Jon, List, I completely agree:There can be absolutely no doubt that Peirce considered himself a theist.
And I should not have conflated* that* understanding with that of God as conceived by Peirce in anthropomorphic terms, and further with his writing that *"it stood to reason that a man could not have any idea that was not anthropomorphic*." I somehow saw you as having conjoined the ideas of theism and anthropomorphism in your post. Best, Gary R On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 6:19 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > List: > > I agree that Peirce was an unorthodox Christian in his *religious *beliefs, > but the abundant quotations that I have provided in other recent threads > amply demonstrate that his *philosophical *conception of God was quite > compatible with classical theism. Again, he explicitly affirmed that God is > real, personal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, infinite, > transcendent (not immanent), knowable (not utterly inscrutable), necessary > (not contingent), immaterial (not embodied), and eternal (outside time). > > GR: Jon concludes that "It would be disingenuous for any purported Peirce > scholar to claim otherwise [than that Peirce was a theist and an > anthropocentrist in his conception of God]. > > > For the record, here is what I actually said. > > JAS: By his own abundant and unambiguous testimony, Peirce believed that > God as *Ens necessarium* is "Really creator of all three Universes of > Experience" (CP 6.452, EP 2:434, 1908). It would be disingenuous for any > purported Peirce scholar to claim otherwise. > > > While I have acknowledged that much can be gleaned from his writings that > is compatible with pantheism, panentheism, or atheism, my recurring point > is that no one can accurately *ascribe to Peirce himself* the view that > the three universes (and corresponding categories) are identical to God, > are contained within God, are themselves eternal, or came into being from > absolutely nothing. Again, he explicitly stated otherwise in his Logic > Notebook entry that I will quote one more time. > > CSP: Cosmology or the explanatory science of the Three Universes shows > then plausibly at least how the Three Universes were produced, from an > antecedent state. But their Phenomena are all the phenomena there are. The > task of Cosmology is therefore to show how all phenomena were produced from > a state of absolute absence of any; and logic requires that this problem > [is] to be solved. But it must suppose something to be in that antecedent > state, and this must be that which would Really be in any possible state of > things whatever, that is, an *Ens Necessarium*. This Ens necessarium > being, then, the Principle of all Phenomena, must be the author and creator > of all that could ever be observed of Ideas [1ns], Occurrences [2ns], or > *Logoi* [3ns]. (R 339:[295r], 1908 Aug 28) > > > According to Peirce, God as *Ens necessarium* is distinct from and > logically antecedent to "all the phenomena there are" (1ns/2ns/3ns) as "the > author and creator of all" observable phenomena. This is not "my reading of > Peirce," it is what his own words plainly assert. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 2:50 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Helmut, List >> >> Comments on your questions,, >> >> 1] Yes, my reading of Peirce is that the term of ‘God’ means Reason, >> Reasoning, Logic, Mind. See 6.218 ’there is no principle of action in the >> universe but reason’….but, this reasoning is not deductive but also >> inductive and abdutive, ie, open. This is the result of, as you note, that >> ALL THREE Categories were existent from the beginning. >> >> Therefore reasoning or logic is necessary - since it enables continuity >> and the formation of habits of generality..Without habits - what would >> result? That is - a universe operative only in Firstness and/or Secondness >> - would result in: Entropy. >> >> What is meant by the term of ‘god’? In In 8.211-212, he compares it with >> ’Nature’ - andNature is an evolving, rational expression of Mind as >> Matter.The concept that ‘Matter is effete Mind’ [6.25] is basic to Peirce’s >> objective idealism [6.24]; Note that 6.268 ‘where all mind partakes of the >> nature of matter’..and so on. See an extensive analysis; 6.277. >> >> In 6.502, Peirce uses the analogy of “a mind’ for the meaning of ‘god’. >> I have no problem with such an analogy - and reject the anthropomorphic >> images [again, I’m an atheist so….]…and reject the concept of god as >> causal. Again, I consider Peirce’s insistence that all three categories >> emerged together - to be a key infrastructure in his concept of the role of >> reason in the operation of the universe. . >> >> And Peirce’s outline of nothing [see 1.412 and 6.217 is not the ’nothing >> of negation [6.217…”There is no individual thing, no compulsion outward nor >> inward, no law”…andn “nothing necessarily resulted [6.218\. >> >> 3. