Harold, list: Thanks for your comments. 

I think one has to, as I said, first define the term 'God'. If by that term, 
one means a universal Reason or Mind, then, I acknowledge its reality, and 
always have.  One has only to, as Peirce said, consider the intricate forms and 
interactions of nature on this planet to acknowledge that randomness and 
natural selection didn't create or maintain such intricate and interactional 
complexity. 

And Anselm's argument seems to me to be purely conceptual [if you think of it, 
then...] whereas my acknowledgement of the reality of Mind, a rational force of 
universal interactional and collaborative order within the universe, relies 
actually on observation of such an interactional order.

Edwina
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Harold Orbach 
  To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu 
  Cc: jerryr...@gmail.com ; trevriz...@gmail.com ; Gary Richmond ; 
tabor...@primus.ca ; jonalanschm...@gmail.com 
  Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 7:01 PM
  Subject: Fwd: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking


  My previous message, attached below, didn't get to the Peirce list but only 
apparently to Ben Novak and Jerry Rhee.  The latest exchange, especially 
attacking Edwina for her personal beliefs about the EXISTENCE of God, i.e., the 
minority view of that small segment of the inhabitants of the 7th Rock from the 
Sun, does not interfere with her accepting the REALITY of THAT God, as Peirce 
apparently did.  But there is a persistent confusion on the part of those who 
apparently believe in the EXISTENCE of that God, which there is no evidence 
that Peirce ever did, with HIS REALITY.  Perhaps the list members might read 
Peirce's agreement, clearly  expressed on more than one occasion for his 
youthful friend, Francis E. Abbot's view on the matter.  Or of that of James, 
Dewey and Mead.


  Harold L. Orbach 


  Sent from my iPhone

  Begin forwarded message:


    From: <h...@ksu.edu>
    Date: September 14, 2016 at 1:20:31 AM CDT
    To: Ben Novak <trevriz...@gmail.com>
    Cc: Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com>, Peirce-L <peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>
    Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking


    Pardon my intrusion into this unending mishmash:


    1.  Peirce's neglected argument is for the REALITY of God  not  the 
EXISTENCE of God.


    2. Anselm's ontological argument for the EXISTENCE of God is not "pretty 
nearly the most famous argument in the history of philosophy," only in the 
history of a small segment of the so-called WESTERN world, a minor part of the 
total areas and populations of what is termed "the earth" that came to dominate 
and "discover" most of the other areas for a few hundred years up to the 
present compared with other civilizations or empires that had dominance over 
larger and smaller areas for thousands of years.  


    3.  Other lands and peoples have and have had different views on the nature 
of God or Gods or Goddesses or if there are any that EXIST and how anyone might 
come to know this.  They also have and have had different kinds of "things" 
that were believed to be gods or sacred.


    Harold L. Orbach
    PhD, University of Minnesota Sociology, Philosophy, Psychology
    Emeritus, Kansas State University
    Sent from my iPhone

    On Sep 13, 2016, at 10:32 PM, Ben Novak <trevriz...@gmail.com> wrote:


      Dear Jerry, List: 


      You ask two questions. First, what is Anselm's ontological argument. 
Thankfully, that is easy to answer. It is short, and I append it to this email 
at the end.


      Your second question is why "you are imposing the question on us, which 
includes me [Jerry Rhee]?



      First. let me clarify for the record: I am not from Missouri, and only 
used that phrase assuming everyone is familiar with it, in order to get to the 
"show me" part. Further, I do not know whether everyone in Missouri has heard 
of Anselm's ontological argument, though I assume not.


      However, I would expect (silly me!) that anyone with a Ph.D. would have 
heard of it, since it is pretty nearly the most famous argument about God's 
existence in the history of philosophy, and would be expected to be brought up 
in any introductory, or history of, philosophy course or in any conversation or 
study anytime anyone questions whether God exists.  



      Further, since we are talking about Peirce's "Neglected Argument for the 
Reality of God," Anselm's argument would naturally come to mind as soon as 
anyone inquires into why Peirce thought his argument had been "neglected." In 
other words, the very title of Peirce's paper points to other arguments for 
God's existence in the context of which he is placing his. But it is worth 
noting that Peirce did not claim that he had a new argument, but suggests by 
his title that it may have arisen before and was merely "neglected." So he was 
bringing a long neglected argument back into view. At least I take that to be 
one possible interpretation of the suggestion in his title.(On the other hand, 
I take Peirce's title to imply that he felt his argument had been neglected 
because it was so simple!!!! that no one thought to dignify it previously. 
Silly me.)


