Jon, list:
Perhaps it is our conceit that we should only look for the answer to your question in Peirce only: “And thought thinks on itself because it shares the nature of the object of thought; for it becomes an object of thought in coming into contact with and thinking its objects, so that thought and object of thought are the same. For that which is capable of receiving the object of thought, i.e. the essence, is thought. But it is active when it possesses this object. Therefore the possession rather than the receptivity is the divine element which thought seems to contain, and the act of contemplation is what is most pleasant and best. If, then, *God* is always in that good state in which we sometimes are, *this compels our wonder*; and if in a better this compels it yet more. And God is in a better state. And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God’s self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God. … For the *theory of Ideas* has no special discussion of the subject…” Aristotle, *Metaphysics Book XII* Hth, Jerry Rhee On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > List: > > While searching through the *Collected Papers* for all instances of the > word "habit," which I anticipate will be the next concept for me to explore > in working out my "logic of ingenuity" thesis, I came across 6.490-491. > This passage is presented as the conclusion of "A Neglected Argument for > the Reality of God," which puzzled me because it was unfamiliar, despite > the fact that I had read that paper several times in volume 2 of *The > Essential Peirce*. > > As it turns out, this is precisely the text that the editors of the latter > deliberately chose to omit from page 447; it is the second half of the > "first additament," which was not included at all in the original published > version. As explained in note 14, they retained the first half of it > because that is where Peirce most clearly presented the image of "a nest of > three arguments" that he also discussed in the "second additament," which > actually accompanied the article itself in *The Hibbert Journal* of > October 1908. > > CP 6.490 includes some very interesting stuff, perhaps most notably what > may have been Peirce's last attempt at outlining his cosmology. This seems > to refute the claim of Thomas Short and others that he abandoned all such > speculation after the final lecture of the Cambridge Conferences series in > 1898, as published in *Reasoning and the Logic of Things*. I may have > more to say about that subject at another time; for now, I am more > intrigued by the first few sentences of CP 6.491. > > CSP: Among the many pertinent considerations which have been crowded out > of this article, I may just mention that it could have been shown that the > hypothesis of God's Reality is logically not so isolated a conclusion as it > may seem. On the contrary, it is connected so with a theory of the nature > of thinking that if this be proved so is that. Now there is no such > difficulty in tracing experiential consequences of this theory of thinking > as there are in attempting directly to trace out other consequences of > God's reality. > > > As Bowman L. Clarke pointed out in a 1977 *Transactions* article, > "Peirce's Neglected Argument," Peirce here attempted to address an > important way in which he acknowledged that the retroductive conjecture of > the Reality of God is unlike a typical *scientific *hypothesis--it is not > amenable to deductive explication and inductive corroboration. Peirce > proposed the alternative of going through those steps with his "theory of > the nature of thinking" instead, because "the hypothesis of God's Reality > is logically ... connected so with" this theory that "proving" the latter > would suffice to "prove" the former. > > This raises a few interesting questions. > > 1. To what specifically was Peirce referring here as "a theory of the > nature of thinking"--the three stages of a "complete inquiry" and their > "logical validity," as laid out in sections III and IV of the paper, or > something else? > 2. How exactly is "this theory of thinking" *logically *connected with > "the hypothesis of God's reality"? > 3. What would be some "experiential consequences of this theory of > thinking" that we could, with comparatively little difficulty, deductively > trace and inductively test? > 4. What exactly would it mean to "prove" Peirce's "theory of the > nature of thinking," such that "the hypothesis of God's reality" would > thereby also be "proved"? > > I have some tentative thoughts about these matters, including a couple of > ideas that I found in the secondary literature, but would appreciate seeing > what others have to say initially. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
