The best outline is in Some Consequences of Four Incapacities, where he writes:
"We cannot begin with complete doubt. We must begin with all the prejudices which we actually have when we enter upon the study of philosophy....5.265 And see 5.265..."We have no power of Intuition, but every cognition is determined logically by previous cognitions'. http://www.peirce.org/writings/p27.html But he repeats these views - and his rejection of 'pure doubt' throughout his writings. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Novak To: Peirce-L Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 6:09 AM 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 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 To: Clark Goble Cc: Peirce-L 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_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 [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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