      Since the original questions that commenced this chain include "How 
exactly is "this theory of thinking" logically connected with "the hypothesis 
of God's reality"? I assumed that that was to be one of the major questions 
dealt with in the discussion, which Jon thought to begin by asking his four 
questions.


      Now, the ontological argument has evoked a stupendous literature in 
philosophy and logic, because it seems to prove the existence of God by a 
purely logical and non-empirical method. That is why it is called ontological, 
i.e., the argument proceeds only from being (onto=being).  Philosophers agree 
that Anselm makes at least two different arguments in chapters II and III, 
though some philosophers find three and even four separate arguments. Many 
logicians have wrestled with it, and some logicians see it as a "modal" 
argument.


      The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives a very brief and readable 
description of Anselm's ontological argument: Be sure  to read sections 1, 2a, 
3, and 4.


      http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/



      I hope that you will agree, after reading the brief account in the link 
above that Anselm is quite relevant to placing Peirce's "neglected" argument 
into context. The connection is that both Anselm and Peirce seek to prove God's 
existence purely from a thought process. 


      Now, if you want to read a different take on Anselm's understanding of 
what is meant by "existence," I invite you to read my article entitled "Anselm 
on Nothing," in the International Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 48, Issue 3, 
September 2008, pages 305-320, which you may read on line here:


      https://www.academia.edu/13891780/Anselm_on_Nothing



      For this second link, it must be borne in mind that Anselm wrote two 
tracts relating to God's existence (or being), and the first link deals with 
his second work, the Proslogion, where his famous ontological argument is found 
(appended below), while the second link (my article) deals mostly with Anselm's 
arguments in his first work, the Monologion. (Understand, too, that my views 
though increasingly cited are nevertheless minority.)


      Understand too that Peirce's works were constantly on my mind throughout 
writing "Anselm on Nothing," and that I planned to write a second article on 
Peirce and Anselm, but was largely discouraged from doing so by the realization 
that Peirceans would disagree with just about everything a simple person like 
me would say about Peirce's thought---which is why I was so excited when Jon 
posted his questions that began this chain.For example, I thought the example I 
gave of simple firstness, secondness, and thirdness was safe, but I received a 
private email from an observer of this list that such is not the case: 


      Echoing others, the Firstness-Secondness-Thirdness ordering in your 
example is too linear. It should be Firstness-Thirdness-Secondness. That is, 
some shock meets your habitual conditioning which determines the reaction. How 
else could we have different reactions?



      So, I need a lot of enlightenment, which is why I appreciate this forum 
so much. 


      In any event, appended below are Chapters II, III, and IV of the 
Proslogion, which contains Anselm's famous ontological argument;




      Ben
      Chapter II
      Therefore, O Lord, who grantest to faith understanding, grant unto me 
that, so far as Thou knowest it to be expedient for me, I may understand that 
Thou art, as we believe; and also that Thou art what we believe Thee to be. And 
of a truth we believe that Thou art somewhat than which no greater can be 
conceived. Is there then nothing real that can be thus described? for the fool 
hath said in his heart, There is no God. Yet surely even that fool himself when 
he hears me speak of somewhat than which nothing greater can be conceived under 
stands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding, even if 
he do not under stand that it really exists. It is one thing for a thing to be 
in the understanding, and another to understand that the thing really exists. 
For when a painter considers the work which he is to make, he has it indeed in 
his understanding; but he doth not yet understand that really to exist which as 
yet he has not made. But when he has painted his picture, then he both has the 
picture in his understanding, and also under stands it really to exist. Thus 
even the fool is certain that something exists, at least in his understanding, 
than which nothing greater can be conceived; because, when he hears this 
mentioned, he understands it, and whatsoever is understood, exists in the 
understanding. And surely that than which no greater can be conceived cannot 
exist only in the understanding. For if it exist indeed in the understanding 
only, it can be thought to exist also in reality; and real existence is more 
than existence in the under standing only. If then that than which no greater 
can be conceived exists in the understanding only, then that than which no 
greater can be conceived is something a greater than which can be conceived: 
but this is impossible. There fore it is certain that something than which no 
greater can be conceived exists both in the under standing and also in reality.

