Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's neoPlatonism

> On Oct 24, 2016, at 6:15 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > CG: I’d say it’s quite a bit earlier than that, although again I think a lot > depends upon what we mean by the terms. > > Fisch argued, convincingly I think, that Peirce did not accept the reality of > possibilities until about 1

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's neoPlatonism

es necessarily function as well. Edwina - Original Message - From: Clark Goble To: Edwina Taborsky ; Peirce-L Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's neoPlatonism On Oct 24, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: Aren't Pl

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's neoPlatonism

> On Oct 24, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Aren't Plato's Forms 'real' - even when NOT embedded within matter/concepts? Depends. Are numbers real even when not embedded within matter/concepts? After all there are numbers that have never been formally thought yet it’s pretty com

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's neoPlatonism

. BUT - it functions only within the triad. > > I think this is a basic difference in our readings of Peirce. I focus that > the categories are basic and necessary - but- operate only within the > Triadic Sign. You seem to interpret Peirce in a different way. > > Edwina > >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's neoPlatonism

s in effect a state of > mere indeterminacy, in which nothing existed or really happened" 1.411. > > The three categories are fundamental principles of the world. But have > nothing to do with the pre-Matter/Mind state-of-indeterminacy. And > Firstness cannot be defined as 'inde

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's neoPlatonism

m to interpret Peirce in a different way. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 7:50 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's neoPlatonism Edwina, List: ET: [Not within Secondnes

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's neoPlatonism

al and operational only as embedded within a TRIADIC SIGN. You can have > such a triadic sign totally - in a mode of Firstness, after all. It's the > triadic format that is vital. > > Edwina > > - Original Message ----- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt > *To:* Clark Goble >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's neoPlatonism

g existed or really happened" 1.411. The three categories are fundamental principles of the world. But have nothing to do with the pre-Matter/Mind state-of-indeterminacy. And Firstness cannot be defined as 'indeterminacy'. Edwina - Original Message ----- From:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's neoPlatonism

> On Oct 24, 2016, at 4:28 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Edwina and I have gone back and forth on this on multiple occasions. My > understanding--which she will presumably correct if I am mistaken--is that > she denies that Peirce held Firstness (possibilities, qualities) and > Thirdnes

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's neoPlatonism

From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Clark Goble Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 6:28 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's neoPlatonism Clark, List: CG: It seems to me Peirce is a Platonist in several senses. First he admits generals into his ontology as real. Thus h

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's neoPlatonism

Clark, List: CG: It seems to me Peirce is a Platonist in several senses. First he admits generals into his ontology as real. Thus he was on the platonic side of the nominalist debates of the medieval era and modern era. Edwina and I have gone back and forth on this on multiple occasions. My un

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's neoPlatonism

I’ve changed the subject line to better reflect the theme. > On Oct 24, 2016, at 12:59 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Edwina Taborsky > wrote: > > As for Peirce's Platonism -[ which is not the same as neo-Platonism], I find > Peirce