Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

[Benjamin Udell]

Kirsti, John FS, list,

Generally, concerns about appropriateness of others' messages should be 
addressed off-list to the manager and moderator Gary Richmond, and 
Kirsti may have already attempted that. Unfortunately, Gary is traveling 
and won't be back online till the second week of January.  For what it's 
worth, it seems to me (the co-manager) that the current discussion has 
not yet departed too far and too long from Peirce-related issues.  I'd 
suggest that people not get into an argument about the matter at the 
present time, and that they refresh their memories of pertinent sections 
of list founder Joseph Ransdell's discussion "How the Forum Works".


*What is relevant to post and discuss here?*
http://www.iupui.edu/%7Earisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM#relevance

   Since PEIRCE-L is best thought of as a public forum, which is
   primarily a place rather than a discussion group, people contribute
   or not as they think best, and come and go freely, as is taken for
   granted in public forums wherever they occur. There is no standing
   agenda except the promotion of philosophical conversation of the
   sort which one would expect from people with a special interest in
   Peirce and of other communication in support of that. Thus
   discussion should be Peirce-related but not necessarily on Peirce,
   and the working test for relevance would simply be a plausible
   explanation of why the topic in question should be under discussion
   on a list called "PEIRCE-L: The Philosophy of Charles Peirce", given
   that people subscribe to such lists with some more or less definite
   expectations about subject-matter in mind.
   [End quote]

*Caveat about correcting others*
http://www.iupui.edu/%7Earisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM#correction-caveat

   It is expected that criticism will be vigorous and diligently
   pursued: philosophy is understood here to be essentially a
   critically directed and self-controlled conversation. But there is
   one important caveat in this connection: If you feel that some
   messages being posted are not to the purpose of the list or that
   there is something someone is doing which should be discouraged, do
   NOT attempt to rectify that yourself by posting a message to that
   effect to the list in general. Because there is so little overt or
   formal moderation by the list manager, it is natural to suppose that
   the individual members can and should take that role as needed. But
   this rarely if ever produces the effect intended, regardless of how
   reasonable it may seem at a particular time. Contact me instead
   off-list and we will see what can or should be done, if anything,
   without generating a chain reaction of protests and
   counter-protests, which are the typical result of attempting to
   rectify the problem on-list.
   [End quote]

*Why the list manager should do the correcting*
http://www.iupui.edu/%7Earisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM#manager-corrects

   Should you contact the person yourself first, off-list, in an
   attempt to rectify their way of participating rather than bothering
   me with it? Although you do of course have a right—professional,
   moral, legal, whatever—to do this, and it may seem best to you, let
   me urge you to contact me first, nonetheless, unless there is some
   truly special and urgent reason to the contrary. There are several
   reasons for this:
   [ End quote]

Best, Ben

On 12/31/2016 11:20 AM, John F Sowa wrote:

On 12/31/2016 10:43 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:

Is this list about the philosophy of Peirce any more? - Or does
CSP only serve as a starting point to presenting any kinds of
ideas loosely connected with CSP?


Those are good questions.

I believe that it's important to relate CSP's writings to
critical issues today -- along the lines that he might have
done it he had access to the latest news and discoveries.

But it's always important to be quote, cite, or summarize
what Peirce actually wrote and to make the implicit connections
explicit.

John



-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

[John F Sowa]

On 12/31/2016 10:43 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:

Is this list about the philosophy of Peirce any more? - Or does
CSP only serve as a starting point to presenting any kinds of
ideas loosely connected with CSP?


Those are good questions.

I believe that it's important to relate CSP's writings to
critical issues today -- along the lines that he might have
done it he had access to the latest news and discoveries.

But it's always important to be quote, cite, or summarize
what Peirce actually wrote and to make the implicit connections
explicit.

John


-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

[kirstima]

Is this list about the philosophy of Peirce any more? - Or does CSP only 
serve as a starting point to presenting any kinds of ideas loosely 
connected with CSP. The list-minders should set an example. - It does no 
seem so to me.


