er again whatever be
>>> the matter of the thought or whether, in addition to such a repetitive
>>> order, there be also a greater life-history that every symbol furnished
>>> with a vehicle of life goes through, and what is the nature of it." (CP,
>>> 2.111)
>
(CP,
>> 2.111)
>>
>> 5. The explanation of the proof that is offered in support of his
>> hypothesis concerning the life of great symbols is something that caught my
>> eye. I also think his remarks about the logic of Pooh-Pooh arguments might
>> be intere
h arguments might
> be interesting for those who think there is no real observational support
> for his hypothesis concerning the reality of God.
>
> --Jeff
>
> Jeffrey Downard
> Associate Professor
> Department of Philosophy
> Northern Arizona University
> (o) 928 52
od.
--Jeff
Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
From: Jon Alan Schmidt [jonalanschm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 11:42 AM
To: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Cc: peirce-l@list.iu
Gary, list:
I think this answers your question but it’s a little mysterious. I will
leave it at that but do want to emphasize choice of the word retroduction
over abduction, that is, choices that are adopted after the fact and not at
the outset.
“Further, just as in arguments about
Jon S. List,
Jon cloncluded his post by writing:
Peirce's favorite name for his comprehensive system of thought was
*synechism*, because it "insists upon the idea of continuity as of prime
importance in philosophy" (CP 6.169; 1902). The hypothesis of God as *Ens
necessarium* explains not only
Jeff, List:
I must confess that although I continue to find your posts
thought-provoking, they also tend to be somewhat inscrutable to me. I am
not sure exactly what bearing you are suggesting that CP 2.79-110 and CP
2.118 should have on our understanding of Peirce's theory of thinking in
