Edwina, List:
ET: This is a stunningly arrogant statement.
There is nothing even slightly arrogant about accurately stating an
obvious fact.
ET: 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'.
Sure I can, and so can anyone else who honestly compares them with
Peirce's own explicit statements.
ET: ... both Matter and Mind are correlates; ie, the relation of
matter and mind within existence is not dualism but monism.
That is not an accurate description of Aristotle's hylomorphism, which
is the doctrine that every substance is a composite of matter and form
(not mind).
ET: For Peirce, as I read him, Matter is a composite of Mind, and
Mind only 'exists'/is actualized within Matter.
That is not an accurate description of Peirce's objective idealism,
which is the doctrine that "matter is a peculiar sort of mind,"
namely, "effete mind," "specialized and partially deadened mind,"
"mind so completely under the domination of habit as to act with
almost perfect regularity & to have lost its powers of forgetting & of
learning," "inveterate habits [of mind] becoming physical laws [of
matter]," "the physical law [of matter] as derived and special, the
psychical law [of mind] alone as primordial."
Remember, "For any claims about what Peirce believed, please give
exact quotations."
Regards,
Jon S.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 6:19 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca
<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote:
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 <mailto: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, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://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 ofhylopathy, 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.
