As the chief culprit for the recent glut of messages--apparently I was the
sender of more than one-third of the 200+ over the first 11 days of
February--I offer my sincere apology, and my promise to try to temper my
enthusiasm for the current discussion topics, or at least "pace myself" (as
the saying goes) in responding.  Please do not hesitate to contact me
directly off-List if you think that I am getting out of hand again.

I am replying in this thread only because I believe that the following
excerpt provides a direct answer to Stephen R.'s question about whether
Peirce classified Aristotle as a nominalist.

CSP:  Aristotle held that Matter and Form were the only elements of
experience. But he had an obscure conception of what he calls *entelechy*,
which I take to be a groping for the recognition of a third element which I
find clearly in experience. Indeed it is by far the most overt of the
three. It was this that caused Aristotle to overlook it ... Aristotle, so
far as he is a nominalist, and* he may, I think, be described as a
nominalist with vague intimations of realism*, endeavors to express the
universe in terms of Matter and Form alone ... It may be remarked that if,
as I hold, there are three categories, Form, Matter, and Entelechy, then
there will naturally be seven schools of philosophy; that which recognizes
Form alone, that which recognizes Form and Matter alone, that which
recognizes Matter alone (these being the three kinds of nominalism); that
which recognizes Matter and Entelechy alone; that which recognizes
Entelechy alone (which seems to me what a perfectly consistent Hegelianism
would be); that which recognizes Entelechy and Form alone (these last three
being the kinds of imperfect realism); and finally the true philosophy
which recognizes Form, Matter, and Entelechy. (NEM 4:294-295; c. 1903?,
emphasis added)

This is part of a lengthy passage where, as I have remarked in other recent
threads, Peirce explicitly associated Form with 1ns (quality or suchness),
Matter with 2ns (the subject of a fact), and Entelechy with 3ns (that which
brings together Matter and Form; i.e., Signs).


Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman -

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:22 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?
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