BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jerry- I think that a basic tactic to reduce the 'interminable' back
and forth [since much of it isn't an Argument] is to stop the use of
emotional terms and assertions about each other.
I, for instance, don't feel that my outlines are 'patently false' [
unless such is proven to me]. I am not 'dictating to two theists'; I
am not saying that the Five Ways MUST be employed...and so on...
So- I've asked for evidence from JAS instead of assertions - and
we'll see what will happen. However, this focus on whether or not
Peirce believed in 'God' - is problematic because that term is
unclear [I understand Peirce to mean Mind by which I understand the
operation of the Three Categories; JAS has different definitions
which include vague and supreme and infinite and exclude the
Categories..]
I frankly don't think it will be resolved; we will each continue to
believe what we believe - and we can select lots and lots of quotes
for our point of view.
So- it comes down to the functionality of our beliefs. Does MIND
play a significant role in Peircean semiosis? Or does God? [And both
have to be defined].
Edwina
On Mon 14/05/18 2:21 PM , Jerry Rhee [email protected] sent:
Dear Edwina Jon list:
It’s happening again.
Doesn’t Peirce give us the prescription to end this kind of
interminable arguing?
If so, then quid sit deus?
"Oh, I now realize you always knew this.
But I've just come to recognize how central the question 'Quid sit
deus?' is."
With best wishes,
Jerry R
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Helmut Raulien 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
[email protected] [5] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] [6] with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/ [7]peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[7] 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 [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
