Thank you! Since I have little money, this reassurance is very welcome! I would have ordered the book if I had run across it at Amazon because it hits upon both Peirce and Scotus, both of whom are of great interest to me. And Scotus is relevant to the current theological discussion since Scotus thought he had devised an infallible proof of God's existence as "First Principle" which must be considered from an Aristotelian basis of POSTERIOR ANALYTICS, Bk 2, chapter 19-21 where a "First Principle" is hypothesized and then must withstand, literally as in a battle, all of its tests of validity since, as a hypothetical 'First Principle', it can either be conventional or arbitrary and therefore its "truth" only determined by its survival against all comers. But I have not studied Scotus specifically on that very deeply. Scotus thought of what people generally think of as Aquinas' proofs as mere propositions and called him an "agnostic". And Scotus is right since Aquinas firmly believed all knowledge is linguistic, i.e., sign-related, and therefore always separate from that which "forces" (Peirce) acknowledgement, i.e., the rock does not talk to you and tell you its name or whatever, so there is never a real connection between word and thing. And, for Aquinas, what applies to a real finite individual necessarily also applies to "God", ergo you cannot know "God" since no words at all can "connect in reality" to him. And then, according to the "rules of engagement", you can never - even in heaven - experience "God" directly because what "God" must necessarily be is always absolutely outside any kind of FINITE human experience whatsoever, ergo neither human linguistic knowledge nor any kind of experience 'discovers' "God" or what "God" is as an object. So Scotus' "First Principle" must depend upon an undeniable aspect/ground of both linguistic and physical experience which must be existence as an unexplainable present-at-hand FACT that is not at all analyzable itself in any fashion whatsoever just like an Aristotelian "First Principle". But I really do not know and am just guessing.
Gary C. Moore On Sunday, June 22, 2014 1:26 PM, "Skagestad, Peter" <[email protected]> wrote: Boler's book is excellent - highly recommended! Peter ________________________________ From: Gary Moore [[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2014 5:09 PM To: Daniel Brunson; [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thank you! I ordered it. GCM On Saturday, June 21, 2014 5:55 AM, Daniel Brunson <[email protected]> wrote: This is the first work that comes to mind: http://www.amazon.com/Charles-Peirce-Scholastic-Realism-Relation/dp/B0007DTBFU On Jun 21, 2014 6:26 AM, "Gary Moore" <[email protected]> wrote: Is there any substantial paper or book on Peirce's use of Scholastic terminology? > >----------------------------- >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 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
