List 1]First - I think you should follow your own advice - about Dynamic Interpretants and Immediate Interpretants.I did NOT say that "every "individual and current personal reading of Peirce" is equally valid”.
I said that each of us interprets Peirce’s writings, within a semiosic triad, particular to their own knowledge base. As to which of these interpretations is ‘valid’ - that’s for the ‘community of scholars to affirm. Not the individual author of that interpretation. 2] You wrote this example: > P1. If God is not actually real, then God is not possibly real. > P2. God is possibly real. > C1. Therefore, God is actually real. This is called the Fallacy of Circular Reasoning, where the conclusion [god is actually real] is used as a premise. And also - a version of the Fallacy of denying the antecedent. An example would be: If it does not rain then my car will not be wet. My car is wet Therefore it did rain. [No, the sprinkler was on]. 3] You wrote this example: > P3. If God is possibly real, then God is necessarily real. > C2. Therefore, God is necessarily real. This is in my view, fallacious due to ambiguity, since it merges the two terms of ‘possibly’ and ’necessarily’. Again - these are your BELIEFS- about the universe, god, etc- and no-one is going to discuss your beliefs with you… The problem is, I feel, that you seem to want to pull Peirce into being a supporter of these beliefs - and this mightn’t be warranted. Edwina > On Aug 28, 2024, at 7:22 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > List: > > As it happens, I have recently been studying the writings of Anselm of > Canterbury, initially prompted by an online article about his definition of > truth as "rectitude" > (https://www.theconservativereformer.com/articles/anselm-truth). He applies > it not only to statements and opinions, but also to the will, actions, the > senses, and the being of things. This is possible because each of these > possesses rectitude, and thus is true, just in case it conforms to its > God-given purpose, which for any statement or opinion is "signifying that > what-is is”--reminiscent of Peirce's assertion, "The purpose of every sign is > to express 'fact,' and by being joined with other signs, to approach as > nearly as possible to determining an interpretant which would be the perfect > Truth, the absolute Truth, and as such (at least, we may use this language) > would be the very Universe" (EP 2:304, c. 1901). > > As for the so-called ontological argument, a name not coined by Anselm > himself, the dismissive summary below is an all-too-common caricature--if it > were that simple to refute, then we would not still be discussing it nearly a > thousand years after its introduction. For one thing, Anselm was not seeking > to "prove" the existence/reality of God to anyone--his original title of > Proslogion, the work in which it appears, was Faith Seeking Understanding; > and its literary form is that of a lengthy prayer addressed to God himself, > not a philosophical treatise aimed at persuading unbelievers. It is an > exposition of the concept of God as "that than which nothing greater can be > thought," such that anyone who genuinely comprehends it purportedly cannot > help but conceive of such a being as real. Presumably, that is why some > Peirce scholars have classified his "Neglected Argument" as ontological, but > I disagree with them--I consider it to be cosmological, since the hypothesis > of God's reality arises as a proposed explanation of the origin and order of > our existing universe. > > It turns out that Peirce himself devotes several paragraphs to summarizing > Anselm's ontological argument in one of his earliest writings, his sixth > Lowell Lecture in 1866 (W 1:446-448); attached are images of those pages from > the Internet Archive > (https://archive.org/details/writingsofcharle0001peir/page/446/mode/2up). He > suggests that the strongest point against it is that "all that a definition > says or as a definition can say is not how a thing exists but of what sort it > would be if it were to exist," so it "rests upon a confusion between would be > and is, between being thought and being"; and that the strongest point in its > favor is "That an ideal of a God is required to bring our general conceptions > to unity is admitted on all hands. And that ideal God would not be such > unless it were regarded as having existence and therefore it constitutes a > hypothesis of a real God and as this hypothesis is required in every state of > Cognition, its truth is constituted thereby." > > More recent commentators have often sought to translate Anselm's ontological > argument into formal modal logic, and Andrzej Biłat even offers this > "simplest relevant version" that does not require any modal operators > (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-020-02908-5). > > P1. If God is not actually real, then God is not possibly real. > P2. God is possibly real. > C1. Therefore, God is actually real. > > P1 and P2 both seem quite plausible, and C1 follows from them by modus > tollens. However, P1 is logically equivalent to this less plausible > formulation. > > P1a. If God is possibly real, then God is actually real. > > The underlying idea is that God is defined as necessary being, so if God is > real in some possible world, then God is real in every possible world, > including the actual world. This is more accurately expressed as follows. > > P3. If God is possibly real, then God is necessarily real. > C2. Therefore, God is necessarily real. > > C2 follows from P2 and P3 by modus ponens, and C1 can then be derived from C2 > in accordance with modal axiom T--if God is necessarily real, then God is > actually real--which is uncontroversial and corresponds directly to Peirce's > permission in the Gamma part of Existential Graphs to convert any oddly > enclosed broken cut into a solid cut. However, P3 is even less plausible than > P1a. The heart of the matter is revealed by these formulations that are > logically equivalent to P3. > > P3a. God's reality is either necessary or impossible. > P3b. God is not both possibly real and possibly not real. > > In summary, the persuasiveness of such modal ontological arguments boils down > to finding it more plausible that God's reality is necessary than that it is > impossible, and/or finding it more plausible that God is possibly real than > that God is possibly not real. An upshot of P3b is that what Gary Mar calls > "notional agnosticism" > (https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1563&context=faithandphilosophy), > where God's reality is treated as contingent, is not a rational alternative > given the definition of God as Ens necessarium. > > Finally, it will surprise no one who is paying attention that I flatly reject > the self-defeating claim that every "individual and current personal reading > of Peirce" is equally valid. Otherwise, I could assert that he was a devout > confessional Lutheran Christian, and no one could challenge me--not even by > providing multiple quotations where he blatantly contradicts such a > description. Our proper goal when reading his texts, or those of any other > author, is to conform our individual dynamical interpretants to the final > interpretant of those texts--how an infinite community would understand them > after infinite investigation. The first step is making sure that our > individual dynamical interpretants are consistent with the immediate > interpretant of those texts--the meaning of the words themselves in > accordance with their definitions, rules of grammar, context, etc., i.e., > "what his own words plainly assert." This is the sense in which logic as > semeiotic is a normative science. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 6:49 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Helmut, List >> >> Just a further point about your reference to Anselm - who uses the >> ontological argument to ‘prove’ the existence of God. I consider this a >> circular argument [ and thus, invalid] - ie, to declare that ’IF the >> greatest possible being exists in the mind, THEN it must also exist in >> reality…ie..the Cartesian notion of a ‘clear and distinct idea’. And the >> concepts of an a priori necessary causality But, after all, this >> ontological argument can be used to prove the existence of anything - even >> unicorns and witches. >> >> As for JAS’s sentence - This is not "my reading of Peirce," it is what his >> own words plainly assert.” - No- any conclusion any of us come to - since >> Peirce is no longer here - has to be derived from our personal reading of >> Peirce. There is no such thing as ‘his own words plainly assert’, There is >> only what our individual and current personal reading of those words >> conclude. >> >> Edwina > <Peirce 1866 - Lowell Lecture VI on Anselm.pdf>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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.
