I think the outline of the difference between reality and existence, as
provided below, is only a partial outline and even, suggests nominalism rather
than realism. It suggests that 'the real' can be a 'thing-in-itself', i.e., "a
thing existing independent of all relation to the mind's conception of it'
8.13. And, it suggests that our thoughts, which are 'caused by
sensations'...can be derived by "something out of the mind" 8.12...This is
nominalism.
What Peirce [and others] refer to when using the term 'realism' is the concept
of the universal. Now, he writes "The real is that which is not whatever we
happen to think of it, but is unaffected by what we may think of it" 8.12.
What is this 'real'? It is not a particular thing nor is it the result of a
'possible stimuli' (Firstness or Thirdness]. It is, instead, a ' final
conclusion', "to which the opinion of every man is constantly gravitating"
8.12...."This final opinion then, is independent, not indeed of thought in
general, but of all that is arbitrary and individual in thought" 8.12. This
final truth, regardless of its instantiations, is a 'universal'.
And "is the present existence of a power anything in the world but a regularity
in future events relating to a certain thing regarded as an element which is to
be taken account of beforehand, in the conception of that thing" 8.12
So, the reality that we experience, when we experience individual things in
their existentiality...are not, according to my reading of Peirce "the
unknowable cause of sensation, but noumena, or intelligible conceptions which
are the last products of the mental action which is set in motion by
sensation." 8.13
Therefore, to Peirce, reality is an expression of a universal Mind - and
refers to the universals...
"The matter of sensation is altogether accidental; ....'the catholic consent
which constitutes the truth is by no means to be limited to men in this earthly
life or to the human race, but extends to the whole communion of minds to which
we belong, including some probably whose senses are very different from
ours"....This theory is also highly favorable to a belief in external
realities. It will, to be sure, deny that there is any reality which is
absolutely incognizable in itself, so that it cannot be taken into the mind.
But observing that the 'external' means simply that which is independent of
what phenomenon is immediately present, that is of how we may think or feel;
just as 'the real' means that which is independent of how we may think or feel
about it"......8.13.
This may sound confusing, but I think that Peirce's view of realism refers not
to current potential or habitual attributes which CAUSE our immediate
sensations [Secondness], but to 'the universal'; the 'general'...and one gains
knowledge of this as a 'final truth'. So- reality is the PRODUCT of mental
action and is not the CAUSE of it [8.15
"A consensus or common confession ...constitutes reality'. 8.16
...."Consequently a thing in the general is as real as in the concrete"
8.14..."It is a real which only exists by virtue of an act of thought knowing
it, but that thought is not an arbitrary or accidental one dependent on
idiosyncracies but one which will hold in the final opinion" 8.14
BUT Peirce goes on, to declare that these universals does not need to be
'thought about' to be real - we, or some other Mind, might come to know them at
some future time.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Helmut Raulien
Cc: kirst...@saunalahti.fi ; Peirce-L
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking
Helmut, List:
HR: (What I have not yet got, is the difference between reality and
existence: No idea)
Briefly, my understanding of Peirce's use of terminology is that existence is
a subset of reality--everything that exists is real, but not everything that is
real exists. All three Universes of Experience are real; only the Universe of
Brute Actuality exists. Reality consists of that which has whatever characters
it has, regardless of whether anyone thinks or believes that it has those
characters; existence consists of that which interacts or reacts with other
things. Examples of what can be real without existing include possibilities
and qualities (Firstness), as well as laws and habits (Thirdness); examples of
what exists include actual individuals and occurrences (Secondness).
Hope that helps,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
