Clark, List: ET: I tend to agree with you here Edwina. I don’t quite see big contradictions between his later more Hegelian work with the more neoplatonic work of the late 1880’s. Evolution yes. But I don’t see him moving away from the earlier positions.
This actually sounds more like my position than Edwina's. I have argued that Peirce's later cosmological/cosmogonic writings do not *contradict *his earlier ones; rather, they *clarify *some details that he had previously left vague. By contrast, Edwina seems to *reject *the later writings--especially "A Neglected Argument," which she admits she cannot explain and does not even attempt to explain--as incompatible with the earlier ones, which she favors. She also seems to bristle at *any *suggestion that Peirce was a (neo-)Platonist in *any *sense whatsoever. Of course, these are my impressions of her positions, and I hope that they are accurate; if not, I would welcome her correction/clarification. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > On Oct 22, 2016, at 2:52 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > The problem is, Gary, that you and Jon are both theists and both of you > reject the 'Big Bang'. I am an atheist and support the 'Big Bang'. > Therefore, both sides in this debate select sections from Peirce to which > we feel compatible. Yet - as I keep saying, both views are empirically > outside of any possibility of proof or TRUTH. You either believe in one OR > the other [or some other theory]. > > I confess I don’t understand this disagreement, especially if it is coming > in with our priors regarding theology. It seems to me the big bang is > largely orthogonal to such questions. For one, most physics doesn’t see the > big bang as the beginning of everything. The inflationary models at this > point are quite old and widely accepted. String theory has its branes which > float in higher dimensional space. Loop quantum gravity has bubble > universes more akin to the original inflationary models. And some theorists > reject them all and say all we have empirical evidence for is this universe. > > i.e. it would seem both options are pretty open to atheists and theists of > various stripes > > You try to substantiate that Peirce followed the same view as yours by > defining his 'earlier work' as something that he moved away from and > rejected. I don't see any evidence of this. I admit that I can't explain > the NA - and I don't even attempt to do so - but - I don't find any > evidence of Peirce rejecting the 1.412 argument - and other arguments about > the self-organization and evolution of the universe [tychasm, agapasm]. > > I tend to agree with you here Edwina. I don’t quite see big contradictions > between his later more Hegelian work with the more neoplatonic work of the > late 1880’s. Evolution yes. But I don’t see him moving away from the > earlier positions. > > But I suspect part of this is how to interpret those earlier passages in > 1.412. I’m largely convinced by Parker here. (Regarding Peirce anyway - I’m > not sure I buy the ontology itself) >
----------------------------- 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 .
