[Inquiry] Re: Logic 101

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

LOG.  Note 2

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

| Logic Chapter 1 (cont.)
|
| Kant first formed a table of the various logical divisions of judgments, and
| then deduced his categories directly from these.  For example, corresponding
| to a categorical form of judgment is the relation of substance and accident,
| and corresponding to the hypothetical form is the relation of cause and effect.
| The correspondences between the functions of judgment and the categories are
| obvious and certain.  So far the method is perfect.  Its defect is that it
| affords no warrant for the correctness of the preliminary table, and does
| not display that direct reference to the unity of consistency which alone
| gives validity to the categories.
|
| Partly in order to remedy this defect, Hegel produced his logic.
| He begins at the unity of being and runs through the categories
| guided by the homogeneousness of their internal relationships,
| and ends with the functions of judgment.  He brought to the
| task such a surpassing genius for this kind of thought,
| that by the result of his labor, this inverted method
| must be finally judged.  Now his procedure does not
| seem to give determinate solutions;  but the results
| seem to be arbitrary;  for whereas he has finally
| arrived at the same divisions of the judgment as
| were made by Kant and currently received at
| Hegel's day, the more recent researches of
| logic have essentially modified these and
| have shown them to be wrong.
|
| C.S. Peirce, 'Chronological Edition', CE 1, 351-352
|
| C.S. Peirce, "Logic Chapter 1", MS 115 (1866), pp. 351-356 in:
|'Writings of Charles S. Peirce:  A Chronological Edition',
|'Volume 1, 1857-1866', Peirce Edition Project,
| Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1982.

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o