Helmut, list

        My view of Peirce's Form and Matter is quite different from that of
JAS. I refer you to Vol 6, 354-364, which has an extensive outline of
different types of form. Indeed, he associates Form with 'forma
corpus' and 'morphe' {Note: I am transliterating from the Greek].
Whereas, he associates Firstness with chance, quality, vagueness -
none of which have spatial extension or a 'body' [corpus/morphe]. 

        I don't see how one can assign only ONE category to matter - whether
that one category be 1stness or 2ndness or 3rdness.. The point of
anything in 'thisness',[haecceity]  is that it is made up of three
categories. 

        Therefore, something discrete and individual, would be made up of a
mode of 'potentiality' [1stness]; as well as 'thisness' [haecceity;
2ndness] as well as habits and even 'esse in futuro' 2.148 of these
habits continuing on [3rdness] 

        Edwina
 On Mon 12/02/18  3:22 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
  Dear All, I wonder why Peirce associated the categories like that.
To me it rather seems like matter would be 1ns, form 2ns, and
entelechy 3ns. That is because I cannot see more than one mode in
matter, but 2 in form: Reason for it, and aim (telos) of it.
Aristotle said, that form consists of energy and entelechy, so two
parts (modes?). 2.1. might be said like: material reason of the form,
or the form´s sustenance by matter, potential energies keeping the
form together, and 2.2. the form of the form, or the form´s formal
reason, which is it´s aim. Also, I see "quality" rather associated
with matter than with form. As the form of a thing is more likely to
change due to circumstances than its matter is, I see "actuality"
rather suiting with "form" than with "matter". Does "entelechy"
contain "telos"? Does it mean quite the similar?  Best, Helmut  12.
Februar 2018 um 18:42 Uhr
  "Ben Novak" 

 wrote:  Dear All:   A quarter of a century ago (December 1993),
several of the subjects of this discussion thread (either explicit,
implied, or merely mentioned) were rather eloquently addressed in an
article in First Things, "Discovering the American Aristotle," by
Edward T. Oakes:  
https://www.firstthings.com/article/1993/12/003-discovering-the-american-aristotle
[1]               Ben Novak 5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142
Telephone: (814) 808-5702 Mobile: (814) 424-8501   
 "All art is mortal, not merely the individual artifacts, but the
arts themselves. One day the last portrait of Rembrandt and the last
bar of Mozart will have ceased to be—though possibly a colored
canvas and a sheet of notes may remain—because the last eye and the
last ear accessible to their message will have gone." Oswald Spengler 
                           On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Stephen
C. Rose  wrote:  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 [3]        
    On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt  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 [5] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[6]         On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Stephen C. Rose  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 [8]                
    -----------------------------
 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 [9] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to  l...@list.iupui.edu [10] with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [11] .
 -----------------------------
 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 [12] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to  l...@list.iupui.edu [13] with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [14] .
     ----------------------------- 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 [15] .    


Links:
------
[1]
https://www.firstthings.com/article/1993/12/003-discovering-the-american-aristotle
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'stever...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://amazon.com/author/stephenrose
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[6] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[7]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'stever...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[8] http://amazon.com/author/stephenrose
[9]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[10]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[11] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[12]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[13]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[14] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[15] 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