      Chapter II
      Not only does this something than which no greater can be conceived 
exist, but it exists in so true a sense that it cannot even be conceived not to 
exist. For it is possible to form the conception of an object whose 
non-existence shall be inconceivable; and such an object is of necessity 
greater than any object whose existence is conceivable: wherefore if that than 
which no greater can be conceived can be conceived not to exist; it follows 
that that than which no greater can be conceived is not that than which no 
greater can be conceived [for there can be thought a greater than it, namely, 
an object whose non-existence shall be inconceivable]; and this brings us to a 
contradiction. And thus it is proved that that thing than which no greater can 
be conceived exists in so true a sense, that it cannot even be conceived not to 
exist: and this thing art Thou, O Lord our God! And so Thou, O Lord my God, 
existest in so true a sense that Thou canst not even be conceived not to exist. 
And this is as is fitting. For if any mind could conceive aught better than 
Thee, then the creature would be ascending above the Creator, and judging the 
Creator; which is a supposition very absurd. Thou therefore dost exist in a 
truer sense than all else beside Thee, and art more real than all else beside 
Thee; because whatsoever else existeth, existeth in a less true sense than 
Thou, and therefore is less real than Thou. Why then said the fool in his 
heart, There is no God, when it is so plain to a rational mind that Thou art 
more real than any thing else? Why, except that he is a fool indeed?

      Chapter IV
      But how came the fool to say in his heart that which he could not 
conceive? or how came he to be able not to conceive that which yet he said in 
his heart? For it may be thought that to conceive and to say in one’s heart are 
one and the same thing. If it is true—nay, because it is true, that he 
conceived it, because he said it in his heart; and also true that he did not 
say it in his heart because he could not conceive it; it follows that there are 
two senses in which something may be understood to be conceived or said in the 
heart. For in one sense we are said to have a conception of something, when we 
have a conception of the word that signifies it; and in another sense, when we 
understand what the thing really is. In the former sense then we may say that 
God is conceived not to exist: but in the latter, He cannot by any means be 
conceived not to exist. For no man that understandeth what fire and water mean, 
can conceive that fire is really water; though he may have this conception, as 
far as the words go. Thus in like manner no man that understandeth what God is 
can conceive that God does not exist; although he may say these words [that God 
does not exist] either with no meaning at all, or with some other meaning than 
that which they properly bear. For God is that than which no greater can be 
conceived. He who well under standeth what this is, certainly understandeth it 
to be such as cannot even be conceived not to exist. Whosoever therefore 
understandeth in this way that God exists, cannot conceive that he does not 
exist. Thanks be to Thee, O good Lord, thanks be to Thee! because that which 
heretofore I believed by Thy grace, I now by Thine illumination thus 
understand, so that, even though I should not wish to believe in Thine 
existence, I cannot but understand that Thou dost exist.















      Ben Novak 
      5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142
      Telephone: (814) 808-5702

      "All art is mortal, not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts 
themselves. One day the last portrait of Rembrandt and the last bar of Mozart 
will have ceased to be—though possibly a colored canvas and a sheet of notes 
may remain—because the last eye and the last ear accessible to their message 
will have gone." Oswald Spengler



      On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote:

        Ben,  


        What is Anselm's ontological argument, for it is my opinion that 
someone from Missouri is expected to know it. 


        If I, being from Missouri, is not expected to know about Anselm's 
ontological argument, then why are you imposing the question on us, which 
includes me?


        Best,
        Jerry R


        On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Ben Novak <trevriz...@gmail.com> wrote:

          Dear Jon Alan Schmidt: 


          I would like to go back to the point that this chain of emails began. 
Jon Alan Schmidt asked about something he found Peirce had said in the 
Neglected Argument, which had been omitted in the version published in the 
Essential Peirce:




            CSP:  Among the many pertinent considerations which have been 
crowded out of this article, I may just mention that it could have been shown 
that the hypothesis of God's Reality is logically not so isolated a conclusion 
as it may seem.  On the contrary, it is connected so with a theory of the 
nature of thinking that if this be proved so is that.  Now there is no such 
difficulty in tracing experiential consequences of this theory of thinking as 
there are in attempting directly to trace out other consequences of God's 
reality.


          Jon said that raised "a few interesting questions," namely:
            1.. To what specifically was Peirce referring here as "a theory of 
the nature of thinking"--the three stages of a "complete inquiry" and their 
"logical validity," as laid out in sections III and IV of the paper, or 
something else?
            2.. How exactly is "this theory of thinking" logically connected 
with "the hypothesis of God's reality"?
            3.. What would be some "experiential consequences of this theory of 
thinking" that we could, with comparatively little difficulty, deductively 
trace and inductively test?
            4.. What exactly would it mean to "prove" Peirce's "theory of the 
nature of thinking," such that "the hypothesis of God's reality" would thereby 
also be "proved"?

