Hello Edwina, Time is short on my end. I am trying to use the term "aesthetics" in a manner consistent with the tradition in philosophy, starting with Baumgarten, who coined the term, up through Kant and through Peirce's writings. I don't feel a need to add another definition. We have plenty of dictionaries to consult if we are looking for a nominal definition of the term.
If you think something I've said doesn't fit with the way the term is used in this tradition, let me know. --Jeff ________________________________ From: Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 1:22 PM To: Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]> Cc: Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>; Peirce-L <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretation of Peirce on Aesthetics and the Divine Jeff, List Thanks for your post.. First -as with all discussions, terms need definitions, and I would ask you to define what you mean by ‘aesthetics’. I find the idea of God attractive [ if only], but completely implausible. I do find, however, the concept of Mind as outlined in Peirce’s definitions, both attractive and plausible. As for my understanding of the normative sciences [ the study of what ought to be], …aesthetics, from what I read in Peirce, is focused around ‘qualitative’ ideals of feeling [1.191, 5.129] and thus, very difficult to come to any conclusions. We can certainly see this in the rejection of ideals in much of current Woke ideology. However, I think that the realities of Secondness [ethics] and Thirdness [logic] will force the development of a normative ideal within the aesthetic realm. Do we have ‘habits’ of feeling? To my understanding, habits develop within the realm of Thirdness, and Feeling remains in the realm of Firstness - without habits. Can the two realms of Secondness and Thirdness control Firstness? As for the monotheistic religions, since my analysis of them is that these religious types emerge only within very large populations, then, the ideology in them is formed to deal with the societal requirements of very large populations; namely - commonality of identity, rules for interactions with others, common beliefs requirement etc… Edwina On Sep 9, 2024, at 12:29 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]> wrote: Hello Jon S, Edwina, Gary R, Gary F, and List, Thank you, Jon, for addressing my questions about interpreting Peirce. It seems we are largely in agreement on several of these issues. If that is the case, your final remark should not significantly impact your interpretation of Peirce. You mentioned: “Peirce affirms natural theology but not Biblical theology, general revelation but not special revelation, and theism in general but not any creed in particular. I always try to keep this firmly in mind when reading, contemplating, and discussing his writings since this is a major point of difference between my personal views and his.” Since these differences largely pertain to personal religious and theological views, they should not significantly affect your interpretation of Peirce’s arguments in the context of scientific logic and metaphysics, nor the extent to which you find those arguments reasonable. One place where the concept of God appears in Peirce’s normative sciences is in aesthetics, where he examines ideals that might shape our habits of feeling. In my reading of “A Neglected Argument,” I see several strands of the argument as primarily aesthetic. By comparison, Kant’s three Critiques explore whether the Idea of God should serve as a regulative ideal in theoretical inquiry, practical pursuits, and aesthetic reflection. Richard Smyth, in Reading Peirce Reading, notes that Peirce agrees with Emerson’s approach in “The Poet,” asserting that the aesthetic dimensions of experience hold a certain priority over practical and theoretical aspects for philosophical reflection. I concur with Smyth and find Emerson’s and Peirce’s views persuasive. They argue that aesthetic questions about ideals worth admiring for their own sake take precedence over questions about ethically good or logically sound ideals. For those who find the idea of God unattractive or implausible, a pertinent question is: “What ideal do you find more attractive, purely for its aesthetic value, in the context of aesthetics as a normative science?” In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche takes this question up and suggests an alternative ideal. I would be interested in hearing Edwina’s interpretation of Peirce’s view on aesthetics, as well as your own perspectives. Do such reflections lead us naturally to consider the hypothesis of God as a regulative ideal necessary for shaping our habits of feeling, such as wonder, love, gratitude, and forgiveness? Or, is Nietzsche on to something when he suggests the old monotheistic conceptions of God found in the Judaic, Christian and Islamic traditions fall short insofar as the lead us to feel pity for ourselves in light of our long record of human shortcomings and nausea in response to the modern technological and social worlds we have inherited from prior generations and have fashioned for ourselves? Looking forward to your thoughts. Best regards, Jeff From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Sunday, September 8, 2024 at 7:06 PM To: Peirce-L <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Philosophy and Religion (was Peirce's Speculative Grammar) Jeff, List: I am inclined to agree that "Peirce’s personal views on matters of religion should be kept separate from the interpretation of the scientific inquiries and resulting theories." As I said at the beginning of my Friday evening reply to Gary R., my basic approach is to distinguish religious and cosmological metaphysics from religion itself. After