Murray Murphey
finds Peirce's declaration that individual identity consists in a continuity of reactions to be inconsistent with «either the definition of reaction or of continuity — there can not be a continuum of instantaneous events.
Not exact matches
Does not
Peirce's argument for the improbability of an exact zero of a property
found in highly variable degrees, and in highly variable extents of space, hold against the exact truth of Euclidian geometry?
To say that there is spontaneity in the world, then, is to say that ordered generality, or what for
Peirce is intelligibility, is
founded on the unique, or what resists intelligibility.
The inconsistencies Murphey
finds in
Peirce's attempt to define individual identity are unavoidable if one begins with the assumption that the identity of an individual consists in a collection of independent reactions.
Peirce ends the paragraph by remarking that this «common sense idea of continuity» is not that
found in «the calculus and theory of functions,» according to which continuity «is only a collection of independent points.
It seems as if CARRIE remake director, Kimberly
Peirce, is
finding a niche for herself.