Ben,

 

I’m sure Peirce said this kind of thing, but not sure which specific passage 
you have in mind. Anyway, if you bought the Past Masters CD from Intelex, you 
should still be in their database; all you need to do is email them and they 
will give you access to the online edition through whatever browser you are 
using. (You have to call them again when you change computers or browsers, as 
I’ve done several times now, but so far they’ve always restored my access at no 
charge. Email supp...@nlx.com <mailto:supp...@nlx.com> .

 

Once you have access you can simply copy text from your browser to your 
clipboard and paste it into an email message (if the message will get sent in 
HTML format). 

 

Gary f.

 

From: Ben Novak [mailto:trevriz...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 20-Sep-16 06:10
To: Peirce-L <peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

 

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 
<mailto: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 
<mailto: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 <mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com>  

To: Clark Goble <mailto:cl...@lextek.com>  

Cc: Peirce-L <mailto: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 
<mailto:cl...@lextek.com> > wrote:

 

On Sep 19, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca 
<mailto: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_attachments/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 
<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>  . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to 
PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu <mailto: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 
<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>  . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to 
PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu <mailto: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 
<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>  . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to 
PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu <mailto: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