[Inquiry] Re: Kaina Stoicheia

[Jon Awbrey]

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

KS.  Note 21

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

| One distinguished writer seems to hold that, although events
| conform to the formula, or rather, although it conforms to the
| Truth of facts, yet it does not influence the facts.  This comes
| perilously near to being pure verbiage;  for, seeing that nobody
| pretends that the formula exerts a compulsive force on the events,
| what definite meaning can attach to this emphatic denial of the
| law's influencing the facts?  The law had such mode of being as
| it ever has before all the facts had come into existence, for it
| might already be experientially known;  and then the law existing,
| when the facts happen there is agreement between them and the law.
|
| What is it, then, that this writer has in mind?  If it were not
| for the extraordinary misconception of the word "cause" by Mill,
| I should say that the idea of metaphysical sequence implied in that
| word, in "influence", and in other similar words was perfectly clear.
| Mill's singularity is that he speaks of the cause of a singular event.
| Everybody else speaks of the cause of a "fact", which is an element of
| the event.  But, with Mill, it is the event in its entirety which is
| caused.  The consequence is that Mill is obliged to define the cause
| as the totality of all the circumstances attending the event.  This is,
| strictly speaking, the Universe of being in its totality.  But any event,
| just as it exists, in its entirety, is nothing else but the same Universe
| of being in its totality.  It strictly follows, therefore, from Mill's use
| of the words, that the only 'causatum' is the entire Universe of being and
| that its only cause is itself.  He thus deprives the word of all utility.
|
| As everybody else but Mill and his school more or less clearly
| understands the word, it is a highly useful one.  That which
| is caused, the 'causatum', is, not the entire event, but
| such abstracted element of an event as is expressible
| in a proposition, or what we call a "fact".  The cause
| is another "fact".  Namely, it is, in the first place,
| a fact which could, within the range of possibility,
| have its being without the being of the 'causatum';
| but, secondly, it could not be a real fact while
| a certain third complementary fact, expressed
| or understood, was realized, without the being
| of the causatum;  and thirdly, although the
| actually realized causatum might perhaps be
| realized by other causes or by accident,
| yet the existence of the entire possible
| causatum could not be realized without
| the cause in question.
|
| It may be added that a part of a cause, if a part in
| that respect in which the cause is a cause, is also
| called a 'cause'.  In other respects, too, the scope
| of the word will be somewhat widened in the sequel.
|
| C.S. Peirce, ["Kaina Stoicheia"], NEM 4, 252
|
| C.S. Peirce, ["Kaina Stoicheia"], MS 517 (1904), pp. 235-263 in:
| Carolyn Eisele (ed.), 'The New Elements of Mathematics by
| Charles S. Peirce, Volume 4, Mathematical Philosophy',
| Mouton, The Hague, 1976.
|
| Cf. "New Elements", pp. 300-324 in 'The Essential Peirce, Volume 2 (1893-1913)',
| Peirce Edition Project (eds.), Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1998.

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