Best,

Kirsti

Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 29.12.2016 21:52:

Clark, List,
I think, maybe the concept of Christ is (btw) an attempt to solve the
almightiness-paradoxon (Can God create a rock He cannot move), by
introducing Himself in the role of a person who is not almighty, even
got killed by the Romans. The cost of this solution is to give up the
concept of identity in favour of a concept of tri-identity or trinity:
Quite Peircean 2000 years ago. Tragically, later the "Christians" have
blamed not the Romans, but the Jews for this killing. But
crucification was a Roman, not a Jewish kind of death penalty (the
Jews would have stoned). Btw, I have read, that the story of Jesus is
somehow a copy of the Egyptian story of Isis, or was it Osiris. Like
the story about Luther has ocurred about 160 years ago in England: A
Mr. Wycliff did the same, pinned reformatory theses to a church door,
translated the Bible, and had an uprising of farmers in his wake, same
as later Luther, just plagiating all that, but with bigger effect due
to pamphlet printing possibility then, more dead farmers, and he was
antisemitic, and I wonder why he still well regarded.
Best,
Helmut

 29. Dezember 2016 um 19:05 Uhr
 "Clark Goble" 


On Dec 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Helmut Raulien 
wrote:
Very well said, I agree. Dawkins claimed to having proved the
nonexistence of God with the almightiness-allknowingness-paradoxon:
If God is all-knowing, then He knows the future too, but then He is
not almighty, because knowing it, He cannot change it. I think, this
is a poor argument, because it suggests, that for God time is, like
for us, inevitable and one-dimensioned. And, that a paradoxon is a
refutation. I guess both are not so: God might have a lot of more
access to time, whose (times) nature we dont understand close to at
all. And a paradoxon is not a refutation, it may be solved, and if
not, it even may unfold (according to Luhmann, not completely
understood by me), and affect reality, so a paradoxon is a valuable
part of reality instead of adressing something as not real. Anyway,
hope You have had a merry christmas (not knowing the nature of time,
I cannot exclude the nonfutility of this wish), and happy new year!


Most of the New Atheist arguments against God are pretty embarrassing
as they just aren't that familiar with the literature. They are on
stronger ground when attacking an interventionist quasi-personal God
such as is common in theism - although even there the history of the
big three religions offer more choices than they typically admit.

The main problem with the three classic "omnis" are well known. Often
though there are hidden assumptions going on in terms of how to
understand the semantics of these terms. Process theologians often
play with this a lot. You can see this for instance in disputes over
whether God is impassible or not. The traditional reading is to take
God as an unmoved mover ala Aristotle whereas process theologians
often portray him as the most moved mover. In both cases we have a
kind of "highest" property but the assumptions about what omnipotence
entails are radically different.

To the paradox, the classic way it's solve is simply to say whatever
God is, he's logically consistent. So the paradox simply defines a
non-obtainable state which God need not have power to achieve. The
classic "can God create a rock he can't move" is really the same
argument.

That said I tend to think there are some inherent conflicts with God
as all knowing and all powerful. But it appears not in terms of God
proper but in terms of God as embodied in a mortal body. That's not an
issue for Jews or Muslims but it certainly is for Christians. So to my
eyes the biggest weaknesses are usually in the theology of the two
natures in Christ. However it also seems the case that Jesus is
ironically the fastest thing to get jesttisoned by philosophers who
think through the class Greek inspired properties. i.e. the omnis
classically understood. At that point though it's worth asking if they
are still Christian in their thought.

We discussed that relative to Peirce a few months ago. I'm still not
sure what Peirce thought of Christ but I assume that (as was common in
the late 19th century and early 20th century liberal theology) he
tended to not take Jesus too seriously. At least in terms of the
traditional theology.

To your broader point though there is a strong tradition that sees
aporias as inherent to the universe. I'm not sure how Peirce sees
that. It seems to me to be a strong philosophical tradition going back
to Aristotle and arguably Plato's early dialogs.
- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply
List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this 

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

[Jerry Rhee]

Dear list:



Ha, what a great statement!

 “ In any case, my religious tradition does not call itself "Lutheran"
because of the man's politics.”



In like manner, we should ask ourselves,

For what reasons do we call ourselves Peirceans?



