Gary R., List: I am deeply appreciative of your words here, including your accurate perception that my explications of Peirce's cosmology are largely motivated by its resonances with my own classical theism. I need to keep this in mind when reading, contemplating, and discussing his writings just as much as my disagreements with him about Biblical theology, special revelation, creeds, etc. I also fully recognize that others see resonances with pantheism, panentheism, and even atheism--as I have said before, my main objection is when they try to claim him as one of their own, contrary to his multiple explicit professions of theism, which by contrast you have repeatedly acknowledged. All of us would do well to remember and take into account the following keen observations by Peirce, both in our own thinking and when assessing the views expressed by others.
CSP: Philosophers of very diverse stripes propose that philosophy shall take its start from one or another state of mind in which no man, least of all a beginner in philosophy, actually is. One proposes that you shall begin by doubting everything, and says that there is only one thing that you cannot doubt, as if doubting were "as easy as lying." Another proposes that we should begin by observing "the first impressions of sense," forgetting that our very percepts are the results of cognitive elaboration. But in truth, there is but one state of mind from which you can "set out," namely, the very state of mind in which you actually find yourself at the time you do "set out"--a state in which you are laden with an immense mass of cognition already formed, of which you cannot divest yourself if you would; and who knows whether, if you could, you would not have made all knowledge impossible to yourself? (CP 5.416, EP 2:335-336, 1905) Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 10:37 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > You concluded your second post today: > > JAS: As the subtitle of my "Semiosic Synechism" paper indicates, and as I > acknowledge at the end of its preface, what I have spelled out there (and > touched on here) is an ostensibly *Peircean* argumentation, not one that > Peirce *himself *ever explicitly presents. Each summary statement is > (mostly) in *my own* words as a *proposed *interpretation of his texts > (and the world) for consideration, along with the accompanying quotations > and citations. Hence, readers can decide for themselves whether my case is > adequately supported by those texts, as well as whether they find it > plausible in accordance with their understanding of the world. > > > I find it not only judicious but also ethically sound that you added to > your "Semiosic Synechism" paper title the subtitle, "A Peircean > Argumentation," and explicitly pointed to what is suggested by that > subtitle in this forum. I say this for two reasons. > > 1. Your subtitle clearly signals that the argumentation in your paper is > *not* Peirce's although to some considerable extent influenced by or > spring-boarding off of some of his ideas. > > 2. In my recent post to the List supporting your desire to present > Peirce's own thinking in his own words, paraphrasing, or otherwise > rewording them only in the interest of introducing them in a manner which > explicates them by reiterating them ("in other words") I did not for a > moment mean to suggest that that is *all* you do. Not by a long shot. > Indeed, what I have found *most* valuable in your scholarship is your > originality in developing Peirce's thought, and 'Semiosic Synechism is an > excellent example of just that creative use of Peirce's ideas. > > If I question anything regarding your scholarship, it is that the > cosmological work you've done seems driven by your desire to support your > own theism through an explication of Peirce's. That's where Jeff's > questions -- at least those regarding personal beliefs vs. free and > independent scholarship -- come into play in my thinking. Still, there is > much in Peirce's published writings that support theism in the scientific > context of his cenoscopic philosophy. > > That is to say that, yes, I agree with you that Peirce was a theist and > that powerful arguments supporting theism are there in his scholarly work, > and not only his personal beliefs. But I think it is also the case that > there is also in his work ideas which can be taken to support, if not > pantheism (which I personally thought was all but dead), but panentheism, > something which one finds in (or at least adumbrated in) many religious > other than the monotheistic ones, for example, in the spiritual sensibility > of the First Nations people of North and South America. And add to this > that Peirce seemed to find value in Buddhism, for example, although he > considered Christianity to be perhaps the only evolutionary religion > (that's a whole other discussion). > > It seems to me likely from what you wrote on List that you did not even > read Eugene Halton's paper, which I highly recommended, because it doesn't > speak to your orthodox and credal faith. Fine. But then why comment on > something one hasn't read? > > In a word, I always question that aspect of a person's scholarship which > is directed towards supporting his beliefs. Did Peirce do that, for > example, in the N.A.? No doubt. But as you yourself have suggested, there > is also in Peirce's work that could be, yes, interpreted to suggest > panentheism (although certainly *not* atheism as I think we both see it). > > Well, these are just passing remarks. I will be incommunicado in a day or > two as I fly off to visit close friends in Belgium and Holland. In such > situations I tend to occasionally read what's on the List, but rarely > respond. The idea is to have a break from the tensions which scholarly > debate can produce, at least in me. > > In truth, I care deeply about each of the members of this forum even as I > might strongly disagree with one or more of their ideas. That's just to be > expected. But as I've noted occasionally in the past, when teaching courses > in Critical Thinking (within a Philosophy Department), I always urged my > students to critique *ideas* and not *persons*. While it is no doubt true > that I haven't always followed my own good advice, I consider those lapses > to be kinds of personal failure. Mea culpa. > > Given the harsh criticism that you have sometimes been dealt on the List, > Jon, I would like to testify to what I consider to be the *fact *that you > have never, even once, made an ad hominem attack in this forum. Thus, I > have come to see that while you and I may have -- do have -- deep > disagreements as to matters of personal belief, that as a scholar I have > always, and will always, support your right to do scholarship here as you > see fit. This is because, in my opinion, but without a doubt, you are an > ethical scholar in the Peircean sense. > > I say this because recently I made the error, one which Jeff Doward > pointed to, of the possibility of conflating someone's personal beliefs > with their scholarship. Thanks, Jeff, for getting me -- and I hope others > -- thinking about this. > > 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.
