Jeff, Gary F., List: I appreciate the additional references, but I am still having trouble grasping the distinction between nominal/verbal and real definitions, as well as its relevance for interpreting "A Neglected Argument." I agree that Peirce simply stipulates the definitions of the various capitalized terms for the sake of what he mainly wants to discuss, but again, "God" as "*the *definable proper name" is different.
Every sign denotes its object and signifies its interpretant. In the case of an isolated word, my understanding is that its *immediate *interpretant is its definition, and its *immediate *object is whatever could possibly satisfy that definition. Accordingly, when Peirce says that "God" signifies *Ens necessarium*, he is giving its definition; and again, as a proper name, it denotes a single individual--exactly one object could possibly satisfy that definition. Only *then *does he state his own personal belief that God as *Ens necessarium* is "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience." However, in his contemporaneous Logic Notebook entry, Peirce makes it clear that this is not *merely *his own personal belief. "I show that logic *requires *us to postulate of any given phenomenon, that it is capable of rational explanation. Now, I say that the co-reality of the three universes ... *must*, accordingly, be supposed capable of rational explanation" (R 339:[293r], 1908; bold added). "Cosmology is therefore to show how all phenomena were produced from a state of absolute absence of any," where there was *only *"that which would Really be in any possible state of things whatever"; hence, God as *Ens necessarium* "*must *be the author and creator of all that could ever be observed of Ideas, Occurrences, or *Logoi*" (R 339:[295r], 1908; bold added). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 3:09 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, Jeff, list, > > Peirce’s explains the difference between nominal and real definitions in > *Baldwin’s > Dictionary* under “Nominal > <https://www.gnusystems.ca/BaldwinPeirce.htm#Nominal>.” > > > > Love, gary > > Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Jeffrey Brian Downard > *Sent:* 18-Sep-24 14:39 > *To:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]>; Peirce-L < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Verbal Definitions vs. Real Definitions (was A > Scientific Religion) > > > > Hi Jon, List, > > > > I don’t feel a need to provide a definition of these two types of > definitions. My aim is to use the terms in a manner that respects the > traditional uses in philosophy. Aristotle is often taken to be an important > touchstone for understanding the logical character of the distinction. See, > for instance: > https://www.academia.edu/1082689/Aristotle_and_Nominal_Definitions?auto=download > > > > If you think I am misusing the terminology, let me know. Here are some > other places where Peirce uses and discusses this distinction between > different types of definitions: [CP 8.191-2; 5.553; 6.367; 6.377). Richard > Smyth puts the distinction to work in *Reading Peirce Reading* when he > reconstructs several strands of Peirce’s arguments concerning our grasp of > key conceptions in a logica *utens* and *docens* in the cognition series. > In my own readings of the texts, I draw on Smyth as a model for > interpreting Peirce’s works. > > > > There are other distinctions used by those who make a career of writing > definitions. For instance, there is a distinction between descriptive and > prescriptive definitions and a distinction between semasiological and > onomasiological dictionaries. For starters, one might consider the > distinctions between definitions and dictionaries found here: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary > > > > For my part, I find the various strands of reasoning in “A Neglected > Argument” somewhat difficult to interpret. As such, I would rate my own > level of confidence to be in the range of low to moderate with respect to > whether I am properly tracking what Peirce is doing. > > > > For instance, my initial guess in interpreting the first section is that > he is not offering a definition of “God” in the first sentence. Rather, he > is describing how he is using the word and pointing out that, as *the* > proper name, it is definable. Saying that it is definable is different from > offering a definition. > > > > He then states his own personal belief. The definitions that follow are > part of an attempt to clarify the statement of his belief. He suspects that > many others hold similar beliefs, and he is well aware that many reject > such beliefs in God. > > > > My hunch is that the definitions are, at this stage of the discussion, > offered as both descriptive of how he is using the terms and prescriptive > for a reader of this essay. They are offered as nominal definitions of how > he is using the words, but they are not even onomasiological in character. > Rather, the use of the definitions is restricted to this essay—and they are > offered for the sake of getting the argument off the ground. After all, > Peirce doesn’t want to spend the day on mere definitions. He offers the > definitions for the sake of avoiding having to engage in long and drawn-out > arguments about the real definitions of the concepts of Real, Experience, > Argument, etc. So, he just stipulates the definitions for the sake of > argument. > > > > I tend to think that Peirce is fully aware that some readers, such as some > 20th century Analytically minded philosophers who are convinced Hume’s > arguments concerning miracles and the divine are sound, will likely find > Peirce’s arguments less than persuasive. Having said that, his target > audience includes both the lay person and philosophers (such as James and > Royce) who are willing to suspend such judgments and see where the > arguments might lead. > > > > Yours, > > > > Jeff >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
