Jon S, all, My initial point was simply that we can trace the roots of objective idealism to the writings of Plato. As such, it would be odd to insist that Peirce is not a "Platonist" insofar as he is arguing for objective idealism in metaphysics.
Peirce traces the central theses that he groups under the heading of objective Idealism to the kind of neo-Platonic metaphysics that is developed by Schelling, and explored, on this side of the pond, by Emerson and Thoreau. In the passage you cite, he points out that the "grotesque weldings" of doctrines that are , on the one hand, nominalist in spirit, and, on the other Platonist, are not, by any means, a natural fit. As such, it would be fair to say that he is resisting such a grotesque welding of doctrines. Consider the point Peirce is making in pointing to the example of Westminster Abbey. This is how I try to interpret that passage: metaphysical principles do not live merely in the writings of philosophers. Rather, the principles live and breathe in the heart and soul of entire cultures, and they are expressed in its great works of architecture and literature. Philosophers who write essays and books in metaphysics are trying to give expression of those principles, but it is fair to assume the theories of the philosophers will, by necessity, be mere summary accounts of something that is, in reality, much larger and more significant that can be expressed in dry scientific prose. When I think of the example of Westminster Abbey, what comes to mind is that the Abbey was built on the site where Catholicism was brought to the British Isles--which was a little island in a river near where London became a thriving metropolis. The Abbey was the site where Augustinian ideas and principles were planted, took root and started to grow--well before the fights between the Catholics and the Protestants shaped the religious and political landscape of the greater Isles. The Augustinian ideas that took root, were, in both body and spirit, largely developments of ideas explored by Plato and, later, by Plontinus. Peirce points out that the philosophical principles and methods articulated by Aristotle had such vitality that they shaped the commonsense of every schoolboy--on both sides of the pond--for two millennia. A similar point can be made, I believe, for the conception of the forms explored in the dialogues of Plato. To appreciate the point, one need only look at the depth of the moral and religious Ideals expressed in the architecture of the Abbey. The Nineteenth century individuals of Peirce's day may have spoken a language informed by the common sense of the peripatetic when they walked the streets of London, but their eyes were lifted to the heavens by the representation of the form of the Good in the spires of the Abbey. Similar points can be made about the Prologue to the Canterbury Tales, but I'll stop here. Hope that helps, Jeff ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2024 7:44 PM To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on Peirce and Anselm Jeff, List: Peirce indeed explicitly and repeatedly endorses scholastic realism (some possibilities and some generals are real) and objective idealism (matter is a derived and special kind of mind), but Platonism (i.e., Platonic idealism) is incompatible with both--there is a sense in which it is actually a form of nominalism, because it maintains that abstract objects exist as individuals in a different realm from concrete objects. CSP: Individualists are apt to fall into the almost incredible misunderstanding that all other men are individualists, too--even the scholastic realists, who, they suppose, thought that "universals exist." It is true that there are indications of there having been some who thought so in that greater darkness before the dawn of Aristotle's Analytics and Topics, when such grotesque weldings of doctrine as that of nominalistic Platonism are heard of, and when Roscellin may possibly have said that universals were flatus vocis [breath of voice]. But I ask, can anybody who has seen Westminster Abbey, who had read the Prologue to the Canterbury Tales, and who stops to consider that the metaphysics of the Plantagenet age must have more adequately represented the general intellectual standing of that age, when metaphysics absorbed its greatest heuristic minds, than the metaphysics of our day can represent our general intellectual condition, can any such person believe that the great doctors of that time believed that generals exist? They certainly did not so opine, but regarded generals as modes of determination of individuals; and such modes were recognized as being of the nature of thought. (CP 5.503, c. 1905) CSP: I am myself a scholastic realist of a somewhat extreme stripe. Every realist must, as such, admit that a general is a term and therefore a sign. If, in addition, he holds that it is an absolute exemplar, this Platonism passes quite beyond the question of nominalism and realism; and indeed the doctrine of Platonic ideas has been held by the extremest nominalists. There is some reason to suspect that it was shared by Roscellinus himself. (CP 5.470, 1907) As Robert Lane summarizes in Peirce's Realism and Idealism, "the real generals that correspond to hypostatically abstracted concepts are not abstract individuals, and so Peirce’s realism about such generals does not amount to nominalistic Platonism" (p. 134). Peirce also describes himself as "an Aristotelian of the scholastic wing, approaching Scotism, but going much further in the direction of scholastic realism" (CP 5.77n, EP 2:180, 1903). By contrast, as far as I know, he never refers to himself as a Platonist or neo-Platonist. Returning to the thread topic, I was hoping all along that you (Jeff) might have something to say in response to my initial post (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-10/msg00046.html). Any thoughts on my four questions there? 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 Sat, Nov 2, 2024 at 12:02 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Jon S, Jerry, List, Did Peirce reject Platonism in favor of scholastic realism regarding the status of abstract objects? That is not how I interpret Peirce's inquiries in metaphysics and cosmology. Rather, I agree with several scholars who take Peirce at his word when he says that the position he is developing is an extreme form of scholastic realism and, at the same time, a form of objective idealism. Platonic idealism is label used to characterize a wide range of metaphysical positions that reject various forms of materialism in favor or objective idealism. We've inherited two important distinctions from the classical metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle: the division between realism and nominalism, and the division between idealism and materialism. As an interpretative strategy, I agree with Richard Smyth, Kelly Parker and others who suggest that Peirce is developing ideas in logic, epistemology and metaphysics that stem from the Neo-Platonic tradition of Plotinus and Porphyry. See, for instance, Kelly Parker's short essay https://kellyaparker.net/kap/Neoplatonism/, or Smyth's Reading Peirce Reading. The general thrust of Neo-Platonic thought is to seek a synthesis between Platonic Idealism and Aristotelian Realism. Peirce, I think, is exploring the various ways an evolutionary cosmology might open the door to a richer and deeper synthesis of these two traditions in philosophical metaphysics. So, no, I don't think Peirce rejects Platonism in favor of scholastic realism. As an interpretative strategy, I tend to think such bold claims miss the mark. 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.
