Is this list about the philosophy of Peirce any more? - Or does CSP only
serve as a starting point to presenting any kinds of ideas loosely
connected with CSP. The list-minders should set an example. - It does no
seem so to me.
Best,
Kirsti
Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 29.12.2016 21:52:
Clark, List,
I think, maybe the concept of Christ is (btw) an attempt to solve the
almightiness-paradoxon (Can God create a rock He cannot move), by
introducing Himself in the role of a person who is not almighty, even
got killed by the Romans. The cost of this solution is to give up the
concept of identity in favour of a concept of tri-identity or trinity:
Quite Peircean 2000 years ago. Tragically, later the "Christians" have
blamed not the Romans, but the Jews for this killing. But
crucification was a Roman, not a Jewish kind of death penalty (the
Jews would have stoned). Btw, I have read, that the story of Jesus is
somehow a copy of the Egyptian story of Isis, or was it Osiris. Like
the story about Luther has ocurred about 160 years ago in England: A
Mr. Wycliff did the same, pinned reformatory theses to a church door,
translated the Bible, and had an uprising of farmers in his wake, same
as later Luther, just plagiating all that, but with bigger effect due
to pamphlet printing possibility then, more dead farmers, and he was
antisemitic, and I wonder why he still well regarded.
Best,
Helmut
29. Dezember 2016 um 19:05 Uhr
"Clark Goble" <cl...@lextek.com>
On Dec 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de>
wrote:
Very well said, I agree. Dawkins claimed to having proved the
nonexistence of God with the almightiness-allknowingness-paradoxon:
If God is all-knowing, then He knows the future too, but then He is
not almighty, because knowing it, He cannot change it. I think, this
is a poor argument, because it suggests, that for God time is, like
for us, inevitable and one-dimensioned. And, that a paradoxon is a
refutation. I guess both are not so: God might have a lot of more
access to time, whose (times) nature we dont understand close to at
all. And a paradoxon is not a refutation, it may be solved, and if
not, it even may unfold (according to Luhmann, not completely
understood by me), and affect reality, so a paradoxon is a valuable
part of reality instead of adressing something as not real. Anyway,
hope You have had a merry christmas (not knowing the nature of time,
I cannot exclude the nonfutility of this wish), and happy new year!
Most of the New Atheist arguments against God are pretty embarrassing
as they just aren't that familiar with the literature. They are on
stronger ground when attacking an interventionist quasi-personal God
such as is common in theism - although even there the history of the
big three religions offer more choices than they typically admit.
The main problem with the three classic "omnis" are well known. Often
though there are hidden assumptions going on in terms of how to
understand the semantics of these terms. Process theologians often
play with this a lot. You can see this for instance in disputes over
whether God is impassible or not. The traditional reading is to take
God as an unmoved mover ala Aristotle whereas process theologians
often portray him as the most moved mover. In both cases we have a
kind of "highest" property but the assumptions about what omnipotence
entails are radically different.
To the paradox, the classic way it's solve is simply to say whatever
God is, he's logically consistent. So the paradox simply defines a
non-obtainable state which God need not have power to achieve. The
classic "can God create a rock he can't move" is really the same
argument.
That said I tend to think there are some inherent conflicts with God
as all knowing and all powerful. But it appears not in terms of God
proper but in terms of God as embodied in a mortal body. That's not an
issue for Jews or Muslims but it certainly is for Christians. So to my
eyes the biggest weaknesses are usually in the theology of the two
natures in Christ. However it also seems the case that Jesus is
ironically the fastest thing to get jesttisoned by philosophers who
think through the class Greek inspired properties. i.e. the omnis
classically understood. At that point though it's worth asking if they
are still Christian in their thought.
We discussed that relative to Peirce a few months ago. I'm still not
sure what Peirce thought of Christ but I assume that (as was common in
the late 19th century and early 20th century liberal theology) he
tended to not take Jesus too seriously. At least in terms of the
traditional theology.
To your broader point though there is a strong tradition that sees
aporias as inherent to the universe. I'm not sure how Peirce sees
that. It seems to me to be a strong philosophical tradition going back
to Aristotle and arguably Plato's early dialogs.
----------------------------- 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 [1] .
Links:
------
[1] 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 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 .
