List: Regarding #1 below, my point is simply that we can properly ascribe beliefs to Peirce that he explicitly endorses, such as God being *Ens necessarium*, "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience"; and we cannot properly ascribe contradictory beliefs to him, such as the three universes (and corresponding categories) being eternal or somehow coming into being from absolutely nothing.
Regarding #2 below, the following argument is deductively valid--if both premisses are true, then the conclusion must also be true. P1. If God is not actually real, then God is not possibly real. P2. God is possibly real. C1. Therefore, God is actually real. It is neither circular (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning) nor question-begging (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question), because C1 is not already assumed in P1 or P2. Denying the antecedent *after *denying the consequent is not a fallacy, it is (as I said) the classical inference rule called *modus tollens* ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens). Accordingly, the following argument is also deductively valid. If it does not rain then my car will not be wet. My car is wet Therefore it did rain. If my car is wet because the sprinkler was on, not because it rained, then the first premiss is false--the argument is still valid, but unsound. Likewise, the only way that C1 could be false is if either P1 or P2 is false. Regarding #3 below, the following argument is also deductively valid. P2. God is possibly real. P3. If God is possibly real, then God is necessarily real. C2. Therefore, God is necessarily real. This is (as I said) the classical inference rule called *modus ponens* ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens). There is no ambiguity here because "possibly" has exactly the same meaning in P2 and P3, and "necessarily" has exactly the same meaning in P3 and C2. Again, the only way that C2 could be false is if either P2 or P3 is false. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 6:56 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
