*There is but one individual, or completely determinate, state of things, namely, the all of reality. *
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > Helmut, List, > > To be even more clear, I think we have to understand Peirce as saying > that we have no *true* conception of an inconceivable thing in itself, > since we clearly have all sorts of conceptions that ostend to be such, > it's just that all of them are false. > > By the same light, and more pertinent to some of our recent discussions, > I would add that we have no *true* conception of all conceivable things > and thus no *true* conception of all possible universes. > > Regards, > > Jon > > On 12/18/2017 10:58 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > >> Helmut, >> >> Re: “on one hand there is no thing in itself anyway, so they say” >> >> To be clear, Peirce for one does not say this, he says only >> that we have no conception of an inconceivable thing itself. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon >> >> On 12/15/2017 2:33 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: >> >>> Thank you too, Jon. I think the fallacious point of the naturalistic >>> fallacy is >>> that you cannot conclude from "good for humans and other creatures", >>> which can >>> be inferred to from phenomena and interpreting them, to "good in >>> itself". But I >>> think this last breaking point is quite small, and the faith required for >>> stepping over it is not difficult to get and maintain, I think, because >>> on one >>> hand there is no thing in itself anyway, so they say, and on the other >>> there are >>> hints that "good" and "bad" are based on pure reason, e.g. the >>> categorical >>> imperative, and on the third hand, observation of the universe does not >>> deliver >>> clues of gnostic separation, like the earth or the human realm would be >>> outcast >>> from the divine realm, or something like that. The whole title from >>> Kohlbergs >>> paper is: "From is to ought, how to commit the naturalistic fallacy and >>> get away >>> with it". I don't know how to get this paper, or in which book it is, >>> but I am >>> sure that it is good (for humans and other creatures), because at other >>> places >>> Kohlberg´s points are so too. >>> Best, >>> Helmut >>> >> >> > -- > > inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
