Søren, List: It is interesting that you mentioned Edwina and quoted CP 6.24-25 at length. As you may recall, she and I discussed that same passage extensively a couple of months ago, in the thread on "Peirce's Objective Idealism." Unfortunately, we were unable to reach agreement on whether he rejected all three forms of hylopathy/monism that he described, and then adopted a fourth option (her reading); or only rejected two of them--neutralism and materialism--in favor of the third, idealism (my reading).
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Søren Brier <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Jon > > > > I have discussed this with Edwina before. I think the correct label for > Peirce is a Hylozoism or Hylopathism inspired by Aristotle, which only > indicates that matter is alive and in combination with his synechism that > matter is a living field. > > > > Peirce writes: *Has Time, or has Space, any limit or node? Is hylozoism > an opinion, actual or conceivable, rather than a senseless vocable; and if > so, what is, or would be, that opinion? What is consciousness or mind like; > meaning, is it a single continuum like Time and Space, which is for > different purposes variously broken up by that which it contains; or is it > composed of solid atoms, or is it more like a fluid? Has truth, in Kantian > phrase, any "material" characteristics in general, by which it can, with > any degree of probability, be recognized? Is there, for example, any > general tendency in the course of events, any progress in one direction on > the whole?* CP6.6) and furthermore > > *The old dualistic notion of mind and matter, so > prominent in Cartesianism, as two radically different kinds of substance, > will hardly find defenders today. Rejecting this, we are driven to some > form of hylopathy, otherwise called monism. Then the question arises > whether physical laws on the one hand and the psychical law on the other > are to be taken -- * > > * (a) as independent, a doctrine often called monism, but > which I would name neutralism; or,* > > * (b) the psychical law as derived and special, the > physical law alone as primordial, which is materialism; or,* > > * (c) the physical law as derived and special, the > psychical law alone as primordial, which is idealism.* > > * The materialistic doctrine seems to me quite as repugnant > to scientific logic as to common sense; since it requires us to suppose > that a certain kind of mechanism will feel, which would be a hypothesis > absolutely irreducible to reason -- an ultimate, inexplicable regularity; > while the only possible justification of any theory is that it should make > things clear and reasonable.* > > * Neutralism is sufficiently condemned by the logical maxim > known as Ockham's razor, i.e., that not more independent elements are to be > supposed than necessary. By placing the inward and outward aspects of > substance on a par, it seems to render both primordial.* > > * 25. The one intelligible theory of the universe is that > of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits > becoming physical laws. But before this can be accepted it must show itself > capable of explaining the tri-dimensionality of space, the laws of motion, > and the general characteristics of the universe, with mathematical > clearness and precision; for no less should be demanded of every > philosophy.* (CP 6.24) > > > > Best > > Søren >
----------------------------- 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 .
