Matt, List: I am not sure if this excerpt from a letter to William James is the second passage that you had in mind, but it amounts to Peirce effectively stating, "I am a theist."
CSP: As for humanism, it appears to me to be an allied doctrine, in perfect harmony with pragmatism, but not relating exactly to the same question. Indeed, since Schiller identifies it with the old humanism, I prefer the word "anthropomorphism" as expressive of *the scientific opinion*. For the old humanism was not a scientific opinion but an aim; and whether in harmony with scientific aims or not, quite exterior to the scientific aim. To Schiller's anthropomorphism I subscribe in the main. And in particular if it implies *theism*, I am an anthropomorphist. But the God of my theism is not finite. That won't do at all. For to begin with, existence is reaction, and therefore no existent can be *clear supreme*. On the contrary, a finite being, without much doubt, and at any rate *by presumption*, is one of a genus; so that it would, to my mind, involve polytheism. In the next place, anthropomorphism for me implies above all that the true Ideal is a living power, which is a variation of the ontological proof due, I believe, to Moncure Conway's predecessor, William Johnson (*not *James) Fox. That is, the esthetic ideal, that which we *all *love and adore, the altogether admirable, has, *as ideal*, necessarily a mode of being to be called living. Because our ideas of the infinite are necessarily extremely vague and become contradictory the moment we attempt to make them precise. But still they are not utterly unmeaning, though they can only be interpreted in our religious adoration and the consequent effects upon conduct. This I think is good sound solid strong pragmatism. Now the Ideal is not a finite existent. Moreover, the human mind and the human heart have a filiation to God. That to me is the most comfortable doctrine. At least I find it most wonderfully so every day in contemplating all my misdeeds and shortcomings. Pluralism, on the other hand, does not satisfy either my head or my heart. I am as sure as I am of anything that the logical doctrines connected with it,--Achilles and the Tortoise etc.,--are utterly false. (CP 8.262; 1905) Peirce subscribed to Schiller's anthropomorphism, in particular if it implied theism; but the God of *Peirce's *theism--he referred explicitly to "my theism" here--is not finite. He then proceeded to hint at an ontological proof, echoing his comments about nature conforming to an end and the love of life in "Notes on Positivism." Consistent with pragmaticism, the meaning of our concept of an *infinite *God is to be found, not in precise verbal definitions, but "in our religious adoration and the consequent effects upon conduct." I also just came upon this comment from a letter to Francis Russell, dated just nine days earlier. CSP: Your *summum bonum*, 'life,' is probably at bottom about the same as mine, though I view it more concretely. I look upon creation as going on and I believe that such vague idea as we can have of the power of creation is best identified with the idea of theism. So then the ideal would be to be fulfilling our appropriate offices in the work of creation. Or to come down to the practical, every man sees some task cut out for him. Let him do it, and feel that he is doing what God made him in order that he should do. (CP 8.138n4; 1905) Here we see Peirce once again affirming that "the work of creation" is ongoing, and yet also that the power involved "is best identified with the idea of theism." I personally find it noteworthy that the last three sentences are remarkably consistent with the doctrine of vocation that has always been a major point of emphasis in Lutheran theology. 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 5:06 PM, Matt Faunce <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 .
