What you say sounds all well and good but I’m confused.
In a description for the abductive process, an inadequate version can be
“The grass is wet, therefore, it must have rained last night.
For *if *it rained last night, *then* the grass ought to be wet.”
“Knowledge is the object of our inquiry, and men do not think they know a
thing till they have grasped the 'why' of it (which is to grasp its primary
then my question is ‘Why the Reality of God’ and not “lawn is wet”?
Also, what does this have to do with not only Truth-searching, but
That is, if Truth is, as Edwina says:
“…is it rather the case that this semiosis activity must continue on, for
some time *until that I-O relation does indeed correlate with the R-O
Relation? Isn't this what Peirce meant by eventually arriving at the
then as Jon says, the hypothesis or the proposition should matter.
So, what is O? What is R? What is I?
That is, how can the R-O relation meet the I-O without the premisses?
I think without this, there is no getting at the Truth or Reality of
“The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who
investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in
this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality”.
I believe this, irrespective of the attitude I adopt, since it is the
method, which also must be adopted. For without a method, then we’re right
back to arguing with no course for how to determine a good hypothesis from
a bad one.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
> Clark- thanks for your very nice outline of the NA - I certainly agree
> with your view, that as Chiasson says, it's not just about a 'belief in
> God', because it's not deductive but is, as noted, abductive. Abduction
> inserts freedom and spontaneity - attributes outside of the range of a God.
> And agreed - the NA doesn't offer 'compelling reasons for why we should
> call this *ens necessarium* as god. I, as an atheist, prefer his outline
> of Mind as the *ens necessarium*.
> As Mind is an action of Reasoning [within all three modes], then, I think
> that ethics is grounded within it. You don't, in my reading, require a God,
> for ethics.
> It’s worth noting the connection here between Peirce and Spinoza. Of
> course that could be indirect since many of the early German idealists like
> Hegel were highly influenced by Spinoza. But I’ve long thought the direct
> influence was significant.
> For a good paper on the influence see
> Spinoza of course explicitly calls his unity God and ties it to ethics.
> However the Jewish rabbis disagreed and thought him an atheists leading to
> his excommunication.
> That gets again to my point that the *name* God seems to be the dispute
> rather than the content. That said though many post Peircean figures
> strongly want to call God as God while giving his nature freedom and
> spontaneity. The process theology movement that started with Whitehead
> being the most obvious philosophical example although there were others.
> Later process theologians were explicitly influenced by Peirce despite many
> of Peirce’s writings being difficult to find at the time.
> 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