Jon,
There are many philosophers and theologians of various persuasions
who agree with that equation at a "sufficiently vague" level.
JFS: I would answer with a statement that is sufficiently vague to
be certain: Theos = Logos = Tao = Dharma = Natura = God of Spinoza,
Einstein...
JAS: Each of those terms, taken by itself, is indeed quite vague.
However, equating all of them with each other is a bold assertion,
and not at all certain.
The equation Theos = Logos is based on an interpretation of
Heraclitus by Philo Judeus, who wrote many volumes of theology
to reconcile Greek philosophy (especially Plato) with the
Septuagint. About a century later, John the Evangelist repeated
that equation, and John's gospel is the one that Peirce cited
most frequently in CP.
The equation Logos = Tao was chosen by the Christians who translated
the New Testament to Chinese. The strong similarities of Dharma, Tao
and Logos have been recognized by many theologians and philosophers
of East and West.
The equation of Natura = Deus was a keystone of Spinoza's philosophy.
The Jewish leaders of Amsterdam begged Spinoza to retract that
claim -- not because they rejected it, but because they did not
want to upset the Christians. When Spinoza refused to retract it,
they pronounced anathema on him.
In an earlier note, I cited an article by Einstein in which he wrote
that he believed in the God of Spinoza. He sent it to the Liberal
Ministers' Club of New York City in reply to a letter they sent him.
They published it in _The Christian Register_, June 1948, and it was
reprinted in _Ideas and Opinions_, Crown Publishers, New York, 1954.
As for Whitehead's process philosophy, I believe that he had 20 years
of experience with modern physics that Peirce did not know. For that
reason, I don't blame Hartshorne for preferring Whitehead's system as
the basis for his theology. In fact, I sympathize with Hartshorne.
JAS
equating all of them with each other is a bold assertion, and not
at all certain; I, for one, flatly deny it.
You can deny it if you like. But it is a legitimate claim that has
been used as a basis for many ecumenical discussions, especially
in meetings of philosophers and theologians of East and West.
Peirce had studied the philosophies and religions of the East.
As far as I know, nobody asked him about that equation. But if
you or anybody else can find more about what Peirce may have
written on those issues, I would very much like to read it.
JFS: The rest is poetry.
JAS: And what did Peirce have to say about poetry?
I have a very high regard for poetry -- and for the various
mythologies of the world, which are usually stated in poetic
or chanted forms. I quoted Robert Frost with strong approval.
And by the way, I do *not* equate myth with falsehood. I believe
that the mythologies of the world have deep insights that cannot
be adequately stated outside of a narrative, poetic form.
CSP: The generalization of sentiment can take place on different
sides. Poetry is one sort of generalization of sentiment, and in
so far is the regenerative metamorphosis of sentiment. But poetry
remains on one side ungeneralized, and to that is due its emptiness.
The complete generalization, the complete regeneration of sentiment
is religion, which is poetry, but poetry completed. (CP 1.676; 1898)
I mostly agree. But I am not convinced that generalization is
necessary for poetry to have value. I prefer the following
two quotations:
CSP: I hear you say: "All that is not fact; it is poetry." Nonsense!
Bad poetry is false, I grant; but nothing is truer than true poetry.
(CP 1.315, EP 2:193; 1903)
By the way, Rudolf Carnap was a good logician who used the phrase
"That's poetry!" as his strongest condemnation. That shows a lack
of insight that vitiated Carnap's philosophy. For the reasons why
Carnap's logical positivism was a dead end, see "Signs, processes,
and language games", http://jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.pdf
I presented a talk from which that paper was derived at a conference
on Pragmatic Process Philosophy at the University of Nijmegen.
CSP: ... the Universe as an argument is necessarily a great work
of art, a great poem,--for every fine argument is a poem and a
symphony,-- just as every true poem is a sound argument. (CP 5.119,
EP 2:194; 1903)
Yes indeed. But the argument stated in a great poem cannot be
translated to a great argument in logic. Any attempt to do so
would destroy everything that made the poem great.
John
-----------------------------
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 .
