John, List: JFS: That statement has a very dogmatic tone:
No more so than the entire passage by Peirce that I was summarizing, which Gary R. already quoted in full. JFS: I won't claim that Peirce never wrote anything similar to that. But he never stated any philosophical point with such absolute finality. Indeed, not with "absolute finality," but this nevertheless seems pretty definitive to me. CSP: The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws. (CP 6.25, EP 1:293; 1891) Peirce here effectively characterized *all *of the alternatives to objective idealism as *unintelligible*; and again, I am not aware of any *subsequent *statements by him to the contrary. Are you? JFS: The phrase "whole point" claims that the cited passage has precisely one point. The phrase "There are only three options" puts all the variations over the millennia into three distinct lumps. Yes, that is my straightforward reading of the cited passage. Would you like to offer an alternative interpretation? JFS: Moral of the story: Peirce rejected dogmatism and emphasized falliblism. We should follow his example. Sure, but a dogmatist would stubbornly ignore further evidence, while I have expressed my openness to considering it. Fallibilism does not preclude confident assertions, especially with respect to matters about which one currently has no genuine doubt; it simply requires a willingness to engage in further inquiry, should such doubt be prompted by new information. In this case, if there are *later *writings by Peirce that might be understood to *repudiate *objective idealism as he defined it in 1891, then I would sincerely like to take a look at them. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 8:34 AM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, > > That statement has a very dogmatic tone: > > JAS > > The whole point of CP 6.24-25 (1891) is that once dualism is dismissed > > in favor of monism, there are only three options--mind and matter are > > independent (neutralism), matter is primordial such that mind depends on > > matter (materialism), or mind is primordial such that matter depends on > > mind (idealism). Peirce unambiguously endorsed the last alternative and > > rejected the others, and as far as I know, he never abandoned that view. > > I won't claim that Peirce never wrote anything similar to that. But > he never stated any philosophical point with such absolute finality. > > CSP, CP 4.237 > > It is easy to speak with precision upon a general theme. Only, one > > must commonly surrender all ambition to be certain. It is equally > > easy to be certain. One has only to be sufficiently vague. It is not > > so difficult to be pretty precise and fairly certain at once about > > a very narrow subject. > > I checked CP for every occurrence of 'unambiguous'. It only occurs > 7 times, and only about mathematics or logic. Those are "very narrow > subjects". > > The phrase "whole point" claims that the cited passage has precisely > one point. The phrase "There are only three options" puts all the > variations over the millennia into three distinct lumps. > > Those lumps are as general as anything anyone ever imagined. > Therefore, one must surrender all ambition to be certain. > > CSP, CP 6.24 > > The old dualistic notion of mind and matter, so prominent in > > Cartesianism, as two radically different kinds of substance, will > > hardly find defenders today. Rejecting this, we are driven to some > > form of hylopathy, otherwise called monism. > > I googled the word 'hylopathy' and found two uses prior to Peirce. > (copy below) > > But the first quotation, which is cited by the second, sounds > very similar to the old Cartesian version that Peirce rejected. > Peirce probably remembered the old word, but had forgotten the > details about how it had been used. That is not a point in > favor of using this passage as a basis for a strong conclusion. > > Moral of the story: Peirce rejected dogmatism and emphasized > falliblism. We should follow his example. > > John > __________________________________________________________________ > > From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hylopathy > > hylopathy (uncountable) > > (obsolete) The ability of a spirit to penetrate and affect matter. > quotations ▲ > > 1662, Henry More, An Antidote Against Atheism, Appendix, Chapter 3: > > And this affection of a Spirit we will make bold to call, for more > compendiousness, by one Greek term ὑλοπάθεια which, that there may be no > suspicion of any fraud or affected foolery in words, we will as plainly > as we can define thus, A power in a Spirit of offering so near to a > corporeal emanation from the Center of life, that it will so perfectly > fill the receptivity of Matter into which it has penetrated, that it is > very difficult or impossible for any other Spirit to possess the same, > and therefore of becoming hereby so firmly and closely united to a Body, > as both to actuate and to be acted upon, to affect and be affected thereby. > > 1726, Joseph Glanvill, Sadducismus trimphatus, page 99: > > Which Faculty of Spirits, in the Appendix to the Antidote against > Atheism is called ὑλοπάθεια, the Hylopathy of Spirits, or a Power of > affecting, or being affected by the Matter. > > 1890, Charles S. Peirce, Architecture of Theories: > > The old dualistic notion of mind and matter, so prominent in > Cartesianism, will hardly find defenders today. Rejecting this we are > driven to some form of hylopathy, otherwise called monism. >
----------------------------- 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 .
