Jeff, list Very nice post.
As you say - Peirce was clear that some questions can be solved pragmatically, ie, within the scientific method,[5.465] but others are outside of it. [“My pragmatism, having nothing to do with qualities of feeling’ 5.467, ie, the use of the a priori method]. I suggest, that for Peirce - the third set of questions belong in the domain of feeling [ a priori 5.382-3]. As such - as you point out, there is no one answer to such questions - and I don’t see such an attempt within the thought of Peirce. Again, very astute post. Edwina > On Sep 16, 2024, at 11:43 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Jon S, Gary R, Gary F, Edwina, List, > > Consider the following remarks about pragmaticism in relation to Humanism, > theism, etc. > > “There are certain questions commonly reckoned as metaphysical, and which > certainly are so, if by metaphysics we mean ontology, which as soon as > pragmatism is once sincerely accepted, cannot logically resist settlement. > These are for example, What is reality? Are necessity and contingency real > modes of being? Are the laws of nature real? Can they be assumed to be > immutable or are they presumably results of evolution? Is there any real > chance, or departure from real law? But on examination, if by metaphysics we > mean the broadest positive truths of the psycho-physical universe -- positive > in the sense of not being reducible to logical formulæ -- then the very fact > that these problems can be solved by a logical maxim is proof enough that > they do not belong to metaphysics but to "epistemology," an atrocious > translation of Erkenntnislehre. When we pass to consider the nature of Time, > it seems that pragmatism is of aid, but does not of itself yield a solution. > When we go on to the nature of Space, I boldly declare that Newton's view > that it is a real entity is alone logically tenable; and that leaves such > further questions as, Why should Space have three dimensions? quite > unanswerable for the present. This, however, is a purely speculative question > without much human interest. (It would, of course, be absurd to say that > tridimensionality is without practical consequences.) For those metaphysical > questions that have such interest, the question of a future life and > especially that of One Incomprehensible but Personal God, not immanent in but > creating the universe, I, for one, heartily admit that a Humanism, that does > not pretend to be a science but only an instinct, like a bird's power of > flight, but purified by meditation, is the most precious contribution that > has been made to philosophy for ages.” [CP, Survey of Pragmaticism, 5.496] > > In this passage, Peirce makes a distinction between three sets of questions: > > Questions of metaphysical ontology, such as: What is reality? Are necessity > and contingency real modes of being? Are the laws of nature real? Can they be > assumed to be immutable or are they presumably results of evolution? Is there > any real chance, or departure from real law? > Purely speculative questions in metaphysics concerning the broadest positive > truths of the psycho-physical universe: “What is the nature of time and > space?” “At the current stage of the cosmos, why does space appear to have > three dimensions and time appear to have one dimension?” “Is the number of > dimensions of space and time fixed, or has the number of dimensions evolved?” > Questions that have a strong human interest: “Is some sort of life of the > soul after the biological death of a human being?” “What is the nature of > that which is most Divine?” > > If we adopt the methods of pragmaticism, it appears that there are different > sorts of grounds for affirming or denying various answers to these three sets > of questions. Once pragmatism is sincerely accepted, Peirce suggests that we > have logical grounds for adopting some hypotheses and rejecting others with > respect to the questions that fall into the first group. Given the > development of scientific methodologies and theories around 1900, some > questions that fall into the second group were “quite unanswerable for the > present.” > > Questions that fall into the third group, which include questions about the > tenability of theism and humanism, bear on our natural instincts, but > probably should not “pretend” to be scientific. If they are not scientific, > then we need to consider the limits of philosophical methods in seeking > answers. James and Schiller seem to claim that pragmatic methods should be > used to clarify the meanings of the terms used the frame the questions and > formulate viable hypotheses in the third group. Peirce, on the other hand, > suggests in this essay and elsewhere that pragmaticist methods have their > limits, and it may be a mistake to apply them outside the realm of the > “intellectual conceptions” concerning positive matters of fact (see 5.464-8). > > As such, he may personally find the conception of “One Incomprehensible but > Personal God, not immanent in but creating the universe” attractive, but he > is keen to point out that a Humanism that is “only an instinct, like a bird's > power of flight, but purified by meditation, is the most precious > contribution that has been made to philosophy for ages.” > > On my view, there are a wide range of possible answers to the third set of > questions that are of a “strong human interest”, and I don’t see strong > scientific reasons for insisting that one answer, or another, is the best to > any of them. I have my personal views, but I recognize that the efforts to > make scientific methods more exact means those very methods will have their > limits. > > Yours, > > Jeff > > > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on > behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, September 15, 2024 at 11:59 AM > To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Scientific Religion, was, Semiosic Synechism: A > Peircean Argumentation > > Helmut, List: > > Theism (classical or otherwise) and panentheism are two different and > mutually exclusive philosophical/metaphysical conceptions of God. > Christianity is a religion that traditionally affirms classical theism--as do > other religions, including Judaism and Islam--but some (including Gary R.) > suggest that it is also compatible with panentheism. Nevertheless, Peirce > explicitly and repeatedly affirmed theism (which Gary R. acknowledges), > including the classical definition of God as Ens necessarium; and as I have > explained before ... > Peirce prepared the entry for "immanent" in The Century Dictionary, which > includes the statement, "The doctrine of an immanent deity does not > necessarily imply that the world, or the soul of the world, is God, but only > that it either is or is in God." > Pantheism is the doctrine that the world or its soul is God, while > panentheism is the doctrine that the world or its soul is in God. > Peirce referred to "One Incomprehensible but Personal God, not immanent in > but creating the universe" (CP 5.496, EP 2:421, 1907), and likewise > emphatically denied that God is "immanent in Nature" or "immanent in the > Universes" in four different manuscript drafts for "A Neglected Argument" (R > 843, 1908). > Therefore, Peirce plainly rejected both pantheism and panentheism. > 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 15, 2024 at 10:43 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > suppsupppsupplement: This classificational thing is becoming complicated, but > before I lose mental control, I am, with my last residue of overlook, able to > utter a last conclusion: With this whole figure, to say, that Peirce was a > theist, and not a panentheist, only works if: > -- Panentheism is a kind of theism, > -- The term "Panentheism", or the concept, existed at Peirce´s time, > -- Peirce was aware of this term or concept, and did not approve of it. > Supp-supplement: Ok, classical theism, claiming, that God is unchanging and > unaffected, is not something, christianity can be subsumed under, but merely > has an influence on christianity and other religions. So, Jon, you are right, > of course. Sorry! > Supplement: I have googled, and found, that christianity is a kind of theism. > Ok, the other way, my post could have been wrong, is, that I was thinking, > that panentheism would not be a kind of theism, but maybe it is. This way, > panentheism may be compatible with christianity, but not with some other > kinds of theism, like, as you wrote, "classical theism", of which I don´t > know, what that is. > Jon, List, > > well, I had thought, that christianity is a kind of theism. So it is not, so > I am sorry for my post. > > Best regards, Helmut > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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.
