C. S. Peirce Manuscripts

Pages That Need Review

Logic Notebook 1867 Oct-Nov

1
Needs Review

1

1867 Nov. 24 I wish to investigate the nature of a simple [wraph] Such a concept first arises as predicated of some object (occasion of experience) S is M On the ground of some previous representation of the object. (Not immediate) The predication of the concept is virtually contained in the previous representation

To say that a simple concept is the immediate apprehension of a quality is [that] a mode of saying that its meaning is given in the repre sentation which gives rise to it [inasmuch] as it [is] as much [is] to say that that quality is contained in the representation.

Last edit over 6 years ago by dprince16
3
Needs Review

3

When I conceive as say "necessary", I have some singular object present to my imagination I have not all necessary things separately imaged. Doubted whether I ever have an absolutely singular object.

Last edit over 5 years ago by kheilajones

Logic Notebook 1867 March-Oct

6
Needs Review

6

19r

1867 March 25

35

Here is another point of view.

What is the function of a symbol as subject? To stand for certain things. Then if the predicate be true of all the things thay it stand for as yet that is for all which we yet know it to stand for, the symbol may stand as [Dr?] provisionally.

The difficulty with this is that it does not [Dr?] the synthetic probability of the inference.

It is however a good idea that a random selection is equivalent to all known _ the genius of there trio would hit that.

Last edit over 3 years ago by MarlowScribes
4
Needs Review

4

Only that which this subject or predicate represents -- only that which fulfills the function of that subject or predicate -- only that which the subject or predicate represents to to the [proposition ??] or to the other terms of [it ??].

Now a subject is a direct symbol of its subject to its predicate [and ??] of its a predicate of its predicate to its subject.

But a subject is also an imperfect representation of that genus from which it has been taken -- by which it is determined. It is not a semion sign of it as I have been said. It is an example of it.

A predicate is a representation of the thing of which it is a random character -- a copy of it.

This is horribly vague.

Last edit over 4 years ago by agerdom
10
Needs Review

10

21r

39

S is P

The objects of S have characters of P

The objects of have characters of

All objects of S have all elements of P

Last edit over 4 years ago by agerdom
5
Needs Review

5

[186ry ??] March 25

19r

35

Here is another point of view.

What is the function of a symbol as subject? To stand for certain things. Then if the predicate be true of all the things that it stands for as [yet ??] that is for all which we [yet ??] know it to stand for, the symbol may stand as subject provisionally.

The difficulty with this is that it does not represent the synthetic probability of the inference.

It is however a good idea [hest ??] a random selection is equivalent [to ??] all known -- the genus of those two would [like that ??].

Last edit over 4 years ago by agerdom
3
Needs Review

3

Only that which this subject or predicate represents -- only that which fulfills the function of that subject or predicate -- only that which the subject or predicate represents to to the [proposition ??] or to the other terms of [it ??].

Now a subject is a direct symbol of its subject to its predicate [and ??] of its a predicate of its predicate to its subject.

But a subject is also an imperfect representation of that genus from which it has been taken -- by which it is determined. It is not a semion sign of it as I have been said. It is an example of it.

A predicate is a representation of the thing of which it is a random character -- a copy of it.

This is horribly vague.

Last edit over 4 years ago by agerdom
9
Needs Review

9

April 12

The distinction must be observed between Induction & Hypothesis as formal operations & between them as leading to truth.

Certain characters are those know to belong to M

Last edit over 4 years ago by agerdom
7
Needs Review

7

We have

M is P in the sense that the actual denotation of things taken under M are P ([contingent ??]) [and ??] 2nd in the sense that all possible things taken under M would be P. (necessary)

On the same principle

S is M in the senses 1st that S has the qualities taken of M (attributive) 2nd that S has all qualities of M (subsumptive)

Still it may be doubted [if ??] hypothesis proceeds by random selection of qualities of the new predicate.

Last edit over 4 years ago by agerdom
8
Needs Review

8

20r

37

Then the principle would be the possible is like much of the actual.

1869 April 1.

What is taken -- the [present ??] -- of a class if it has any common character -- that character probably belongs to the class, or to the majority of it. or something like it And if what is known of the characters of a thing belong to another thing, the second thing has most of the characters of the first, probably.

The reason is that the parts compose the whole and therefore what does not belong to a number of parts the majority of the whole does not belong to the majority of the parts.

What does not belong to the most of the parts does not belong to the parts taken [mostly ??], because the parts to be taken are all the possible parts.

Last edit over 4 years ago by agerdom
Displaying pages 11 - 20 of 392 in total