Jon, I believe you  are correct, since he actually adopted the term ‘objective 
idealism’ for his metaphysics and having evolution as fundamental in his 
process philosophy. We also know that he admitted being influences by Hegel and 
Schelling, but criticizing Hegel’s metaphysics for lacking Secondness.

           Best
                                  Søren

From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com]
Sent: 12. oktober 2016 04:28
To: Søren Brier
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology

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<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - 
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Søren Brier 
<sb....@cbs.dk<mailto:sb....@cbs.dk>> 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 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