Phaneroscopy, Semeiotic, Logic
I. The Gist of the Argument
My parting word to you, Reader, in the number for October, 1906,56 was a promise that in the present article the relevancy of the system of Existential Graphs to the question of the truth of Pragmaticism should be disclosed. Today, I straightway proceed to redeem that promise. I have already explained to you what Pragmaticism is; so that you are already aware that it is a theory in regard to the common nature of the meanings of all concepts. But you have seen (or should you not be satisfied with it, the next following sections of this article shall make it clear to you), that Existential Graphs furnish a moving picture of the action of the mind in thought,—that is, to so much of that as is common to thoughts on all subjects. The study of that system, then, must reveal whatever common nature is necessarily shared by the significations of all thoughts. You ‘catch on’, I hope. I mean, you apprehend in what way the system of Existential Graphs is to furnish a test of the truth or falsity of Pragmaticism. Namely, a sufficient study of the Graphs should show what nature is truly common to all significations of concepts; whereupon a comparison will show whether this nature be or be not the very ilk that Pragmaticism (by the definition of it) avers that it is. It is true that the two terms of this comparison,...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.