Clark, list:
Agreed, that the term of 'god' in Peirce, at least in my interpretation, is
more akin to the god-in-process 'theology' [or I prefer Nature-in-process']
rather than a priori determinism or First Cause. I would expect Jon S to
disagree.
The vital importance of chance as an agential force in the emergence and
evolution of matter/mind - and of Thirdness as a process of habit formation -
and of complexity of interactions within the triadic semiosic network can't be
overlooked.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Clark Goble
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)
On Nov 3, 2016, at 7:04 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
I, for one, don't see in Peirce that there is a 'pre-Big Bang universe' of
'ur-continuity' nor that there is a 'creator' involved in this 'ur-continuity'.
Nor that there is a 'different kind of pre-Big Bang Thirdness.
But I am concerned about the focus of this thread. It seems to me that we
are moving into a discussion based around our own firmly-held personal beliefs
about god, the world, creation etc, and are using Peirce, searching for and
'interpreting' his writings, to support our own personal beliefs.
I tend to think we’re getting to the limits of Peirce here although I think
there is considerable textual evidence in Peirce for an ur-continuity. Again
Kelly Parker has pretty compelling arguments here for Peirce’s beliefs. Peirce
speaks of a creator in numerous places but clearly he means something different
from the first cause of Duns Scotus or Aristotle due to the place of chance in
his ontology. As we’ve discussed over the past weeks his creator is more akin
to the God in process theology or perhaps a process reading of Spinoza.
On Nov 3, 2016, at 8:39 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
My response to his NA is not to ignore it but to acknowledge that I cannot
interpret it within his full body of work - which includes his earlier
writings. Note - I am not ignoring it; I cannot correlate it except as
metaphoric, with his earlier writings.
I think accepting a break between the early works and later works is fine
when we can’t reconcile them. However I think the NA is quite reconcilable with
most of his work from what era of say 1896 forward. At least I don’t see the
contradictions. We may not like what he says, but I confess I don’t quite
understand the treating it as metaphoric. That seems a bit of a dodge.
As I’ve often said we probably should keep as separate issues the historic
ones (what Peirce believed and when) from the more philosophical ones (whether
particular views of Peirce were correct or extending arguments beyond where
Peirce took them). I’ll confess I find the more platonic aspects of Peirce a
little harder to accept and the arguments certainly weaker than his main
doctrines. But I have to concede the arguments for Peirce having held them are
quite strong and hard for me to disbelieve.
On Nov 3, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>
wrote:
Are you not familiar with "the principle of charity"? It is not a
"sanctimonious claim" that I invented; it is a legitimate, well-established,
and widely endorsed method of interpretation. Per Wikipedia, "In philosophy
and rhetoric, the principle of charity requires interpreting a speaker's
statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its
best, strongest possible interpretation." As Donald Davidson put it, "We make
maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way
that optimises agreement." So we assume that "A Neglected Argument," for
example, is fully consistent with everything else that Peirce wrote--unless and
until the evidence compels us to conclude otherwise.
I think we have to be careful here. As sympathetic as I am to Davidson’s
razor a charitable reading doesn’t guarantee a correct reading. Often
charitable readings transform a philosopher’s arguments into something other
than they intended in order to make it function better. I tend to think that
while we must read with a hermeneutics of charity we must also read with a
hermeneutic of suspicion. Typically multiple readings are possible and we
should be careful eliminating them without justification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
