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 <jerryr...@gmail.com> 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 <tabor...@primus.ca>
> 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 <jerryr...@gmail.com>
>> *To:* Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com>
>> *Cc:* Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu>
>> *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 <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
>>>
>>> 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
>>> 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 .




Reply via email to