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘capitalism’. My understanding of the >> term is that it means that the actions of the Investment and Production of >> goods and services are in the control of the individual, the private >> individual. Rather than the collective or State. >> >> The benefits of capitalism is that this enables diversity and novelty of >> innovation [ which can only be done by free-thinking, curious individuals]; >> it enables an economy whose goods and services are linked to local >> realities [ local environment of land and plants/animals, local needs, >> …rather than top-down one-style fits all ]. It enables multiple sites of >> production - and - importantly, if one individual’s enterprise fails - only >> he fails - not the whole collective. The emergence of capitalism in the >> 15th 16th century and the concomitant development of the middle class >> enabled an explosion of population growth in Europe - and a concomitant >> increase in health and well-being - and - eventually, a need to expand to >> the ’new world’ because of this population growth [ see Braudel F, >> histories]. >> >> Edwina >> >> On Aug 27, 2024, at 2:40 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> List, >> >> as I said, I find the term "habit" at least as due to investigating its >> anthropomorphicity. The term "nothing" though I don´t see for >> anthropomorphic at all. (Sorry for my bad English, maybe I confuese "to" >> with "as" and "for"). Anyways, when we speak of "nothing" in a theological >> context, it becomes complex, I think: >> >> 1-- Is God logic/word, like John wrote (Bible) at the beginning of his >> gospel? >> >> 2 -- Or does God have to, like all creatures and all inanimate nature, >> obey to logic, because logic is absolutely inevitable, and the one primary >> ens nessecitarium? I think that is e.g. the position of Omri Boehm, in >> whose view ethics too derive from logic, as I think to have understood). >> >> I´m am against Hegel, but must admit, that he wrote a fine description, >> how everything evolved from nothing. BUT: I agree with Edwina (if i >> understood right), that this is not an evolution, as all three categories >> must have been there from the start. >> >> Well, I am sort of an agnostic, somewhere between panentheism and theism. >> I guess, even between theists, there are different ways to define the >> concept "God". And certainly the concept "nothing": Might well be, that it >> merely exist for concept in capitalism? (Sorry for that, Edwina, but I just >> felt like this). I just wanted to say, that maybe point 2 is true, and in >> that case, maybe there never has been "nothing". I think, the buddhist say >> so, I am not a buddhist, but this their point is worth of taking it into >> the discourse as possibility (type due to not knowing). >> >> But with Anselm of Canterbury, we might say, that if we can imagine >> "nothing", there must be, or have been, nothing. But I would doubt that we >> can imagine nothing (besides of being broke). It is a nonsentic term. Maybe. >> >> Best regards, Helmut >> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 27. August 2024 um 03:50 Uhr >> *Von:* "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> >> *An:* "Gary Richmond" <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* "Peirce-L" <[email protected]>, "Edwina Taborsky" < >> [email protected]> >> *Betreff:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] CSP: "A man could not have any idea that was >> not anthropomorphic," was, Ens necessarium >> Gary, R, List >> >> I certainly agree that Peirce was not an ‘orthodox Christian’ - and think >> that this term - and the term of ’theism’ needs to be clarified within >> Peirce’s [not someone who is not Peirce] - understanding. >> >> I think Peirce's outline of the categories is a basis for understanding >> some of what these terms means - since the operation of the categories must >> include such concepts as the origin of the universe, of evolution and >> adaptation - as well as the societal roles that we understand that religion >> plays. >> >> Therefore I also disagree with JAS’s assertion that ’something cannot >> come out of nothing’ - and thus, his claim that an "there must have been >> *something >> else* real that produced all observable phenomena (contingent being)”.Such >> a comment could only be made when one is thinking within and only within >> the mindset of Secondndess - which requires kinetic linear causality. >> >> But Peirce’s explanation of the universe as it developed from Nothing >> [1.412] isn’t an analysis based within Secondness but explains how ALL’ >> THREE categories emerged within this realm of Nothing. As such, these >> three modes together produce, within their capacity of self-organization >> and self-creation - our universe. That is how I understand Peirce’s >> writings - which is quite a different understanding from that of JAS - and >> , as I’ve noted, there’s no point in our discussing these issues - as we >> are both ’settled’ in our interpretations [and thus, alas, both do indeed, >> can superficially be said to block the way of inquiry]. >> >> As for anthropomorphic images - our species ’thinks’ only in symbols, and >> so - it is an easy analytic mode - but there are other images and symbolic >> means to explain these issues - even including mathematics! - but the >> anthropomorphic ones tend to align our identities with ‘more powerful >> forces than our individual selves - and are helpful to clarify our moral >> and ethical rules. But - I think they can be misleading and dangerous >> …especially when set up within beliefs held by ’tenacity’ and ‘authority’ . >> >> Edwina >> >> On Aug 26, 2024, at 8:14 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> List, >> >> While