* application -- scientific or
every day -- in his semiotics.  That approach cuts through
and across many traditional questions that have been
compartmentalized by different -ologies.  Peirce certainly
distinguished them when it was necessary to distinguish
them, but he didn't regard the party lines as barriers
to research.    (04)

Short answer:  I sympathize with both of you.  But my
orientation toward Peirce makes me impatient with the
traditional ways of compartmentalizing the issues.    (05)

(However, I am willing to talk along the lines of
the old-fashioned -ologies in order to facilitate
the translations to a Peircean style of semiotics.)    (06)

John    (07)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (08)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>