Thanks Jon. That is a direct confirmation of the rather over the top
dispatch of Aristotle in the quote I sent. My own work maintained initially
that Aristotle's ethics were responsible for the ethical problems of our
first two millennia and I laid that at the feet of his reliance on virtues
which is indisputable. OTH Aristotle reads almost modern and cannot be
superseded by Peirce unless others see his work as seismic in the same
sense that A's work became seen. I see Shakespeare as a pre-Percean and a
marvelous antidote to virtues ethics. S

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com
> wrote:

> List:
>
> 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).
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to