68

OverviewVersionsHelp

Facsimile

Transcription

Status: Complete

1908 Nov 11
Logic
31

I go on to explain what I mean by one thing being determined to
Accord with another. Let there be three Subjects λ, μ, ν and three
characters P, Q, and R. If P and Q both possess μ, which is the same as ν or nearly so and P is not more
definite in its nature than Q, or P possesses μ and Q possesses ν but
would not have possessed ν if P had not possessed μ, or if P possesses
μ, Q possesses ν, R possesses λ, and if R had not possessed λ, Q would not have
possessed μ, and if it had not been true that if R had not possessed λ, Q would
not have possessed ν then it would not be true that if P had not possessed μ,
R would not have possessed λ; in either of these three cases Q is said
to be determined to Accord with P.

Notes and Questions

Please sign in to write a note for this page

jeffdown1

This page contains a correction of a page found earlier in this collection (numbered and dated the same). The earlier page provided a logical analysis and definition of "determined in accord" that appears to contain a number of mistakes. Peirce says: "Preserve. Wanted when corrected." at the top, so he appears to explicit recognize that there some errors. The most obvious to me is that Peirce's earlier definition discussions subjects and their characters, but early on his mentions a character and does not say which subject it belongs to. My hunch is that he is trying on this page to provide the needed corrections, and they should be inserted into the account provided on that page. The problem is that much of upper left side of this page is struck through. Looking at the way he typically uses upper and lower case, which is to reserve upper case letters for subjects and lower for qualities or characters, he seems to move back and forth on this page in the use of upper and lower case in a manner that is inconsistent.