Helmut, List: As I have pointed out before, Peirce was definitely *not *a pantheist or panentheist, as I understand those terms.
CSP: … Who, out of Nothing, less than a blank, is creating all three Universes of experience. I do *not *mean, then, a "soul of the World" or an intelligence is "immanent" in Nature, but is the Creator of the three Universes of minds, of matter, and of ideal possibilities, and of everything in them. (R 843:11[1]) CSP: Indeed, meaning by "God," as throughout this paper will be meant, the Being whose Attributes are, in the main, those usually ascribed to Him, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Infinite Benignity, a Being *not *"immanent in" the Universes of Matter, Mind, and Ideas, but the Sole Creator of every content of them without exception … (R 843:18&20[1-2]) CSP: But I had better add that I do *not *mean by God a being merely "immanent in Nature," but I mean that Being who has created every content of the world of ideal possibilities, of the world of physical facts, and the world of all minds, without any exception whatever. (R 843:25[4]) In each case, the emphasis on "not" is Peirce's in the original manuscript, so he evidently wanted to be very clear about this. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > Edwina, Gary, list, > I think the NA is a mixture of incomplete, perhaps circular, arguments, > and a priori, similar to Anselm´s (though Anselm thought his argument was > valid). To decide whether this mixture makes Peirce a theist or not is not > easy, but I think that many others, who call themselves theists, neither > would say that they have a complete and correct argument for doing so. > Also, the term "theist" is not clear, because a pantheist would call > her/himself a theist, as the word suggests, but a dogmatic theist would > probably call a pantheist an atheist. So, if (only if) for example Peirce > was a pantheist (or panentheist), it would both be true calling him a > theist and a non-theist, depending on from which point of view. > Was Peirce a pantheist or panentheist? Even if he did not explicitly say > that the mind of the universe is the mind of God (Universe = God, > pantheism), or the quasi-mind of the universe is a part of the mind of God > (Universe = part of God, panentheism), somebody else might argue: Mind is > what makes a person, so why not call the quasi-mind of the universe God (or > a part of God)? Though this argument only works within pan(en)theism, as > other theists would miss the causal creational aspect. They also believe in > God as the "unmoved mover", but Peirce´s Tychism rather suggests that he is > a moved mover. But Tychism is not based on arguments either I think, just > on abduction from small scale to biggest possible scale. > Best, > Helmut >
----------------------------- 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 .
