Jon S, List, Jon quoted me and remarked:
*Peirce's conception of the being of Jesus (that is, Christ seen as both the very incarnation of God and truly man) is one I'm wholly unprepared to consider at this time.* *I would love to consider this question, but I have no idea whether or where Peirce might have addressed it. * I too do not know if Peirce addressed this question. I'm thinking that a good place to start to look for at least hints might be in Vincent C. Potter's work. I say this because I just ran across a comment he made in* Reason, Experience, and God: John E. Smith in Dialogue*. Potter writes: I would like to add here on my account that when it coms to understanding the conditions of possibility of special disclosure or revelation in holy persons or historical events, disclosure of God in the natural order is first required as a real possibility since without it there would be no way of telling what is allegedly disclosed in these persons and events is truly God. Hence I have argued [in "Revelation and 'Natural' Knowledge of God"] and would argue that some form of "natural knowledge" of God must be possible if there is to be any "super-natural revelation." It seems to me self-evident that in this matter dogmatism is unsatisfactory and an appeal to privileged mystical arbitrary" (13). In his response, Smith writes "What Potter is driving at here is not wholly clear to me" (90). It is "wholly clear" to me either. Any thoughts? As for the Gospel of John, Peirce refers to John as "the ontological gospeler" whom he says made "the One Supreme Being, by whom all things have been made out of nothing, to be cherishing love" (6.287). How this might relate to the famous first chapter of that Gospel (which John Sowa also pointed to) in consideration of our question, I'm uncertain. Returning to Potter, a quick review of his *Charles S. Peirce: On Norms and Ideals* disappointingly does *not* seem to offer any pointers to anything Peirce wrote concerning Christ's being; this is also the case as regards his *Peirce's Philosophical Perspectives*. In the latter work he does remind us that Peirce held that we "will find no more adequate way of conceiving this 'Supreme Agency' then as 'vaguely like a man' (5.536)" (On Norms, etc. 175). However, that would seem apply to God more generally. Approaching it from different perspective, in a letter to Benjamin Rush during his first term as President, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others" (quoted in Potter's *Doctrine and Experience: Essays in American Philosophy*, 38). I am currently of the opinion that Peirce saw Jesus more or less in this way as well, so we are exhorted by Peirce to follow Jesus' doctrines if we are to consider ourselves true followers (good advice, no doubt). On the other hand, there are those who have argued that there are suggestions that Peirce believed in the triune God of Christian orthodoxy. But this too is another question, even if perhaps a closely related one. In his 2002 disseration, available only in German I believe, Martin Schmuck takes yet another approach (according to a translation of the publisher's description): "Both Peirce's "Religion of Science" and the revised naturalistic ontology [. . .] used [by Schmuck] to realize the concept of a modern theology of Christian faith which provides a profoundly naturalistic interpretation of the Christian creed." http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/newbooks.htm#schmuck So, at the moment, as interesting as the question of the nature of Jesus' being may be in and of itself, I do not think (or, at least, have not been able to find) much (any?) Peircean material to go on to justifiably take up that admittedly very interesting topic in the forum. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > GR: We've discussed in at least one of the cosmological threads of late > the way in which Peirce does ascribe one sort of being to God, namely, > Reality. On the other hand, Peirce held that to refer to God as Existing > was clearly wrong, perhaps fetishistic, since existence concerns matter: > action/reaction. The question which all of this raises for Peirce's > conception of the being of Jesus (that is, Christ seen as both the very > incarnation of God and truly man) is one I'm wholly unprepared to consider > at this time. > > > I would *love *to consider this question, but I have no idea whether or > where Peirce might have addressed it. His favorite Gospel was that of > John, but did he ever quote its first chapter? "In the beginning was the > Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... And the Word > became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of > the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> John, List, >> >> John Sowa wrote: >> >> Gary Richmond wrote: >> >>> I think that [Peirce] was a non-traditional Christian--he once >> >> referred to his views as buddheo-Christian >> >> >> Those two traditions are not necessarily in conflict. >> >> >> >> I agree that there are indeed points where Buddhism and Christianity can >> be seen to intersect, places where one finds correspondences. It is my >> sense that this is more likely so in consideration of zen buddhism and >> mystical christianity than in more traditional forms of either religion >> (although it is not altogether lacking there either, as in , for example, >> the *humanity* expressed in both religions). Merton shows some of these >> correspondences very clearly (I read all I could find by both him and >> Suzuki in my 20's). I would add, however, that I personally find radical >> differences as well, but this is not the place to get into those. >> >> John also wrote: >> >> >> Note, >> for example, the writings of Thomas Merton. For an overview, see >> http://www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/thomas-mer >> ton-and-dialogue-buddhism >> >> An interesting point in that article: >> In Ihis correspondence with Suzuk [. . .] Merton refers to the doctrine >> of analogy in Aquinas by >> which it was just as legitimate, in one sense, to say of God that >> he is non-being as to affirm God is being, since God so transcends >> being as we know it that any attribution of being as we know it >> would mislead. >> >> >> This is an interesting point indeed. We've discussed in at least one of >> the cosmological threads of late the way in which Peirce does ascribe one >> sort of being to God, namely, Reality. On the other hand, Peirce held that >> to refer to God as Existing was clearly wrong, perhaps fetishistic, since >> existence concerns matter: action/reaction. The question which all of this >> raises for Peirce's conception of the being of Jesus (that is, Christ seen >> as both the very incarnation of God* and* truly man) is one I'm wholly >> unprepared to consider at this time. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> [image: Gary Richmond] >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> *C 745* >> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* >> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:26 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: >> >>> On 10/29/2016 11:55 PM, >>> >>> Gary Richmond wrote: >>> >>>> I think that [Peirce] was a non-traditional Christian--he once >>>> referred to his views as buddheo-Christian >>>> >>> >>> Those two traditions are not necessarily in conflict. Note, >>> for example, the writings of Thomas Merton. For an overview, see >>> http://www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/thomas-mer >>> ton-and-dialogue-buddhism >>> >>> An interesting point in that article: >>> >>>> In his correspondence with Suzuki (the two finally met in New York >>>> in 1964), Merton refers to the doctrine of analogy in Aquinas by >>>> which it was just as legitimate, in one sense, to say of God that >>>> he is non-being as to affirm God is being, since God so transcends >>>> being as we know it that any attribution of being as we know it >>>> would mislead. >>>> >>> >>> 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 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 .