Jon has shown that Peirce considered himself to be a theist "[b]y his >> own abundant and unambiguous testimony" in the near exhaustive group of >> quotations which he supplied. I would only add that, in my view, Peirce was >> a *peculiar* sort of theist, and certainly *not* an orthodox one. >> Indeed, as he wrote, he was "very far from being an orthodox Christian." >> >> "I am very far from being an orthodox Christian; but as I see deeper into >> the creeds than the men who merely mouth them, and see them in a different >> way, I see more clearly their preciousness" (In a letter to William >> James dated November 25, 1902) >> >> I would suggest that this passage reflects Peirce's nuanced and personal >> interpretation of the creeds (and not only the creeds), differing from more >> conventional understandings and beliefs held by many -- if not most -- >> others in his congregational circle(s). [I had earlier noted that from my >> youth I too have 'translated' the myths, rituals, and Christian creeds >> into ideas that were also anything but orthodox and conventional, such as >> my conception of the Cosmic Christ. I think it likely that others, >> perhaps many others, have done something like that (or how would one >> ever arrive at such a concept as the Cosmic Christ?)] >> >> As for Peirce's views, as remarked, Jon has convincingly and, as he sees >> it, *decisively* argued that Peirce was a theist, although he adds that >> Peirce presents his theistic position as "but a highly plausible >> hypothesis." >> >> JAS: In the state of things logically antecedent to the three universes >> (and corresponding categories), which was utterly devoid of any phenomena >> whatsoever, there must have been *something else* real that produced all >> observable phenomena (contingent being), namely, that which is real in *every >> possible* state of things (necessary being). He presents this as neither >> a hard fact nor a mere opinion, but a highly plausible hypothesis, and >> elsewhere directly addresses the charge of anthropomorphism. >> >> CSP: I have after long years of the severest examination become fully >> satisfied that, other things being equal, an anthropomorphic conception, >> whether it makes the best nucleus for a scientific working hypothesis or >> not, is far more likely to be approximately true than one that is not >> anthropomorphic. ... [A]s between an old-fashioned God and a modern patent >> Absolute, recommend me to the anthropomorphic conception if it is a >> question of which is the more likely to be about the truth. (CP 5.47n, EP >> 2:152, 1903) >> >> >> >> Jon is saying that Peirce's views are both theistic *and* anthropomorphic, >> and these two are conjoined: "[Peirce] even explicitly endorses >> anthropomorphism in conjunction with theism." >> >> >> CSP: To Schiller's anthropomorphism I subscribe in the main. And in >> particular if it implies *theism*, I am an anthropomorphist. >> >> >> GR: But regarding anthropomorphism, Peirce tellingly writes elsewhere: >> >> >> If I were to attach a definite meaning to “anthropomorphism,” *I should >> think it stood to reason that a man could not have any idea that was not >> anthropomorphic*, and that it was simply to repeat the error of Kant to >> attempt to escape anthropomorphism (emphasis added). MS [R] 293:1-2; NEM >> 4:313 1906-7 >> >> Here Peirce says that he considered it "reasonable" to believe that all >> our ideas are necessarily anthropomorphic. However, as both Peirce and >> Schiller were pragmatists, their anthropomorphism involves -- to some >> smaller or greater extent -- their understanding that we humans naturally >> understand the world and concepts, including God, through our own >> experiences and characteristics. Thus, when thinking about God, people >> quasi-necessarily ascribe human qualities, emotions, and intentions to the >> divine. Further, Peirce's and Schiller's anthropomorphism seems tied to >> their both being pragmatists in the sense that understanding God in human >> terms makes the concept of God more relatable and meaningful than the >> abstractions of the Enlightenment and, in particular, German Idealism. >> Finally, an anthropomorphic God is one with whom humans can seemingly have >> a personal relationship. >> >> Jon concludes that "It would be disingenuous for any purported Peirce >> scholar to claim otherwise [than that Peirce was a theist and an >> anthropocentrist in his conception of God]. >> >> That may be so as far as it goes, although stated in a rather hubristic >> way. But as I see it there is *much* more to be said about the >> *character* of Peirce's theism, his *un-orthodox Christianity*, and his >> anthropocentrism which holds that *we can have no ideas which are not >> anthropomorphic. * >> >> But for me, perhaps an even more important consideration is that there is >> most certainly *very much* more to inquire into as to how his >> metaphysics might be used -- and, indeed, is being used -- to explore >> metaphysical and religious positions *other than theistic and >> anthropocentric ones*. >> >> As I previously remarked, I do not want to get into religious >> metaphysical discussions with Jon, now for several reasons. >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the > message and nothing in the body. More at > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
