Dear list: Dear list:
I found an essay by Gabriele Tomasi, who speaks on Wittgenstein and not Peirce. He writes: “The German text sounds: «Das künstlerische Wunder ist, daß es die Welt gibt. Daß es gibt, was es gibt». This suggests that the miracle in question is in some sense worked by art. However, we could also translate “Wunder” with “wonder”, and recall that in the *Lecture on Ethics* (1929-1930), to express what he means by “*absolute value*”, Wittgenstein mentions the experience of wondering at the existence of the world (cfr. LE, 8). As a response to the world, wonder is a sort of affective grasping of the *non-accidentality* of the being of what there is, a way of feeling its non-accidentality. Therefore, it is a way of experiencing value and sense.” Moreover, here are some other ideas relating to the NA written in unsigned screed: *He identified God and nature, but did not mean by nature what is ordinarily meant. “If all objects of knowledge be regarded in their relation to the one absolute being, the knowledge of particular outward things, nature, life, or history becomes in fact a knowledge of God.” The whole doctrine is excessively abstruse, is much misunderstood, and too complicated for brief explanation. * “And yet it would seem that if the soul be nothing except the idea of a body actually existing, when that body is decomposed into its elements, the soul corresponding to it must accompany it into an answering dissolution… But Spinozism is a philosophy full of surprises; and *our calculations of what must belong to it are perpetually baffled*.” ~James Anthony Froude ________ Given this, who has courage to speak for others on what is meant by an ordinary understanding of God? Perhaps it’s simpler to speak about an ordinary meaning of Nature, which is complicated enough. At least the method is clear…(?) Best wishes, Jerry R On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 4:52 AM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/30/2016 10:37 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >> see: http://www.pucsp.br/pragmatismo/dowloads/eip_15/15th_imp_ >> shannon_dea_peirce-and_spinozas_pragmaticist_methaphysics.pdf >> >> for a very nice paper on CSP wrt Spinoza. >> > > I agree that it's "a very nice paper". It contains many excerpts > by CSP that provide some useful insights into the development of > Peirce's own thought as well as his high regard for Spinoza. > > But the author's name is not listed in the article. After a bit > of googling, I found the published version by Shannon Dea: > > http://www.commens.org/sites/default/files/biblio_attachment > s/peirce_and_spinozas_pragmaticist_metaphysics.pdf > > John > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
