> On Oct 30, 2016, at 8:37 AM, jerry_lr_chand...@me.com wrote: > > To what extend did Spinoza’s effort to express meta-physics in terms of > Euclid’s geometrical mathematics, excite CSP to express his meta-physics in > terms of continuous mathematics and graph theory (as a dualism between > physical thought and chemical thought, or as a dualism between idealism and > realism)?
Spinoza seemed focused primarily on deductive logic. (Which given the times wasn’t unsurprising - especially with The Elements as his template) However given Peirce’s use of abduction and induction. The paper touches upon this arguing that Spinoza’s axioms and definitions are the result of induction (and one might presume abduction). It seems that this lower level is what Peirce found so valuable. Peirce also touches on Spinoza’s notion of the Absolute, which some think he picked up from the Jewish notions out of the Kabbalah and related movements. How much Spinoza was actually influenced by Kabbalism, especially the 12 century spanish forms, I couldn’t say. I know in the Continental Tradition you tend to have a lot of interpreters who read him not as caught up in deductive mathematics but a skeptic. That is they read him as breaking with the Rationalist tradition rather than one of the greatest manifestations of the movement. (Badiou is an obvious example here although there are many) I’ve read several papers arguing that Cantor’s set theory was influenced by Spinoza along with a few other influences. (I’m not sure I buy the claims of Kabbalistic influence) Cantor is the key figure in Continental Philosophy tying Spinoza to this skepticism and in many ways it ends up being tied to a doctrine of continuity. Peirce famously doesn’t quite develop his continuum the way Cantor does but there are obvious affinities. I do suspect that much like Cantor was influenced by Spinoza so too was Peirce in this regard. I’d add getting back to neoPlatonism that much of the Kabbalistic thinking both in 12th century Spain but also contemporary with Spinoza is basically just a particular strain of neoPlatonism. It’s useful since particularly the Spanish Kabbalists interpreted God not as immutable but affected by the actions of humans. (Indeed this is a major aspect to their thought which puts them quite at odds with the type of neoPlatonism typical in Christianity where God was unchangeable.) For Peirce God — or at least the aspect of God discussed in the NA — is also influenced. It has more of an affinity to the God of process theology than the God of Augustine. Yet a better way of thinking of this might be through this Cantor like take on Spinoza.
----------------------------- 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 .
