On 6/30/2019 4:00 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
I like that the world cannot be explained so easily.
All simple explanations are wrong, including this one.
But even if they're not completely correct, they can often
"focus attention", as Peirce said, on observations that
we might have missed.
For example, I had read Don Roberts' book many years ago and
decided that there wasn't much reason to study entitative graphs
because Peirce himself abandoned them. But this thread led me
to take another look at the question of how Peirce decided that
the EntG in Fig. 1 could be read "John gives John to John."
I couldn't find a clear explanation In Peirce's writings. so I
looked at Don's book. His table of transformations on p. 136
shows how to map EntGs to and from EGs. Then I noticed that
the rules aren't completely symmetric.
in this graphs-case too there is such a symmetry-break! ...
Is that God telling us, that we can never understand Him,
so we can never be like Him? I would appreciate that, if a
"close-to-but-not exactly"-argument could be sufficient to
keep people like the Kurds and the Turks from shooting at
each other.
But the worst wars are between people whose beliefs are almost
identical. There's not much difference between the beliefs of the
Kurds and Turks or the Catholics and Anglicans in Northern Ireland.
Since you brought up the issues about God, I added a copy (below)
of a short article by Einstein that elaborates his statement about
believing in the God of Spinoza.
John
_____________________________________________________________________
Einstein's reply to a greeting sent by the Liberal Ministers' Club of
New York City. It was published in _The Christian Register_, June 1948,
and reprinted in _Ideas and Opinions_, Crown Publishers, New York, 1954.
Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and
science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these
questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and,
indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that
in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative
answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while
most people readily agree on what is meant by "science," they are likely
to differ on the meaning of "religion."
As to science, we may well define it for our purpose as "methodical
thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our
sensual experiences." Science, in the immediate, produces knowledge and,
indirectly, means of action. It leads to methodical action if definite
goals are set up in advance. For the function of setting up goals and
passing statements of value transcends its domain. While it is true that
science, to the extent of its grasp of causative connections, may reach
important conclusions as to the compatibility and incompatibility of
goals and evaluations, the independent and fundamental definitions
regarding goals and values remain beyond science's reach.
As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that it
deals with goals and evaluations and, in general, with the emotional
foundation of human thinking and acting, as far as these are not
predetermined by the inalterable hereditary disposition of the human
species. Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at
large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal
life, and with mutual human relationship. These ideals religion attempts
to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through
the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts
and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation
and action along the lines of the accepted ideals.
It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious
traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This
occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically
fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science.
Thus, it is of vital importance for the preservation of true religion
that such conflicts be avoided when they arise from subjects which, in
fact, are not really essential for the pursuance of the religious aims.
When we consider the various existing religions as to their essential
substance, that is, divested of their myths, they do not seem to me to
differ as basically from each other as the proponents of the
"relativistic" or conventional theory wish us to believe. And this is by
no means surprising. For the moral attitudes of a people that is
supported by religion need always aim at preserving and promoting the
sanity and vitality of the community and its individuals, since
otherwise this community is bound to perish. A people that were to honor
falsehood, defamation, fraud, and murder would be unable, indeed, to
subsist for very long.
When confronted with a specific case, however, it is no easy task to
determine clearly what is desirable and what should be eschewed, just as
we find it difficult to decide what exactly it is that makes good
painting or good music. It is something that may be felt intuitively
more easily than rationally comprehended. Likewise, the great moral
teachers of humanity were, in a way, artistic geniuses in the art of
living. In addition to the most elementary precepts directly motivated
by the preservation of life and the sparing of unnecessary suffering,
there are others to which, although they are apparently not quite
commensurable to the basic precepts, we nevertheless attach considerable
importance. Should truth, for instance, be sought unconditionally even
where its attainment and its accessibility to all would entail heavy
sacrifices in toil and happiness? There are many such questions which,
from a rational vantage point, cannot easily be answered or cannot be
answered at all. Yet, I do not think that the so-called "relativistic"
viewpoint is correct, not even when dealing with the more subtle moral
decisions.
When considering the actual living conditions of present day civilized
humanity from the standpoint of even the most elementary religious
commands, one is bound to experience a feeling of deep and painful
disappointment at what one sees. For while religion prescribes brotherly
love in the relations among the individuals and groups, the actual
spectacle more resembles a battlefield than an orchestra. Everywhere, in
economic as well as in political life, the guiding principle is one of
ruthless striving for success at the expense of one's fellow men. This
competitive spirit prevails even in school and, destroying all feelings
of human fraternity and cooperation, conceives of achievement not as
derived from the love for productive and thoughtful work, but as
springing from personal ambition and fear of rejection.
There are pessimists who hold that such a state of affairs is
necessarily inherent in human nature; it is those who propound such
views that are the enemies of true religion, for they imply thereby that
religious teachings are utopian ideals and unsuited to afford guidance
in human affairs. The study of the social patterns in certain so-called
primitive cultures, however, seems to have made it sufficiently evident
that such a defeatist view is wholly unwarranted. Whoever is concerned
with this problem, a crucial one in the study of religion as such, is
advised to read the description of the Pueblo Indians in Ruth Benedict's
book, Patterns of Culture. Under the hardest living conditions, this
tribe has apparently accomplished the difficult task of delivering its
people from the scourge of competitive spirit and of fostering in it a
temperate, cooperative conduct of life, free of external pressure and
without any curtailment of happiness.
The interpretation of religion, as here advanced, implies a dependence
of science on the religious attitude, a relation which, in our
predominantly materialistic age, is only too easily overlooked. While it
is true that scientific results are entirely independent from religious
or moral considerations, those individuals to whom we owe the great
creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly
religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and
susceptible to the rational striving for knowledge. If this conviction
had not been a strongly emotional one and if those searching for
knowledge had not been inspired by Spinoza's Amor Dei Intellectualis,
they would hardly have been capable of that untiring devotion which
alone enables man to attain his greatest achievements.
-----------------------------
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 .