          I have some tentative thoughts about these matters, including a 
couple of ideas that I found in the secondary literature, but would appreciate 
seeing what others have to say initially.



          So, let me respond. 


          I thought I understood firstness, secondness, and thirdness when  our 
discussion began. This is the example I had in mind.  I am a student sitting in 
a class listening to an interesting lecture, when suddenly an explosion occurs. 
It could be a firecracker under behind the professor's desk, or a truck wreck 
on the street right outside the classroom windows. The sound of true explosion, 
whatever it is, is  sudden, unexpected, and immediate.  The sound or other 
shock waves hitting my body constitute firstness--I feel them. Secondness is 
what my body does in reaction, which is to  immediately and involuntarily, 
raise my head, flinch, and commence other bodily reactions to the explosion 
waves reaching me. Thirdness occurs next, when my mind begins to wonder what 
just happened. All this  can happen in far less than the blink of an eye.  
Peirce's analysis of it by breaking it down in this way was thought to be a 
fertile way of beginning to understand thinking, or to begin a theory of 
thinking.


          Please correct me again, Jon, if that is not an elementary example of 
firstness, etc. 


          However, I soon got lost in the subsequent discussion of these, where 
thirdness became intertwined with secondness and firstness, and so on, in the 
subsequent emails.  I do  not doubt that all of you are correct that Peirce did 
take this rudimentary example to far heights of thinking which I may just be 
constitutionally unable to rise to. But my reading of Peirce suggests that he 
was a very pragmatic person who appreciated someone from Missouri showing up 
and saying "show me." In any event, so much of the subsequent discussion 
involved concepts going back and forth with no examples that allowed them to be 
brought to earth for examination. At least, that is what it seemed to me.


          So, is it possible to get back to the original question. Remember 
that Peirce thought that all this became clear to him his daily walks through 
the woods, and he wrote this essay suggesting that its thinking would be 
available to anyone of ordinary intelligence who pondered the three universes 
suggested on their own daily walks through the woods.


          So, let's go back to Jon's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th questions, because I 
think he  is on to something:
            1.. How exactly is "this theory of thinking" logically connected 
with "the hypothesis of God's reality"?
            2.. What would be some "experiential consequences of this theory of 
thinking" that we could, with comparatively little difficulty, deductively 
trace and inductively test?
            3.. What exactly would it mean to "prove" Peirce's "theory of the 
nature of thinking," such that "the hypothesis of God's reality" would thereby 
also be "proved"?
          In response, some raised the ontological argument of St. Anselm. But 
the raising of it was not followed through. Here is my question (which I hope 
"nests" all three of Jon's questions): 


          What would Anselm's ontological argument look like if it were 
restated in Peirce's terms? In other words, could Anselm have discovered the 
same argument as Peirce? Would this give us any insight into the theory of 
thinking? Peirce says that we could, with comparatively little difficulty, 
deductively and inductively test such a theory of thinking. Someone from 
Missouri might say, "Show me."


          Ben Novak








          Ben Novak 
          5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142
          Telephone: (814) 808-5702

          "All art is mortal, not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts 
themselves. One day the last portrait of Rembrandt and the last bar of Mozart 
will have ceased to be—though possibly a colored canvas and a sheet of notes 
may remain—because the last eye and the last ear accessible to their message 
will have gone." Oswald Spengler



          On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> 
wrote:



              On 9/13/2016 3:29 AM, John Collier wrote:
                I used Peirce’s ideas fairly prominently in my philosophy of 
science courses in the 1980s and 90s. I also used his work to cast light on 
Kuhnian issues both in my classes and in my doctoral dissertation. Although the 
last was accepted enthusiastically, I continually got grumblings about how  was 
not teaching the Standard View properly.

                Maybe things have improved, with more naturalistic approaches 
becoming more prevalent, but the culture wars really made a mess of trying to 
bring in Peircean ideas because the view that science was a mere social 
construct seemed to be supported by naïve interpretations of Peirce. So I found 
myself apparently fighting myself at some times.



            Yes, the culture wars (which are still with us) are rather 
annoying. Not just because of how they try to make science into something we 
can control and thereby reject but because of how often they just read 
philosophers so badly. Lots of figures who make more careful subtle 
distinctions about science’s social aspects are appropriated for tasks they’d 
be aghast at. (Kuhn is the classic example although it’s not hard to find 
others)



            -----------------------------
            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 .










          -----------------------------
          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 .











      -----------------------------
      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 .







------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  -----------------------------
  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 .




-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to