Edwina, List: Based on Matt's paraphrase below, I suspect that this earlier excerpt from "Notes on Positivism" is what he actually had in mind.
CSP: The modern disciples [i.e., Positivists] ... prefer to discard all religious belief altogether ... by persuading themselves that theism could offer no rational consolation to believers, even if it could be rationally accepted. Herein they show the secret influence of the capital principle of theism, namely, that whatever is, is best. Only by a covert faith in this could they commit the absurdity of maintaining that God, Freedom, and Immortality would be evils. [Selected Writings (Values in a Universe of Chance), p. 138] What you quoted comes a bit later [pp. 139-140] and constitutes Peirce's brief demonstration that the Positivists were *wrong *to think "that theism could offer no rational consolation to believers." There he identified "the capital principle of theism" as being "that nature is absolutely conformed to an end"; i.e., the belief "that whatever is, is best" *follows *from the belief "that there is a reason in the nature of things," and is precisely the source of the believer's consolation that the Positivists overlooked. This interpretation is confirmed by what comes right after "acme of consolation," which you unfortunately omitted. CSP: I know very well that a great many theists are nearer pessimists than optimists, but they are unsound and inconsistent. To say, however, that whatever is, is best is not to deny the existence of evil, but only to maintain that if any event is bad in one way it more than counterbalances for it by being good in another or higher way. [p. 140] Now, there can be no doubt that Peirce himself believed "that there is a reason in the nature of things"; and therefore, based on these passages, he also must have accepted "that whatever is, is best." In other words, contrary to your analysis, Peirce did not at all "reject[] the theist mindset"--he quite clearly *affirmed *it. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Matt, list: > > Thanks for your suggestion. Here's the quote: > > "Let us now turn to theism. the capital principle of this is that nature > is absolutely conformed to an end; or in other words, that there is a > reason in the nature of things. Now from what has been said before it > follows that so far as we attain true culture, so far will the sum of all > our impulses come to the love of reason as it necessarily is ,and therefore > so far as we are as we ought to be, so far are we perfectly gratified by > what according to the nature of things takes place; which is another way of > saying that whatever is, is best. Now this is...the very sum, > quintessence , and acme of consolation" [7. Notes on Positivism. undated > manuscript at Widner Library and is a critique of Comte's positivism'. > > "Instead of arguing from the historical effects of scepticism and theism, > we prefer to begin with this undoubted fact: All men and animals love > life"...it is a love of rational life' > > Now - what I gather from the above, is Peirce's view that > life-loves-to-live, and living is in itself, a rational action, because all > of life is based on 'Reason'. I understand this to mean an evolving and > adapting life, rejecting the theist mindset of having > to accept that whatever is, is best, - as he has outlined in his > cosmology which outlines the self-organized and constantly evolving, > networked, emergence of Mind-as-Matter[1.412] , and his outline of the > actual pragmatic morphology of this Mind-as-Matter ,as moulded within the > Three Categories of 1ns, 2ns, 3ns. > > Peirce views theism as a passive acceptance of the 'nature of things' and > instead, suggests a perspective based on active love- and - within the > three categories - that there is no 'end'; that under the principle of > Firstness, there is possibility and potentiality as guided by Reason. > > I note that this paper, with its definition of theism as an acceptance of > 'whatever is, is best' makes no reference to a Supreme Being or > metaphysical Agent but instead focuses on the pragmatic effects of theism > as this passive acceptance or 'acme of consolation'.[comfort provided after > a loss or disappointment]. > > Edwina > > On Tue 15/05/18 6:06 PM , Matt Faunce [email protected] sent: > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:25 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> And this is the crux of the debate - the meaning of the terms we use. >> > Two important elements could be added to this discussion: > > (1) Peirce said "the capital principle of theism" is the principle "that > whatever is is best." This is in Critique of Positivism, MS. 146, in the > first paragraph. So, the fact that logic is normative is a key. > > I would love to read your interpretation of this first paragraph. Perhaps > someone could copy and paste it here—I'd have to type it out on my > cellphone. Or, perhaps someone could post a link to it—I couldn't find it > on the internet just now, although that's where I found it a couple of > years ago. > > (2) Peirce's justification of the anthropomorphism of nature. > > Matt > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
