Matt, List: Creation and causation are not exactly the same thing, especially since Peirce consistently held that God's creative activity is *ongoing*. In any case, he drew a very specific analogy in the quoted passage between becoming acquainted with a person by studying his works and becoming acquainted with God through "contemplation and study of the physico-psychical universe." Therefore, unless we can say that the author *is *the book, such that Aristotle *is* his works, we likewise cannot say that God *is *"the physico-psychical universe."
Regards, Jon S. On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Matt Faunce <matthewjohnfau...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon, are you warranted in saying "not", in "not 'the physico-psychical > universe' itself". Isn't the relation of God the Creator to His Creation, > viz., the physico-psychical universe, for all we know, the same as the > relation of force to acceleration? > > CSP: "Whether we ought to say that force *is* an acceleration, or that it > *causes* an acceleration, is a mere question of propriety of language…" > > Matt > > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 11:08 AM Jon Alan Schmidt < > jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Edwina, Stephen R., List: >> >> Robert Lane's new book, *Peirce on Realism and Idealism*, helpfully >> clarifies Peirce's verbal and pragmaticistic definitions of "real," and how >> he carefully distinguished that term from "external." On Peirce's account, >> the "real" is "that which is independent of what anyone thinks *about it*," >> while the "external" is "that which is independent of what anyone thinks >> *about >> anything at all*" (Lane, p. 3). The upshot is that there are *internal >> realities*, such as the fact that I had a particular dream last night; >> but this by no means entails that *what I dreamed* was real. On the >> contrary, since the contents of my dream are directly dependent on my >> (unconscious) thoughts *about them*, what I dreamed is most definitely *not >> *real (cf. CP 6.453). >> >> Likewise, according to Peirce a belief is not a reality merely by virtue >> of someone holding it; on the contrary, in order to be real, the *Dynamic >> Object *of the belief must be such as it is independently of anyone *holding >> *that belief. Hence when Peirce described God as "*Ens necessarium*; in >> my belief Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP 6.452), >> he was not merely asserting his (subjective) belief in God; he was >> explicitly claiming that the referent of the vernacular word "God" is >> (objectively) Real--"having Properties, i.e. characters sufficing to >> identify their subject, and possessing these whether they be anywise >> attributed to it by any single man or group of men, or not" (CP 6.453). >> Based on this and other writings, those attributes include necessary Being, >> creative power/activity, omniscience, omnipotence, benignity, transcendence >> (vs. immanence), infinity, supremacy, and infallibility. >> >> Since you mentioned CP 6.502, I think that it is worth quoting at greater >> length. >> >> CSP: If a pragmaticist is asked what he means by the word "God," he can >> only say that just as long acquaintance with a man of great character may >> deeply influence one's whole manner of conduct, so that a glance at his >> portrait may make a difference, just as almost living with Dr. Johnson >> enabled poor Boswell to write an immortal book and a really sublime book, >> just as long study of the works of Aristotle may make him an acquaintance, >> so if contemplation and study of the physico-psychical universe can imbue a >> man with principles of conduct analogous to the influence of a great man's >> works or conversation, then that analogue of a mind--for it is impossible >> to say that *any *human attribute is *literally *applicable--is what he >> means by "God" ... the discoveries of science, their enabling us to *predict >> *what will be the course of nature, is proof conclusive that, though we >> cannot think any thought of God's, we can catch a fragment of His Thought, >> as it were. >> >> >> Peirce is clearly saying here that by carefully reading the "book of >> nature," we become acquainted with its Author, which is what we mean by >> "God"--not "the physico-psychical universe" itself, but the One who created >> it and is still creating it. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 7:09 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> Stephen, list: >>> >>> This refers to the 'reality' of belief - as outlined by Peirce in his >>> Fixation of Belief. >>> >>> In my view, a belief is - as you say, supposition. It does not function >>> in the realm of facts. However, since, as Peirce also pointed out, our >>> universe operates within the mode of Reason [Thirdness], then - can we >>> presume that all of our beliefs are not merely logical but also - real? >>> That is - because we rationally THINK of something, does this make that >>> belief a reality? The same kind of reality as, for instance, the reality of >>> generals - which are the commonality of the instantiation? >>> >>> I don't think that we can conclude that IF we think of something, THEN, >>> this means that 'something' is real. That would commit the error of >>> 'affirming the consequent'. We can't declare that something is real. >>> BECAUSE we think of it. Therefore - my view is that views of 'the divine' >>> or any name you want to call it - can only be beliefs. And this is what I >>> see as a key problem: definitions. Until we define what we mean by our >>> terms, such as 'God' , 'theism', ...then, our arguments for or against them >>> are empty and subjective. >>> >>> Peirce himself called this 'force' by many names, eg, Nature, as 'in >>> 'Can there be the slightest hesitation in saying, then, that the human >>> intellect is implanted in man, either by a creator or by a >>> quasi-intentional effect of the struggle for existence?...and "among the >>> inscrutable purposes of God or the virtual purposes of nature" [8.211] >>> ..."Man seems to himself to have some glimmer of co-understanding with God, >>> or with Nature" [8.212]. And see 6.502, where Peirce writes that 'the >>> analogue of a mind...is what he means by "God". >>> >>> In the scientific realm, which is built around the acceptance of the use >>> of reason, when we come up with a hypothesis - this must then be tested >>> within the existential world. As Peirce said, "deduction is certain but >>> relates only to ideal objects" [8.209] So, "induction gives us the only >>> approach to certainty concerning the real that we can have >>> [ibid].... Therefore, my point is that claims based around only deduction >>> remain beliefs - held by tenacity or authority - but still, only beliefs. >>> >>> But are our beliefs only valid - and I mean valid as differentiated from >>> 'real' - if they can be empirically proven? I think that as a species, >>> almost unique in our requirement for social networking and our use of >>> symbolic language - then, beliefs are necessary for social stability and >>> even, our individual psychological health. Again, this does not make our >>> beliefs 'real'; it makes them socially valid - and, as such, open to change >>> when the societal need for them changes. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> On Thu 17/05/18 5:17 AM , "Stephen C. Rose" stever...@gmail.com sent: >>> >>> In Triadic Philosophy if something is a matter of supposition like >>> theism the definition will not be anything more than supposition. >>> Wittgenstein understood this. This is why TP calls this mystery. It is real >>> but it is also a mystery. We can talk about our experience of what we call >>> the divine or any other name you want to give it. The replies to my post >>> about life beyond this planet are similar to posts about theism. They >>> reference mystery. Since we have no proof we do not know. It is just as >>> significant that something is not present as that it is. The triadic maxim >>> says the substance is practical and ordinary and accessible. That is what I >>> drive at. Everything else to me is binary thinking that often shields >>> another purpose than arriving at truth and beauty which I take to be the >>> aim of al consideration. You can reply to this in the list if you think it >>> is worth noting. Otherwise no problem. Cheers, S >>> >>> 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 .
