List, Again I read, "Enough already."
Indeed. Enough already of blocking the way of inquiry. If you disagree with someone's interpretation of something posted to this list, then say so and give your reasons. That ought to be sufficient. If you aren't interested in a threaded topic, don't read in that thread. No one's going to miss you. If you aren't at all interested in what some particular list member has to say, delete his or her posts before commenting on them, perhaps even before reading them. No one will know or care. The lack of tolerance that I as list moderator have recently seen here is simply not acceptable in this forum. In my view, such a lack of tolerance reflects badly on the character of the intolerant person and not at all on the person harshly treated. As Joe Ransdell, the founder of Peirce-L wrote in "How the Forum Works" http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM [Forum members expect] that those who are at odds with one another. . . be both generous in their tolerance of the other when excess occurs and in their readiness to make verbal amends when excess is imputed to them. *When in doubt, apologize: you are never diminished by it *[emphasis in the original]*.* While I believe some apologies are in order, I don't really expect to see them. I do, however, believe that certain folk here should read over *their own *recent comments to see if, upon reflection, they think they might have shown intolerance toward the views and/or scholarship of another forum member. If the answer is that they do* not* believe that they did, then that is that, and there is nothing more to be said. But if the answer is that they must admit *to themselves* that they indeed did express some intolerance, then that person at least ought to consider if they want to see that intolerance (or pique, or insults, etc.) published in perpetuity on the Internet as an expression of their character. If not, they should simply refrain from conducting themselves in such an inappropriate manner in the future. As Ben Udell wrote here over a decade ago, "Peirce-L is a salon, not a saloon." I sincerely hope that no one here will attempt to justify untoward conduct on the list, although I can imagine that a list member or so will claim that I'm "scolding" folk here. Nonsense. Scold yourself if the uncomfortable shoe fits. Everyone should feel safe and free to express any Peirce-related thoughts that they have in the Peirce e-forum. That is* all* I'm saying. So, in a word, enough of blocking the way of inquiry; enough of intolerance. Sincerely, Gary Richmond (writing as forum moderator) *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 3:01 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > Gary F, > > Thank you for a post that doesn't go off the "deep end" by attributing > arguments to Peirce that he never stated, implied, ot even hinted. > > GF > > any knowledge that any mind can have of God must consist of > > predicates attributed to the real Subject we call “God” — which > > name, says Peirce, is different from all other proper names because > > it is definable. Every other proper name is an index of an entity > > who, at some time in some universe of discourse, has existed in > > some embodied form, and the prerequisite for knowledge of that > > subject is collateral experience of it. > > I would just add that Peirce also considered proper names, such > as Hamlet or Napoleon, for which collateral experience with the > individual is impossible (EP 2:493). For both of them, our only > source collateral experience is in what we read or hear. > > The same could be said about God. For most people, knowledge of > God comes from the same kind of sources as our knowledge of Hamlet > or Napoleon. Even people who can remember any definition from any > catechism depend mainly on stories they read or heard. > > GF > > If there is no evidence, no means of testing a hypothesis > > inductively, there is no knowledge, no matter how fallible > > or provisional we take it to be. > > Yes. Jon's so-called proof is a hypothesis about the existence > and actions of something that conforms to some definition. The > same conclusion could be derived by replacing the name 'God' with > the name of any deity, demiurge, or monster. Benevolence is not a > prerequisite. > > GF > > I hope that will suffice, and is sufficiently focused on the > > semiotic/logical/cognitive issues, because I’d rather not go > > any further into theology than I have here. > > I very strongly agree. And I'll repeat Stephen's point: > "Enough already." > > John >
----------------------------- 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 .
