Dear List: Fifteen or sixteen years ago, I had the Intelex Past Masters version of the works of Peirce, and often have reason to recall a passage where Peirce explicitly talks about the importance--necessity--of belief to the conduct of science. As I recall, he argued that belief was necessary because the scientist had to believe that the universe was reasonable, and necessary to believe that our minds were capable of apprehending that reasonableness; otherwise, there was no use in pursuing it. The principal point of the passage, as I recall, is that for the scientist, belief was necessary.
I would greatly appreciate it if someone might provide that passage. Perhaps it may be helpful in our discussions. Perhaps not, but I can't know until I see the passage again... By way of explanation, unfortunately Intelex changed their method of delivering their product, and the CDs I got from them no longer work. See a partial explanation here: http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/links/intelex.htm It is not worth going further into why--unless someone knows a way to get around the disabling of Intelex CDs as a result of their change. The point is that I no longer have my former Intelex access to Peirce's works. That is why I am asking for your help in finding the passage referred to above. Thanks, 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 Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > Edwina, list: > > Yes, what you say is correct. > > This is why I disdain the lawn example so much, and for many other reasons > besides. > > As per the community and experience...there's also that! > > So, quid sit deus? What would God be? > > :) > > Best, > Jerry R > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Not sure of your point ,Jerry. Since I am sure you know that your example >> is a fallacy [fallacy of affirming the consequent]...After all, we all know >> that your grass is wet because you left the sprinkler on all night..... >> >> The problem I have with a truth defined as the I-O being similar to the >> R-O, is ..well....it requires that the Representamen be somehow 'untouched' >> or unaffected by experience. That is, can we trust the Representamen? I >> think the community-of-scholars is necessary in this situation, but even >> so..wasn't it Tolstoy who said that 'wrong does not cease to be wrong just >> because the majority shares in it'... >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> >> *To:* Clark Goble <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2016 2:52 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking >> >> Dear list: >> >> >> >> What you say sounds all well and good but I’m confused. >> >> >> >> In a description for the abductive process, an inadequate version can be >> given: >> >> >> >> “The grass is wet, therefore, it must have rained last night. >> >> For *if *it rained last night, *then* the grass ought to be wet.” >> >> >> >> So, if >> >> “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 cause);” >> >> >> >> 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 >> Truth-finding? >> >> >> >> 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 >> truth?”* >> >> >> >> 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 >> things, since >> >> “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. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Jerry Rhee >> >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sep 19, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> 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 >>> >>> http://www.commens.org/sites/default/files/biblio_attachment >>> s/peirce_and_spinozas_pragmaticist_metaphysics.pdf >>> >>> 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 >>> [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 . >> >> >> >> >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
