Jon, John, Gary, list:
I take back what I said earlier. I think after this posting, this is a good road to travel. Thank you for the references. _____ What is the "higher point of view with St. John as the universal evolutionary formula? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. “Must we then say that, if two things are to be commensurable in respect of any attribute, not only must the attribute in question be applicable to both without equivocation, but there must also be no specific differences either in the attribute itself or in that which contains the attribute — that these, I mean, must not be divisible in the way in which colour is divided into kinds? Thus in this respect one thing will not be commensurable with another, i.e. we cannot say that one is more coloured than the other where only colour in general and not any particular colour is meant; but they are commensurable in respect of whiteness… When, then, is there a difference of species? Is an attribute specifically different if the subject is different while the attribute is the same, or must the attribute itself be different as well? And how are we to define the limits of a species? What will enable us to decide that particular instances of whiteness or sweetness are the same or different? Is it enough that it appears different in one subject from what appears in another? Or must there be no sameness at all?... We cannot here speak of an ‘equal’ alteration: what corresponds in the category of quality to equality in the category of quantity is ‘likeness’.” ~ *Physics* One two three… C A B... Father Son Spirit… spiritedness desire reason… thumos eros logos... name definition essence... Best, Jerry R On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > List: > > Per Gary R.'s suggestion, I have changed the thread topic for this > discussion as it goes forward from here. > > I am inclined to agree with the comments that I retained below from both > Gary R. and Clark--Peirce was a non-traditional Christian with non-standard > beliefs relative to both intellectuals and the ordinary masses. CP > 6.440-443 (1893) seems like about as comprehensive a summary of his > religious views as we are likely to find. > > CSP: The Christian religion, if it has anything distinctive--and must not > aspire to be the necessary ultimate outcome of every path of religious > progress--is distinguished from other religions by its precept about the > Way of Life. I appeal to the typical Christian to answer out of the > abundance of his spirit, without dictation from priests, whether this be > not so. In the recently discovered book, *The Teaching of the Twelve > Apostles*, which dates from about A.D. 100, we see that, long before the > Apostles' or any other creed was insisted upon, or at all used, the > teaching of the Lord was considered to consist in the doctrine of the Two > Ways--the Way of Life and the Way of Death. This it was that at that date > was regarded as the saving faith--not a lot of metaphysical propositions. > This is what Jesus Christ taught; and to believe in Christ is to believe > what he taught. > > CSP: Now what is this way of life? Again I appeal to the universal > Christian conscience to testify that it is simply love. As far as it is > contracted to a rule of ethics, it is: Love God, and love your neighbour; > "on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." It may be > regarded in a higher point of view with St. John as the universal > evolutionary formula. But in whatever light it be regarded or in whatever > direction developed, the belief in the law of love is the Christian faith. > > CSP: "Oh," but it may be said, "that is not distinctive of Christianity! > That very idea was anticipated by the early Egyptians, by the Stoics, by > the Buddhists, and by Confucius." So it was; nor can the not insignificant > difference between the negative and the positive precept be properly > estimated as sufficient for a discrimination between religions. Christians > may, indeed, claim that Christianity possesses that earmark of divine > truth--namely, that it was anticipated from primitive ages. The higher a > religion the more catholic. > > CSP: Man's highest developments are social; and religion, though it > begins in a seminal individual inspiration, only comes to full flower in a > great church coextensive with a civilization. This is true of every > religion, but supereminently so of the religion of love. Its ideal is that > the whole world shall be united in the bond of a common love of God > accomplished by each man's loving his neighbour. Without a church, the > religion of love can have but a rudimentary existence; and a narrow, little > exclusive church is almost worse than none. A great catholic church is > wanted. > > > I also share Clark's interest in learning more, if possible, about what > Peirce thought regarding the divinity Jesus. The only published comment on > it that I could find is CP 6.538 (c.1901). > > CSP: I do not assent to the contention of many theologians that the > miracles of Jesus can properly convince a modern man of the divinity of > Jesus. On the contrary, all the evidence which can now be presented for > them is quite insufficient, unless the general divinity of the Christian > religion be assumed. The evidence which may have been overwhelming for eye > witnesses and persons near them is of a very different and inferior > character to that which may weigh with a modern Christian. > > > Peirce included a similar remark in an early draft of "A Neglected > Argument," as found in manuscript R 842 (1908). > > CSP: As for the New Testament miracles, I admit that, unless one is first > satisfied that Jesus was in some peculiar sense a Divine Person, in which > case there can be nothing unlikely in his working miracles, the evidence is > not sufficient that they were really such events as the writers of the > Gospels evidently took them to be. > > > Someone who already believes Jesus to be divine will also readily believe > that he performed miracles, but the reports of the latter are not going to > convince someone of the former. Unfortunately, Peirce does not tell us in > either of these passages whether he himself believed Jesus to be divine. > He did say, as quoted above, that "to believe in Christ is to believe what > he taught"; and the Gospel writers--his favorite, John, in > particular--claimed that Jesus taught that he was divine; but that is > hardly conclusive for discerning Peirce's own view of the matter. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Oct 29, 2016, at 9:55 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Be that as it may, if we are to have a list discussion on this religious >> topic I would hope that it would center on (1) whether or not Peirce was in >> fact a Christian (my own view is that he was) and, if so, (2) what sort of >> a Christian he was (as I've already commented in another thread, I think >> that he was a non-traditional Christian--he once referred to his views as >> buddheo-Christian, but that, I believe, should be taken in context). >> >> Relative to his main contemporaries whether of the intellectual class or >> the ‘folk’ he seemed to have non-standard beliefs. I confess that it’s his >> views on Christ’s embodiment that seem most interesting to me but also not >> really discussed well in the papers I’ve read on his religion. >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
