Analysis and decomposition in Peirce. (English) Zbl 1506.03009
Summary: Peirce seems to maintain two incompatible theses: that a sentence is multiply analyzable into subject and predicate, and that a sentence is uniquely analyzable as a combination of rhemata of first intention and rhemata of second intention. In this paper it is argued that the incompatibility disappears as soon as we distinguish, following Dummett’s work on Frege, two distinct notions of analysis: ‘analysis’ proper, whose purpose is to display the manner in which the sense of a sentence is determined by the senses of its constituent parts, and ‘decomposition’, which is the process of dividing a sentence into a predicate and a subject, and whose purpose is to both to explain how quantified sentences are constructed and to evidence a pattern within a sentence which it shares with other sentences.
MSC:
| 03A05 | Philosophical and critical aspects of logic and foundations |
References:
| [1] | Anellis, I. (2012). How Peircean was the “Fregean Revolution” in Logic? arXiv:1201.0353 [math.HO]. |
| [2] | Bellucci, F., Peirce’s continuous predicates, Transactions of the Charles S Peirce Society, 49, 178-202 (2013) · doi:10.2979/trancharpeirsoc.49.2.178 |
| [3] | Bellucci, F., Peirce’s speculative grammar (2017), New York: Routledge, New York · doi:10.4324/9781315211008 |
| [4] | Currie, G., The analysis of thoughts, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 63, 283-298 (1985) · doi:10.1080/00048408512341891 |
| [5] | Donnellan, K., Reference and definite descriptions, The Philosophical Review, 75, 281-304 (1966) · doi:10.2307/2183143 |
| [6] | Dummett, M. (1981a). Frege: Philosophy of language. London: Duckworth (1st edn 1973). |
| [7] | Dummett, M., The interpretation of Frege’s philosophy (1981), London: Duckworth, London |
| [8] | Dummett, M., Frege and Other Philosophers (1991), Oxford: Clarendon, Oxford |
| [9] | Frege, G. (1979). Posthumous writings (H. Hermes, F. Kambartel, F. Kaulbach, Eds., P. Long & R. White, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell. |
| [10] | Hawkins, B., Peirce and Frege, a question unanswered, Modern Logic, 3, 376-383 (1993) · Zbl 0794.01008 |
| [11] | Hilpinen, R., On Peirce’s philosophical logic: Propositions and their objects, Transactions of the Charles S Peirce Society, 28, 467-488 (1992) |
| [12] | Hilpinen, R.; Ketner, K., Peirce on language and reference, Peirce and contemporary thought, 272-303 (1995), New York: Fordham University Press, New York |
| [13] | Levine, J., Analysis and decomposition in Frege and Russell, The Philosophical Quarterly, 52, 195-216 (2002) · doi:10.1111/1467-9213.00262 |
| [14] | Peirce, C. S. (1932-1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, 8 vols. Edited by C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, & A. Burks. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. |
| [15] | Peirce, C. S. (1977). Semiotics and Significs. The correspondence between Charles S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby. Edited by C. S. Hardwick. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. |
| [16] | Pietarinen, A-V, Signs of logic. Peircean themes on the philosophy of language, games, and communication (2006), Dordrecht: Springer, Dordrecht · Zbl 1116.03002 |
| [17] | Roberts, DD, The existential graphs of Charles S. Peirce (1973), The Hague/Paris: Mouton, The Hague/Paris · doi:10.1515/9783110226225 |
| [18] | Robin, R., Annotated catalogue of the papers of Charles S. Peirce (1967), Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst |
| [19] | Russell, B., On denoting, Mind, 14, 479-493 (1905) · doi:10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479 |
| [20] | Stjernfelt, F., Dicisigns, Synthese, 192, 1019-1054 (2015) · Zbl 1357.03009 · doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0406-5 |
| [21] | Sullivan, P.; Potter, M.; Ricketts, T., Dummett’s Frege, The Cambridge companion to Frege, 86-117 (2010), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge · Zbl 1364.00018 · doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521624282.004 |
| [22] | Textor, M., Frege’s recognition criterion for thoughts and its problems, Synthese, 195, 2677-2696 (2018) · Zbl 1398.03042 · doi:10.1007/s11229-017-1345-8 |
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.
