John, List: JFS: There are many philosophers and theologians of various persuasions who agree with that equation at a "sufficiently vague" level.
Maybe so, but your claim was that it is vague enough to be *certain*, which I continue to deny. Equating any two of those terms within a particular context and for a particular purpose is a very different proposition from equating all of them without qualification. JFS: 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. Peirce's statement was that "every fine argument *is *a poem" and that "every true poem *is *a sound argument." The implication is that not all sound arguments are reducible to *formal *logic--i.e., argumentations. CSP: An "Argument" is any process of thought reasonably tending to produce a definite belief. An "Argumentation" is an Argument proceeding upon definitely formulated premisses. (CP 6.456, EP 2:435; 1908) Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:08 PM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 .
