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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sep 16, 2016, at 11:28 AM, [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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, [email protected] 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 > [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 .
