Edwina, List: ET: I would add, that, just as my readings of Peirce are my interpretation, that your readings are your interpretation - even though you never acknowledge this fact.
The difference is that one interpretation is clearly consistent with Peirce's own explicit statements, while the other is clearly not. ET: And, Peirce's objective idealism is not, in my reading, the same as 'pure idealism'. I agree. Like I already said, Peirce's *objective *idealism is not the *pure *idealism of Plato, nor the *subjective *idealism of Berkeley, nor the *absolute *idealism of Hegel. These are four different *types *of idealism. ET: It is hylomorphic - and hylomorphism is NOT dualism [as you suggest - what an astounding suggestion!! ] but is monist - as Peirce says in his reference to hylopathy. I had never heard of hylomorphic *monism *until I looked it up online today. Best I can tell, it is a relatively recent and novel interpretation of Aristotle, while most scholars still characterize his view instead as hylomorphic *dualism*. In any case, hylopathy is not at all the same as hylomorphism. Peirce views matter as a *peculiar sort* of mind, while Aristotle views every substance as a *composite *of matter and form. For Peirce, mind *becomes *matter, never the other way around; while for Aristotle, matter and form are always *combined*, yet always distinguishable. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:15 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > JAS, list > > We've been through this before. I would add, that, just as my readings of > Peirce are my interpretation, that your readings are your interpretation - > even though you never acknowledge this fact. > > And, Peirce's objective idealism is not, in my reading, the same as 'pure > idealism'. It is hylomorphic - and hylomorphism is NOT dualism [as you > suggest - what an astounding suggestion!! ] but is monist - as Peirce says > in his reference to hylopathy. > > Aristotle's 'form' is comparable to Mind' - and, you are ignoring Peirce's > explicit statement, which I repeat: > > "The old dualistic notion of mind and matter, so prominent in > Cartesianism, as two radically different kinds of substance, will hardly > find defenders today. Rejecting this, we are drive to some form of > hylopathy, otherwise called monism" 6.24 my emphasis]. " > > And MY interpretation is that Peirce rejects that the two, Mind and > Matter, are independent of each other; or that either is primordial. That > is, MY interpretation is different from YOUR interpretation [and again - > there is no direct path from the text to either of us; we are both > interpretors]…. > > He chooses, not idealism, but objective idealism - and that corresponds to > his 'some form of hylopathy, otherwise called monism'. Which means that the > two, Mind and Matter, are correlates and work together. ... that matter is > effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws. > > And as you quote, > CSP: Synechism, even in its less stalwart forms, can never abide dualism, > properly so called. ... In particular, the synechist will not admit that > physical and psychical phenomena are entirely distinct,-- > > Exactly. The two, Mind and Matter are correlates ...'some form of > hylopathy, otherwise called monism". > > I don't think there is anything more to be said about our two different > interpretations. > > Edwina >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
