[Inquiry] Re: Doctrine Of Individuals -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

DOI.  Discussion Note 3

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

CG = Clark Goble
JA = Jon Awbrey

Re: DOI-COM 1.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-January/002327.html
In: DOI-COM.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-January/thread.html#2327

CG: The reason I ask, is because one of Leibniz' more provocative doctrines
    was that of actual infinities -- something that he was often criticized
    for by later philosophers and that few today take seriously.  Indeed
    Peirce's notion of continuity which seems to entail actual infinities
    is, in my opinion, fairly unique and intriguingly Leibnizean.  Would
    you agree?  And if so, what would you say that main differences are.  
    (In the consideration of infinities and not comparing Peirce's
    logical atoms with Leibniz' monads).

I guess I've never understood what that was all about.
Can you explain what "actual infinity" means to you?

CG: The other intriguing question is whether Peirce's notion of
    "in the long run" which is the ideal end of inquiry, could
    be considered in all this.  If Truth is this ideal end,
    and perhaps also "substance" if we adopt his earliest
    writings, then his notion of determining logical atoms
    may also apply.

Again, I think the problem of absolute individuals
has more to do with "indefinity" than "infinity",
that is to say, not putting definite bounds on
what counts as a predicate.

Jon Awbrey

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