BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Stephen - Peirce was 'Aristotelian' in issues about Matter and Form;
and the primacy of sensate data in our experience - and the nature of
Reality vs the individual Existence. But - Aristotle's evolution
theory was  - as he points out - metaphysical, in that it has nothing
to do with material or mental interaction, i.e., with semiosics. The
Platonic and Aristotelian theory of evolution was that each species
was 'fixed' and did not adapt/evolve into another species. This of
course fit into the Christian view of Creationism and also, of the
societal view that 'you were born into your class [i.e., as a peasant
vs lord]. 

        Aristotle's view was almost a beautiful architecture - all species
had their allotted space and role in this 'great chain of being' from
the simple to the complex. 

        The concept that change was within the life-forms rather than a
priori, and self-organized, and developed within individual organisms
- by the random mutations of Darwinism [Note: this randomness is
challenged in modern biology] - went against the stable architecture
of Aristotle.

        And of course - this Darwinian-Wallace idea, that change was
natural, was self-organized - crept into the sociopolitical ideology
as well...and the old static, stable class hierarchy began to

 On Mon 12/02/18 10:22 AM , "Stephen C. Rose"
        173. But fallibilism cannot be appreciated in anything like its true
significancy until evolution has been considered. This is what the
world has been most thinking of for the last forty years -- though
old enough is the general idea itself. Aristotle's philosophy, that
dominated the world for so many ages and still in great measure
tyrannizes over the thoughts of butchers and bakers that never heard
of him -- is but a metaphysical evolutionism.  

        Peirce: CP 1.174 Cross-Ref:††
        Interesting. Has anyone done a study of Peirce and Aristotle. In
what did Peirce's alleged tyranny consist?  This is in something I
found in an old book I have but it is also in CP. Did classify
Aristotle as a dualist or nominalist? Or more narrowly as here? [1]

PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at .

Reply via email to