Dear list:
How ironic this situation that Peirce ought to be read “scientifically”… What would God be? *A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God*… “We suppose that what we haven’t examined is like what we have examined, and that these laws are absolute, and the whole universe is a boundless machine working by the blind laws of mechanics. *This is a philosophy which leaves no room for a God!* No, indeed! It leaves even human consciousness, which cannot well be denied to exist, as a perfectly idle and functionless *flâneur* in the world, with no possible influence upon anything – not even upon itself. Now will you tell me that this fallibilism amounts to nothing?” “For what is “first for us” is not the philosophic understanding of the city but that understanding which is inherent in the city as such…according to which the city sees itself as subject and subservient to the divine in the ordinary understanding of the divine or looks up to it. Only by beginning at this point will we be open to the full impact of the all-important question which is coeval with philosophy although the philosophers do not frequently pronounce it- the question *quid sit deus*.” ~City and Man "Oh, I now realize you always knew this. But I've just come to recognize how central the question *'Quid sit deus?'* is." ~Bloom to Benardete But you know…to each his own. One, two, three...esthetics, ethics, logic...icon, index, symbol.... Best, Jerry Rhee On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 9, 2016, at 1:45 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > > I read Peirce primarily for his insights into logic, mathematics, > and science, which are considerable enough for several lifetimes, > and I read him the same way I read other thinkers in those areas. > Maybe some people read Peirce as Charles the Revelator, applying > the principles of scriptural interpretation and chasing his tale > around hermeneutic circles in hopes of cornering a sublime truth. > Scientific texts are read a different way. There we have a line > between two kinds of statements, those that serve as conjectures, > heuristics, or suggestions and those that are proved (or proven). > > > I think there are two things to get straight. History of philosophy which > hopefully tries to figure out how particular thinkers understood terms. > That’s useful because often readers of their texts get things wrong. The > difficulty is that of course people are hardly always consistent > (particularly in notes) and are also fallible. So there are always debates > about what is a mistake, what place private notes ought play, and what > place a few particular sentences ought have in understanding larger texts. > Frequently the authors are underdetermined. i.e. we can’t be sure what they > mean. Sometimes this leads to radically different readings of the > philosopher. (My favorite example is the middle Heidegger on the question > of whether he’s an idealist or realist on the basis of one small paragraph > in Being and Time) > > Now history of philosophy can lead to productive engagements with > philosophers. However I tend to agree it gets pushed too much. Philosophy > has a long history of productive use of misreadings - both in terms of > positively misreading or reacting to a position that is often a misreading. > (Strawmen boogeymen like how Descartes, Plato, Logical Positivists or > others are great examples of the latter) > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
