> On Sep 5, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > No, Peirce was an Aristotelian not a Platonist or NeoPlatonist. The latter > proposes some power or force 'beyond or outside of being' - and Peirce > rejects this. And to define Peirce as a neo-Platonist because he read > Platonists such as Plotinus - is a weak argument. Equally, to define him as > such ..even though he wasn't conscious of it - is even weaker.
I don’t think the argument is to define him as a Platonist. There are too many clear ways he’s not one. Rather it’s to argue for one particular parallel in their views. Also recall that Plotinus and the others were attempting to be true to Plato through an Aristotelian lens. So there’s not quite the divide there you suggest. Plotinus in particular is a synthesis of the two. So the argument isn’t what you portray it to be. Again, at least read Parker. Even if you completely disagree with him it’s well worth reading. (I think he’s a lurker here, btw. He posts every now and then)
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
