Hi Ben, list: What do you take as the thing that determines it in Chiasson's essay, then?
Thanks, Jerry R On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Ben Novak <trevriz...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
