Thank you so much for noting this. I think it casts light without being a
necessary gateway -- both things are good.
My work to develop Triadic Philosophy is supported by the contention here
that this s about the conduct of life. About arriving through musement at
decisions. It is about a way of living.
The material on optimism and pessimism must ultimately become a discussion
of the spectrum of values which range from best to worst. I suspect that
science is not inimical to such a discussion as mental health undergoes a
necessary adjustment after two centuries of somewhat binary conflict.
I wonder if Peirce was inclined to carry the NA thoughts further. I am not
sure where it would have gone.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 6:31 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:
> 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
>> 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.
>> 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
>> 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