Gary F, list
Yes, I agree that the terms are not the same in meaning. Peirce's
use of 'fancy', is different from our modern day understanding of the
word. My point was only to comment on the fact that our knowledge base
is made up of both beliefs which cannot be empirically tested [and he
includes metaphysics in this set] - and - objective empirical facts.
And I agree with the objective 'testing' by observation of how
people behave/talk/think - who have these beliefs. But still, such a
belief, as a creation of the human mind and not a natural law, is
quite different from the laws/habits of natural law. Beliefs can be
reformed, even if doing so requires great conceptual and societal
difficulty. And I agree - as both Peirce and Aristotle pointed out,
that we do begin and continue our knowledge explorations within
beliefs/hypotheses - and not from facts alone.
Yes, I am aware of the Chinese philosophies - my first university
degree was in Chinese, particularly classical Chinese and I read the
ancient philosophical texts in the original - something that I can no
longer do!
I think the Chinese perspectives, and there are quite a few, are not
similar to monotheism, since, to me the very ancient Chinese 'forces
of the world' which move in cycles are not similar to the singular
hierarchy of monotheism. And Confucian 'ren'[also 'jen' in pinyin] to
me, is more of a system of societal norms --and this isn't
monotheistic. The Taoist perspective is also societal [as are all
religions] but - it acknowledges a metaphysical force in the world.
Neo-Confucianism, however, seems to have moved into metaphysics [xin
or mind; qi or vital force]….This would have suggestions of
'pantheism' but without the force of an external
authority/authorities - as these forces are immanent within matter.
But it's been a very long time since I read these texts in Chinese -
and almost as long since I read about them in English, so I can't
discuss them with any depth or authority.
Edwina.
On Thu 23/05/19 2:49 PM , [email protected] sent:
Edwina,
Thank you — but I don’t think the difference between the world
of fact and the world of fancy quite captures the difference between
science and religion as I see it. When I wrote that “belief is
defined pragmatically as a cognitive habit which guides actual
conduct,” I meant to imply that we ascertain the meaning of
religious concepts in the way described by Peirce in CP 5.465:
[[ All pragmatists will further agree that their method of
ascertaining the meanings of words and concepts is no other than that
experimental method by which all the successful sciences (in which
number nobody in his senses would include metaphysics) have reached
the degrees of certainty that are severally proper to them today;
this experimental method being itself nothing but a particular
application of an older logical rule, “By their fruits ye shall
know them.” ]]
In other words, as a pragmatist I ascertain the meaning of a
religious concept by observing the actual conduct of people who have
incorporated that concept into their guidance systems, and
generalizing from that. Of course, this theorizing has to take into
account the difference between people’s professed beliefs and the
beliefs they are really disposed to act on, plus the fact that the
language expressing a religious concept can vary greatly from person
to person and culture to culture.
For instance, Chinese philosophy, whether Taoist, Confucian,
Buddhist or non-religious, makes no reference to a Creator God, but
does generally affirm a benign ‘principle’ or presence which
pervades the universe and should guide one’s conduct. I think it
is quite justifiable to say that the principle of “jen” or the
“buddha nature” occupies the same region in a Chinese meaning
space that “God” occupies in the meaning space of a monotheist.
Of course this is a very vague claim which is not testable with
anything like the exactitude of the special sciences, but that is
natural because the concepts in question are so pervasive and
comprehensive that the logical “law of contradiction” hardly
applies to them. But everyone is guided, tacitly or not, by some
concepts of that nature, because factual knowledge is simply not
enough to provide an adequate guidance system for living in the
external world, the “world of fact.” Besides, scientific inquiry
itself has to begin in the “world of fancy” with retroduction
before it can give us something empirically testable or inductively
knowable in the “world of fact.”
As for Peirce, it is unquestionable that he openly and
straightforwardly declares his belief in God as the Creator. But he
also declared that a genuine inquirer practices science religiously.
In his 1905 Adirondack lectures, for instance, he said of pure
scientists that “Their purpose is to worship God in the development
of ideas and of truth” (MS 1334). In the Cambridge lectures of 1898,
he said that “ in all its progress, science vaguely feels that it is
only learning a lesson. The value of Facts to it, lies only in this,
that they belong to Nature; and Nature is something great, and
beautiful, and sacred, and eternal, and real — the object of its
worship and its aspiration.” Call it pantheism if you like, but
this is certainly not living in the “world of fancy.”
Gary f.
From: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: 23-May-19 11:20
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: RE: Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric, was,
[PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited
Gary F, list
I would like to commend Gary F for his clear and excellent outline
of the two worlds in which we live, "we live in two worlds, the world
of fact and the world of fancy' [1.321].
As an atheist, my 'fancy' about the nature of the material and
empirical world is that it is generated by the self-organized
development of innate Mind - a belief which I can no more prove as
'the truth' than can anyone prove the existence of an external
Object, named 'God'.
Of course, I consider that I can find support for this view within
the Peircean texts - but - with the flexibility of our own minds and
interpretations, I acknowledge that some will deny this and instead,
assert that Peirce supports their very different theistic view.
However, what is important, I think, is to acknowledge these two
worlds of 'fact and fancy' - and acknowledge our own role in their
differentiation and their function.
Edwina
-----------------------------
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 .