all, in Peirce's architectonic classification, metaphysics is a science of discovery--the third branch of philosophy--while religion is a practical science, if it even qualifies as a science at all; although its sociology, history, etc. are studied in the psychical (vs. physical) branch of the special sciences. For Peirce, the reality of God the Creator as Ens necessarium, possessing most of the traditionally ascribed attributes including transcendence (non-immanence), is a metaphysical/cosmological hypothesis that satisfies the requirement of logic to posit a rational explanation for the co-reality of the three universes. However, this is the so-called "God of the philosophers," not the God of any one specific religion; in fact, Peirce warns against too quickly deriving any religious beliefs and practices from such philosophical conclusions. CSP: In my opinion, the present infantile condition of philosophy ... is due to the fact that during this century it has chiefly been pursued by men who have not been nurtured in dissecting-rooms and other laboratories, and who consequently have not been animated by the true scientific Eros; but who have on the contrary come from theological seminaries, and have consequently been inflamed with a desire to amend the lives of themselves and others, a spirit no doubt more important than the love of science, for men in average situations, but radically unfitting them for the task of scientific investigation. And it is precisely because of this utterly unsettled and uncertain condition of philosophy at present, that I regard any practical applications of it to religion and conduct as exceedingly dangerous. I have not one word to say against the philosophy of religion or of ethics in general or in particular. I only say that for the present it is all far too dubious to warrant risking any human life upon it. I do not say that philosophical science should not ultimately influence religion and morality; I only say that it should be allowed to do so only with secular slowness and the most conservative caution. (CP 1.620, EP 2:29, 1898) As I have also said before, Peirce affirms natural theology but not Biblical theology, general revelation but not special revelation, and theism in general but not any creed in particular. I always try to keep this firmly in mind when reading, contemplating, and discussing his writings since this is a major point of difference between my personal views and his. 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 Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 5:26 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello Edwina, Jon S, Gary R, Gary F, all, Let me start by saying that I’ve not engaged much with the secondary literature on Peirce’s views concerning religion. It is on my to-do list, but I’ve not spent the time needed to understand the debates among scholars. Having said that, my approach to interpreting the various texts where Peirce says things that bear on questions you are discussing is to distinguish various purposes Peirce might have when writing about religious matters in notes, essays and letters. For instance, I assume that Peirce sometimes expressed his personal views on matters of religion—such as in his letters and personal notes--and I don’t assume they are offered as a part of his philosophical inquiries and theorizing. When it comes to philosophical inquiry, I try to distinguish between the expressions of (1) his personal views, (2) the ideas he takes to be part of the common understanding of modern American society at his time and (3) the deeper common sense of a larger culture in a given millennium. The ideas that are part of the (3) common sense understanding of a larger culture with respect to the Divine, the nature of God, etc., can form a starting point for philosophical analysis and subsequent inquiry, but I don’t assume the views he draws from as part of inquiries in philosophy necessarily match, point for point, with his own personal hopes, beliefs and convictions on matters of religion. Such an approach seems to run at odds with an orientation that is both critical and commonsense in its methods. Peirce directly says that he did not engage in his inquiries in philosophy to answer questions about God, immortality, and the like. Rather, he is taking up questions in phenomenology, the normative sciences and metaphysics in a way that is largely motivated by his interests in logic. After all, his central aim is to make philosophical inquiry in each of these areas more scientific and exact. I’m curious as to how the various participants in this discussion sort the different things Peirce says about religious matters into the relevant buckets. To what degree should we read statements about his personal views on matters of religion to be relevant or irrelevant, peripheral or central, for understanding his theoretical inquiries in logic, metaphysics, etc.? For my part, I tend to think Peirce’s personal views on matters of religion should be kept separate from the interpretation of the scientific inquiries and resulting theories. Having said that, I’m not yet very clear on how far I would push this in my own interpretation of Peirce’s writings or in my own inquiries in philosophy. For the most part, I try to draw a separation between my personal views about matters of religion, ethics, etc. and my philosophical inquiries in the normative sciences and metaphysics. Yours, Jeff _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com<https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com<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]<mailto:[email protected]> . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected]<mailto:[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.
