BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John - thanks for your comment. I think that's an important point.
" Many theologians have considered Peirce's semeiotic useful for
analyzing theological arguments. But nobody, not even Peirce, has
suggested that theology or any theological hypothesis is sufficiently
robust to be used as a foundation for developing semeiotic."
Edwina
On Fri 17/04/20 10:50 AM , "John F. Sowa" [email protected] sent:
Auke and Jon AS,
I strongly agree with Auke's analysis. I would also like to comment
on the following point:
AvB> God or the conception of god do not deliver valid arguments in
semiotics. My interest is systematical not biographical.
A biographical analysis can be useful for clarifying what Peirce
meant in his voluminous writings. That is an important task for
Peirce scholars. Many theologians have considered Peirce's
semeiotic useful for analyzing theological arguments. But nobody,
not even Peirce, has suggested that theology or any theological
hypothesis is sufficiently robust to be used as a foundation for
developing semeiotic.
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 .
