Kirstima, list,
I guess that is for a reason: Ontology is the theory of what is, and "is", being, is caused by a predicate, which is something percieved, so something known (epistemology), added to a thing, that otherwise would lack reality (or was it existence?), would not even be a thing? I have understood this from this list a few weeks ago, when it went about "being". (I hope Ive got it right. What I have not yet got, is the difference between reality and existence: No idea) What this view comes down to is some sort of constructivism, in the sense, that "thing" is not something that can exist "in itself", but only as something percieved. Perception though is a capability merely of some person, so all this suits somehow to what I had written before, and corrobates the God-argument too, I think: We know that there was a world before organisms have existed. So there were things. But by whom might they have been percieved and thus turned into beings, "things" at all, when there were no organisms? Must be by God, who else, when there has not been anybody else at that time. Or so.
Best,
Helmut
07. September 2016 um 16:09 Uhr
kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
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 .
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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
