Clark, Jon, Jerry, Edwina, List:

Perhaps this essay can  help in finding what Peirce meant by speaking of
this "theory of thinking" in the Neglected Argument:

http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/chiasson/revisit.htm

Ben N.



*Ben Novak <http://bennovak.net>*
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 Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote:

>
> On Sep 16, 2016, at 11:28 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:
>
> This to me suggests that at least some of the force of the NA is
> “extracted” not from the concept of God as defined by Peirce but from the
> vernacular concept. Peirce does distinguish between the two concepts, right
> at the beginning, but as far as I can see he does not make it very clear
> which one of them is supposed to be *instinctive* and therefore at the
> root of the NA.
>
>
> This is really an important point. I’ll confess I don’t know the nuances
> of Peirce’s religious belief. However it seems to me the problem with the
> NA is that in theory people with different conceptions of God could conduct
> the same experiment and it’d equally be an argument for those conceptions.
>
> When I’ve discussed the NA with others I also note that in terms of
> pragmatic inquiry and fallibilism the fact so many who’d conduct the
> argument would not come to Peirce’s conclusions is problematic. (Think all
> the atheists who probably make up the majority of Peirceans) Given that
> it’s the community of inquirers in the long run that matters, this is a big
> problem for the NA. (IMO)
>
> On Sep 16, 2016, at 5:20 PM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The existence of God amuses me. What about the nature of god. This was
> radically changed by Jesus who did not appear to accept him as a tribal
> deity, or the explicit ruler of history in an interventionist mode. etc. I
> have always assumed Peirce had a mystical experience in a church not far
> from where I write, and that his encounter was with a deity rather more
> benign than the one who inhabits the pages of most Scripture. I am merely
> commenting on the fact that the nature is more important than existence per
> se.
>
>
> While Peirce’s conception of God appears somewhat idiosyncratic compared
> to the majority view of the 19th century, it does seem heavily influenced
> by traditional creeds that defined the Trinity. I’d love to know how Peirce
> dealt with that sort of criticism.
>
>
> On Sep 16, 2016, at 11:28 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:
>
> I take this as a version of the “light of nature” doctrine I mentioned
> above; but again, it leaves open the question of whether we are referring
> to God as *ens necessarium* or to the vernacular concept. If the former,
> this use of the term “God” would make Peirce a pantheist or panentheist,
> but would not commit him to the belief that the creator is benign. It would
> also not commit him to the habit of regarding the creator as “vaguely like
> a man” (CP 5.536), which does seem to be involved in Peirce’s NA, and which
> he takes to be an instinctive belief. On that point I disagree with Peirce;
> and I think this deflates the argument as summarized by Nubiola, as it
> renders the term “God” quite dispensable from it. The conclusion would be
> better stated as: *there is reason to suspect that human minds and nature
> come from the same source.* Or that *human mind is part of nature*.
>
>
> Your very useful “Answers to Questions Concerning My Belief in God” (CP
> 6.494) ends up leaving me more questions than answers on just these matters
> - in particular how he deals with the Christian doctrine of the incarnation
> and the two natures of Jesus.
>
> http://www.gnusystems.ca/CSPgod.htm
>
> Admittedly Peirce was raised an Unitarian who don’t think Jesus is God as
> I recall but is a creature created by God. (Please correct me if I’m wrong
> in that) However in his first marriage he became Episcopal and adopted its
> notion of the trinity. At times he applies the trinity to his trichotomies.
>
> While we’ve been talking of God in the NA as real but not existing, Peirce
> I believe at other times talks of God as second which is Jesus who does
> exist. Gerard Deledalle’s paper on this has been reprinted in numerous
> books. I confess even after checking it again I still don’t know what
> Peirce means by that. He takes the NA as showing the reality of God but
> just doesn’t deal with existence and thus is compatible with the
> incarnation.
>
> Anyone else have further information on this point relative to Peirce?
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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