“Man is essentially a social animal: but to be social is one thing, to be
gregarious another:  I decline to serve as bellwether.”



Best,
Jerry R

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Frederik, List:
>
> FS:  Luther was anti-reason, anti-liberty, anti-tolerance, anti-science
> and founded theocracies in the emerging Lutheran states.
>
>
> Like most caricatures, there are elements of truth in this, along with a
> considerable amount of overstatement.
>
> FS:  His theology, narrowly conceived, may possess valuable stuff if kept
> apart from his politics, I do not know.
>
>
> I obviously think that it does.  In any case, my religious tradition does
> not call itself "Lutheran" because of the man's politics.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt <stj...@hum.aau.dk>
> wrote:
>
>> As to Luther, I only judge him for his political beliefs, actions, and
>> effects, which are deplorable.
>>
>>
>>
>> His theology, narrowly conceived, may possess valuable stuff if kept
>> apart from his politics, I do not know.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best
>>
>> F
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *"Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Friday 30 December 2016 at 18:48
>> *To: *Frederik Stjernfelt <stj...@hum.aau.dk>
>> *Cc: *John Sowa <s...@bestweb.net>, "peirce-l@list.iupui.edu" <
>> peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
>> *Subject: *Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology
>>
>>
>>
>> Luther also favored the princes over the peasants. And I have why
>> Wittgenstein (who I see as Peirce in different clothing) would not have
>> merited a Nobel over Russell. I have not weighed in on this theological
>> conversation as I am in the midst of a consideration which harks back to
>> Tillich's famous god beyond god remark. I am seeing a Word that is rather
>> independent of the force that is the moving and still evolving cosmos which
>> is what it is. In effect we play a part perhaps in inventing God due to our
>> dialogic nature. Well this is not clear but it is why I have not weighed
>> in.
>>
>>
>> Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt <stj...@hum.aau.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Peircers -
>>
>> Luther is an interesting case. He is much too well-regarded.
>>
>> I just wrote a pamphlet (in Danish) in order to raise a countervoice to
>> the emerging celebrations of the "Luther Year" of 2017. Luther was
>> anti-reason, anti-liberty, anti-tolerance, anti-science and founded
>> theocracies in the emerging Lutheran states.
>>
>> Happy new year!
>> Frederik
>>
>>
>
> -
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Frederik, List:

FS:  Luther was anti-reason, anti-liberty, anti-tolerance, anti-science and
founded theocracies in the emerging Lutheran states.


Like most caricatures, there are elements of truth in this, along with a
considerable amount of overstatement.

FS:  His theology, narrowly conceived, may possess valuable stuff if kept
apart from his politics, I do not know.


I obviously think that it does.  In any case, my religious tradition does
not call itself "Lutheran" because of the man's politics.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt <stj...@hum.aau.dk>
wrote:

> As to Luther, I only judge him for his political beliefs, actions, and
> effects, which are deplorable.
>
>
>
> His theology, narrowly conceived, may possess valuable stuff if kept apart
> from his politics, I do not know.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> F
>
>
>
> *From: *"Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday 30 December 2016 at 18:48
> *To: *Frederik Stjernfelt <stj...@hum.aau.dk>
> *Cc: *John Sowa <s...@bestweb.net>, "peirce-l@list.iupui.edu" <
> peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology
>
>
>
> Luther also favored the princes over the peasants. And I have why
> Wittgenstein (who I see as Peirce in different clothing) would not have
> merited a Nobel over Russell. I have not weighed in on this theological
> conversation as I am in the midst of a consideration which harks back to
> Tillich's famous god beyond god remark. I am seeing a Word that is rather
> independent of the force that is the moving and still evolving cosmos which
> is what it is. In effect we play a part perhaps in inventing God due to our
> dialogic nature. Well this is not clear but it is why I have not weighed
> in.
>
>
> Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt <stj...@hum.aau.dk>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Peircers -
>
> Luther is an interesting case. He is much too well-regarded.
>
> I just wrote a pamphlet (in Danish) in order to raise a countervoice to
> the emerging celebrations of the "Luther Year" of 2017. Luther was
> anti-reason, anti-liberty, anti-tolerance, anti-science and founded
> theocracies in the emerging Lutheran states.
>
> Happy new year!
> Frederik
>
>

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

[Frederik Stjernfelt]

As to Luther, I only judge him for his political beliefs, actions, and effects, 
which are deplorable.

