BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
1]JAS, you wrote, in response to my comment that both you and I are
interpreters of Peirce,
"The difference is that one interpretation is clearly consistent
with Peirce's own explicit statements, while the other is clearly
not."
This is a stunningly arrogant statement. There is no way that you,
as interpreter of a text, can yourself declare that your
interpretation is 'clearly consistent'..while the other is 'clearly
not'.
2] I am not saying that Peirce and Aristotle's views on Matter and
Mind are identical though they have strong similarities but
agreement is that both Matter and Mind are correlates; ie, the
relation of matter and mind within existence is not dualism but
monism. For Peirce, as I read him, Matter is a composite of Mind, and
Mind only 'exists'/is actualized within Matter. Matter is organized
according to laws - and laws are a property of Mind.
Edwina
On Fri 24/09/21 6:05 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
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, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:15 PM Edwina Taborsky < tabor...@primus.ca
[3]> 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
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
