> On Sep 26, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > Clark, list - yes, I agree with you that one's beliefs about religion do > affect one's interpretation of the NA. After all, as Peirce wrote, we cannot > begin with an empty mind but begin with our beliefs. Jon, who self-describes > as a 'Lutheran Layman' would have a different approach than my own, as I > self-describe as an atheist. Our very understandings of even the term 'god' > would therefore differ. > > And as Jerry points out - we don't 'begin' our understandings with Peirce. > Many of us are aware of Plato and Aristotle - and after all, Peirce described > himself as heavily influenced by Aristotle.
Yes. I think someone characterized Peirce’s epistemology not as focused on beliefs and their justification but on the change of beliefs. This shifts it from the more traditional Aristotelian approach with its similarities to mathematics into a more process view. Peirce was really pushing back against the Foundationalist moves that characterized most philosophy well up to the middle 20th century since Descartes. Even when Foundationalism was discarded you had things like coherentism or the like that still adopted much of the structure of Descartes. It was a static analysis. If we do justice to abduction and the NA I think we have to avoid that static kind of analysis. Further the analysis can’t simply move towards the current perhaps somewhat contingent makeup of philosophy departments. Rather we have to ask about the diversity of views as they conduct the argument. It’d seem that only then can we make sense of its strength or weakness.
----------------------------- 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 .
