List,
Did CSP ever use as a dichotomy the distincition between ontology vs.
epistemology? I think not. That would be against his basic views.
This frame just does not fit.
Kirsti
Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 7.9.2016 00:43:
Helmut, List:
Peirce's "Neglected Argument" is certainly NOT the same as Anselm's
ontological argument, although I have seen it characterized as AN
ontological argument in certain respects. In any case, I am not
asking about the NA itself; I am asking about the "theory of the
nature of thinking" that Peirce does not clearly identify, but claims
is logically connected with "the hypothesis of God's Reality" in such
a way that a proof of the former would also constitute a proof of the
latter.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[2]
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de>
wrote:
Jon, Jerry, list,
is all this anything else than the ontologic argument for the
existence of God by Anselm of Canterbury?
Best,
Helmut
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://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 .
