Jon, list
No- you aren't accurate but I don't see that I should have to defend myself;
if you have inaccurate views of my views - then, I am hardly going to fight you
about your views of me!
BUT - you adamantly told us that Peirce effectively abandoned his use of the
Categories, which you defined as 'early' and instead, moved on to consider the
Three Universes. That was my argument with you - that you rejected his
Categories as 'early Peirce' while the 'mature Peirce' discusssed only the
Three Universes. I maintained that Peirce never abandoned the Categories and
indeed, don't find them comparable in any way with the Three Universes.
As far as the emergence of the universe, I tend to support his 1.412 outline,
which is a physico-chemical-biological outline, along with his outline of
evolution and adaptation [tychasm, agapasm] - none of which make any reference
to a non-immanent a priori Creator/God - as outlined in the NA. I didn't find
your attempt to correlate 1.412 with the NA a convincing argument.
Therefore - I said, and repeat, that I have no comment on the NA, since I don't
find that it fits in with the emergence-evolution arguments found elsewhere in
Peirce.
As for Peirce's Platonism -[ which is not the same as neo-Platonism], I find
Peirce a thorough Aristotelian - and the debate, for example, by Aristotle vs
Platonism [in many areas, including in physics, metaphysics, politics] ...seems
to find support in Peirce's views on, for example, matter and mind; causality;
....so, I don't find arguments defining him as 'Platonist' very convincing.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
To: Clark Goble
Cc: Peirce-L
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories
Clark, List:
ET: I tend to agree with you here Edwina. I don’t quite see big
contradictions between his later more Hegelian work with the more neoplatonic
work of the late 1880’s. Evolution yes. But I don’t see him moving away from
the earlier positions.
This actually sounds more like my position than Edwina's. I have argued that
Peirce's later cosmological/cosmogonic writings do not contradict his earlier
ones; rather, they clarify some details that he had previously left vague. By
contrast, Edwina seems to reject the later writings--especially "A Neglected
Argument," which she admits she cannot explain and does not even attempt to
explain--as incompatible with the earlier ones, which she favors. She also
seems to bristle at any suggestion that Peirce was a (neo-)Platonist in any
sense whatsoever. Of course, these are my impressions of her positions, and I
hope that they are accurate; if not, I would welcome her
correction/clarification.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote:
On Oct 22, 2016, at 2:52 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
The problem is, Gary, that you and Jon are both theists and both of you
reject the 'Big Bang'. I am an atheist and support the 'Big Bang'. Therefore,
both sides in this debate select sections from Peirce to which we feel
compatible. Yet - as I keep saying, both views are empirically outside of any
possibility of proof or TRUTH. You either believe in one OR the other [or some
other theory].
I confess I don’t understand this disagreement, especially if it is coming
in with our priors regarding theology. It seems to me the big bang is largely
orthogonal to such questions. For one, most physics doesn’t see the big bang as
the beginning of everything. The inflationary models at this point are quite
old and widely accepted. String theory has its branes which float in higher
dimensional space. Loop quantum gravity has bubble universes more akin to the
original inflationary models. And some theorists reject them all and say all we
have empirical evidence for is this universe.
i.e. it would seem both options are pretty open to atheists and theists of
various stripes
You try to substantiate that Peirce followed the same view as yours by
defining his 'earlier work' as something that he moved away from and rejected.
I don't see any evidence of this. I admit that I can't explain the NA - and I
don't even attempt to do so - but - I don't find any evidence of Peirce
rejecting the 1.412 argument - and other arguments about the self-organization
and evolution of the universe [tychasm, agapasm].
I tend to agree with you here Edwina. I don’t quite see big contradictions
between his later more Hegelian work with the more neoplatonic work of the late
1880’s. Evolution yes. But I don’t see him moving away from the earlier
positions.
But I suspect part of this is how to interpret those earlier passages in
1.412. I’m largely convinced by Parker here. (Regarding Peirce anyway - I’m not
sure I buy the ontology itself)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