His theology, narrowly conceived, may possess valuable stuff if kept apart from 
his politics, I do not know.

Best
F

From: "Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday 30 December 2016 at 18:48
To: Frederik Stjernfelt <stj...@hum.aau.dk>
Cc: John Sowa <s...@bestweb.net>, "peirce-l@list.iupui.edu" 
<peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

Luther also favored the princes over the peasants. And I have why Wittgenstein 
(who I see as Peirce in different clothing) would not have merited a Nobel over 
Russell. I have not weighed in on this theological conversation as I am in the 
midst of a consideration which harks back to Tillich's famous god beyond god 
remark. I am seeing a Word that is rather independent of the force that is the 
moving and still evolving cosmos which is what it is. In effect we play a part 
perhaps in inventing God due to our dialogic nature. Well this is not clear but 
it is why I have not weighed in.

Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt 
<stj...@hum.aau.dk<mailto:stj...@hum.aau.dk>> wrote:
Dear Peircers -

Luther is an interesting case. He is much too well-regarded.

I just wrote a pamphlet (in Danish) in order to raise a countervoice to the 
emerging celebrations of the "Luther Year" of 2017. Luther was anti-reason, 
anti-liberty, anti-tolerance, anti-science and founded theocracies in the 
emerging Lutheran states.

Happy new year!
Frederik

On 30/12/16 04:02, "John F Sowa" <s...@bestweb.net<mailto:s...@bestweb.net>> 
wrote:

>On 12/29/2016 2:52 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>> I wonder why [Luther's] still well regarded.
>
>For the same reason as Russell vs. Peirce:  better hype and PR.
>
>John



-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to 
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send 
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to 
l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu> with the line "UNSubscribe 
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .






-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

[Stephen C. Rose]

Luther also favored the princes over the peasants. And I have why
Wittgenstein (who I see as Peirce in different clothing) would not have
merited a Nobel over Russell. I have not weighed in on this theological
conversation as I am in the midst of a consideration which harks back to
Tillich's famous god beyond god remark. I am seeing a Word that is rather
independent of the force that is the moving and still evolving cosmos which
is what it is. In effect we play a part perhaps in inventing God due to our
dialogic nature. Well this is not clear but it is why I have not weighed
in.

Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt 
wrote:

> Dear Peircers -
>
> Luther is an interesting case. He is much too well-regarded.
>
> I just wrote a pamphlet (in Danish) in order to raise a countervoice to
> the emerging celebrations of the "Luther Year" of 2017. Luther was
> anti-reason, anti-liberty, anti-tolerance, anti-science and founded
> theocracies in the emerging Lutheran states.
>
> Happy new year!
> Frederik
>
> On 30/12/16 04:02, "John F Sowa"  wrote:
>
> >On 12/29/2016 2:52 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> >> I wonder why [Luther's] still well regarded.
> >
> >For the same reason as Russell vs. Peirce:  better hype and PR.
> >
> >John
>
>
>
> -
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

[Frederik Stjernfelt]

Dear Peircers - 

Luther is an interesting case. He is much too well-regarded. 

I just wrote a pamphlet (in Danish) in order to raise a countervoice to the 
emerging celebrations of the "Luther Year" of 2017. Luther was anti-reason, 
anti-liberty, anti-tolerance, anti-science and founded theocracies in the 
emerging Lutheran states. 

Happy new year!
Frederik

On 30/12/16 04:02, "John F Sowa"  wrote:

>On 12/29/2016 2:52 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>> I wonder why [Luther's] still well regarded.
>
>For the same reason as Russell vs. Peirce:  better hype and PR.
>
>John


-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

[John F Sowa]

On 12/29/2016 2:52 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:

I wonder why [Luther's] still well regarded.


For the same reason as Russell vs. Peirce:  better hype and PR.

John

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .