Stephen - glad to hear that your analysis also permits atheism within all thought processes. As i noted, Phyllis Chiasson is a well-known and esteemed Peircean scholar. My own term of 'god' is Mind, which removes the anthropomorphism, which acknowledges its reality, its universality, and acknowledges its nature as Reason - along with spontaneity within the actions of Mind.
Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen C. Rose To: Edwina Taborsky Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Mine does. Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: Ben, thanks for your outline - a very clear and succinct summary. Phyllis Chiasson is an esteemed Peircean scholar - I appreiate her analysis of the NA. A key factor in her analysis, with its focus on thought processes, is that it permits atheism - while retaining all thought processes. I suspect that Jon's interpretation doesn't permit such a result. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Novak To: Jerry Rhee Cc: Jon Alan Schmidt ; Peirce-L Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 6:22 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Dear Jerry, Jon, List: Jerry R: "What do you take as the thing that determines it in Chiasson's essay, then?" The author, Phyllis Chiasson, states right up front: This brief essay will show that, in demonstrating his meaning of abductive reasoning, Peirce laid out the attitude and method from which all decisions of importance to the conduct of a life should begin. It will then show, based upon Peirce's Neglected Argument, that it is the attitude from which the abductive reasoning process is undergone--and not a particular hypothesis resulting from the abduction--which produces the sorts of hypotheses worthy of testing out by means of making one's various life choices accordingly . Later in her argument, she states what is essential for a "theory of thinking," namely, a proper frame of mind to enter into thinking maximally fruitfully: What's being proposed here is the possiblity that the Actual consequence (as Peirce defines Actual in N.A.) of the optimistic Musement stage of abductive reasoning (the only way in which a sane person would perform this stage) is not an hypothesis of the Reality of God, but rather the Reality of the sort of hypotheses of which the Reality of God might be a type? So, what is that reality? Chiasson suggests that it means two hypotheses: Though God is a value-laden term for most people--the idea of God's Reality, in Peirce's sense, does not have to signify a specific being--nor need it have a religion connected up to it. It appears that Peirce's use of the term, God, may have signified an ongoing inquiry into the [1] hypothesis that there is meaning resulting from the way in which an individual conducts his life. This meaning is a consequence of deliberate choices of conduct based upon having abductively developed the [2] hypothesis that what he does matters to both the immediate and ultimate outcome of things that may be beyond his ken. Now, these two hypotheses (bolded) seem to me to be pretty important aspects of any complete "theory of thinking." They also seem to be about as close to suggesting the reality of God (at least as far as Chiasson describes what can be meant by God) as one can possibly get. That is the short version, according to Chiasson, who then delves into the longer version: what is meant by the logic of abduction, suggesting the reason why the Neglected Argument for the Reality of God is mostly devoted to Peirce's most complete discussion of abduction. Thus she writes: And that's the short version of of Peirce's "Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" in action. But what does this essay mean in terms of Peirce's pragmatism--in terms of the meaning of abduction? When it comes to a real theory of thinking, what could be more relevant than this: Peirce's argument here appears to be much the same as all the rest that he wrote about the role of abduction in pragmatism. He argued in this essay for the place of optimistic meandering by means of abduction to develop the hypothesis of God. (We could just as easily call this optimistic, aesthetic meandering) He argued for the place of ethical principles as the basis for developing the explication and demonstration of this hypothesis. He emphasized the place of action-reaction-interpretation as the ongoing process for setting out to prove the hypothesis of God-the same way as he would have us set about to prove anything else. The only apparent difference between this essay and Peirce's more 'scientific' ones is that the experiment in this case requires an individual to consciously engage himself in the experience of living his life. The proof--if it can be called that--resides in testing and adjusting as necessary to the conditions of the hypothesis throughout the conduct of one's life and not in any other objective measure. This is directly relevant to Peirce's theory of thinking, because it goes to the prerequisites of fruitful thinking, for example, writes Chiasson: In 'A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God", then, Peirce really argued for the Reality of the ways in which one's perspective (or vision) directs the aesthetic Chiasson certainly wraps it all up into a more complete theory of thinking: It is in this sense that Peirce's "Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" appears to make the most sense and to have the greatest application to human conduct--and this may be, indeed, its very meaning. As Peirce wrote in "What Pragamtism is": But of the myriad forms in which a proposition may be translated, what is that one which is to be called its very meaning? It is, according to the pragmaticist, that form in which the proposition becomes applicable to human conduct, not in these or those special circumstances, nor when one entertains this or that special design, but that form which is most directly applicable to self-control under every situation and to every purpose. [32] What more is there that the Hypothesis of God could mean? If one can define accurately all of the conceivable experimental phenomena which the affirmation or denial of a concept could imply, one will have therein a complete definition of the concept, and there is absolutely nothing else in it. [33] Perhaps Peirce's Neglected Argument is suggesting to us that this is it. Perhaps this is all there is to the meaning of abduction and the meaning of pragmatism that follows from this. Maybe this is the point from which we can begin to understand what Peirce was hoping to do when he wrote to Lady Welby in 1911: "I am just now trying to get a small book written in which I positively prove just what the justification of each of the three types of reasoning consists in...and showing the real nature of Retroduction." Returning to the question with which this email begins--Jerry R.: "What do you take as the thing that determines it in Chiasson's essay, then?"--it seems that Peirce's Neglected Argument really does revolve around all the themes we have been talking about, namely 1) An argument for the reality of God 2) his laying out of abduction 3) a theory of thinking and it seems like Chiasson has found a way to nest them all together rather well. Her concluding sentence seems to be the first step to what Jon is looking for when he commenced this thread as a quest to discover Peirce's theory of thinking: Perhaps it is by examining the activities at this earliest stage of abductive reasoning (Musement)--where new possibilities first present themselves for consideration--we can begin to build a clearer idea of what Peirce actually intended for abduction--and his theory of pragmaticism to mean. JerryR, I hope this answers your question. Jon, I hope this furnishes a fruitful beginning for pursuing yours, which you have made ours, too. Ben N. 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 Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: Jon, I suppose that settles it then. For what is stated in your response is how to make our ideas clear, or one over many. Best, JR On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: Jerry R., List: JR: Is it your claim, then, that the actual proposition should matter? All I am saying is that the title of Peirce's article strongly suggests that it is primarily about a neglected argument for the Reality of God. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: Jon, list: You said: “ I find it rather implausible that a work entitled "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" was somehow intended to be more about "the attitude and method from which all decisions of importance to the conduct of a life should begin," such that the content of the hypothesis itself is secondary or even irrelevant.” That is an interesting statement. Is it your claim, then, that the actual proposition should matter? If it matters so much, then, what is it for this situation, the proposition/hypothesis; that thing that makes the matter answerable? That is, if "The hypothesis cannot be admitted, even as a hypothesis, unless it be supposed that it would account for the facts or some of them?" what is the argument in logical form for the NA? Where is the beginning of such a thing? Thanks, Jerry R ----------------------------- 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 .
