Helmut, List: HR: (What I have not yet got, is the difference between reality and existence: No idea)
Briefly, my understanding of Peirce's use of terminology is that existence is a subset of reality--everything that exists is real, but not everything that is real exists. All three Universes of Experience are real; only the Universe of Brute Actuality exists. Reality consists of that which has whatever characters it has, regardless of whether anyone thinks or believes that it has those characters; existence consists of that which interacts or reacts with other things. Examples of what can be real without existing include possibilities and qualities (Firstness), as well as laws and habits (Thirdness); examples of what exists include actual individuals and occurrences (Secondness). Hope that helps, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Kirstima, list, > I guess that is for a reason: Ontology is the theory of what is, and "is", > being, is caused by a predicate, which is something percieved, so something > known (epistemology), added to a thing, that otherwise would lack reality > (or was it existence?), would not even be a thing? I have understood this > from this list a few weeks ago, when it went about "being". (I hope Ive got > it right. What I have not yet got, is the difference between reality and > existence: No idea) What this view comes down to is some sort of > constructivism, in the sense, that "thing" is not something that can exist > "in itself", but only as something percieved. Perception though is a > capability merely of some person, so all this suits somehow to what I had > written before, and corrobates the God-argument too, I think: We know that > there was a world before organisms have existed. So there were things. But > by whom might they have been percieved and thus turned into beings, > "things" at all, when there were no organisms? Must be by God, who else, > when there has not been anybody else at that time. Or so. > Best, > Helmut >
----------------------------- 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 .
