Edwina, list: Yes, what you say is correct.
This is why I disdain the lawn example so much, and for many other reasons besides. As per the community and experience...there's also that! So, quid sit deus? What would God be? :) Best, Jerry R On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Not sure of your point ,Jerry. Since I am sure you know that your example > is a fallacy [fallacy of affirming the consequent]...After all, we all know > that your grass is wet because you left the sprinkler on all night..... > > The problem I have with a truth defined as the I-O being similar to the > R-O, is ..well....it requires that the Representamen be somehow 'untouched' > or unaffected by experience. That is, can we trust the Representamen? I > think the community-of-scholars is necessary in this situation, but even > so..wasn't it Tolstoy who said that 'wrong does not cease to be wrong just > because the majority shares in it'... > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> > *To:* Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> > *Cc:* Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2016 2:52 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > > Dear list: > > > > What you say sounds all well and good but I’m confused. > > > > In a description for the abductive process, an inadequate version can be > given: > > > > “The grass is wet, therefore, it must have rained last night. > > For *if *it rained last night, *then* the grass ought to be wet.” > > > > So, if > > “Knowledge is the object of our inquiry, and men do not think they know a > thing till they have grasped the 'why' of it (which is to grasp its primary > cause);” > > > > then my question is ‘Why the Reality of God’ and not “lawn is wet”? > > Also, what does this have to do with not only Truth-searching, but > Truth-finding? > > > > That is, if Truth is, as Edwina says: > > “…is it rather the case that this semiosis activity must continue on, for > some time *until that I-O relation does indeed correlate with the R-O > Relation? Isn't this what Peirce meant by eventually arriving at the > truth?”* > > > > then as Jon says, the hypothesis or the proposition should matter. > > > > So, what is O? What is R? What is I? > > That is, how can the R-O relation meet the I-O without the premisses? > > > > I think without this, there is no getting at the Truth or Reality of > things, since > > “The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who > investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in > this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality”. > > > > I believe this, irrespective of the attitude I adopt, since it is the > method, which also must be adopted. For without a method, then we’re right > back to arguing with no course for how to determine a good hypothesis from > a bad one. > > > > Best, > > Jerry Rhee > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > >> >> On Sep 19, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: >> >> Clark- thanks for your very nice outline of the NA - I certainly agree >> with your view, that as Chiasson says, it's not just about a 'belief in >> God', because it's not deductive but is, as noted, abductive. Abduction >> inserts freedom and spontaneity - attributes outside of the range of a God. >> And agreed - the NA doesn't offer 'compelling reasons for why we should >> call this *ens necessarium* as god. I, as an atheist, prefer his outline >> of Mind as the *ens necessarium*. >> >> As Mind is an action of Reasoning [within all three modes], then, I think >> that ethics is grounded within it. You don't, in my reading, require a God, >> for ethics. >> >> >> It’s worth noting the connection here between Peirce and Spinoza. Of >> course that could be indirect since many of the early German idealists like >> Hegel were highly influenced by Spinoza. But I’ve long thought the direct >> influence was significant. >> >> For a good paper on the influence see >> >> http://www.commens.org/sites/default/files/biblio_attachment >> s/peirce_and_spinozas_pragmaticist_metaphysics.pdf >> >> Spinoza of course explicitly calls his unity God and ties it to ethics. >> However the Jewish rabbis disagreed and thought him an atheists leading to >> his excommunication. >> >> That gets again to my point that the *name* God seems to be the dispute >> rather than the content. That said though many post Peircean figures >> strongly want to call God as God while giving his nature freedom and >> spontaneity. The process theology movement that started with Whitehead >> being the most obvious philosophical example although there were others. >> Later process theologians were explicitly influenced by Peirce despite many >> of Peirce’s writings being difficult to find at the time. >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 > . > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
