Indeed. Peirce was very much opposed to many earlier philosophers because they had been theologically trained and reasoned from theology rather than logic.
Dan > On Apr 17, 2020, at 10:50 AM, John F. Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
