List: I made my case for understanding the "perfect cosmology" discussion in CP 6.490 (1908) to be a *reductio ad absurdum* in section 4 of my 2018 paper, "A Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of God" (https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187/152244), and I will not reiterate it here. Again, such an interpretation is confirmed by the excerpt from a largely unpublished manuscript that I provided in my previous post, especially in conjunction with the Logic Notebook entry that I have quoted repeatedly in recent threads. They both present Leibnizian cosmological arguments for the reality of God as *Ens necessarium*--nothing comes from nothing, so the only rational explanation for why there is anything at all is one *necessary* being (definition of God) who created all *contingent *beings (everything else). Here are the key portions of those two passages again.
CSP: Unless we were to think reason in general futile, which neither you reader nor I can, we have the problem before us to explain the sum total of the real, however vaguely. To explain anything is to show it to be a necessary consequence. *To say that the total real is a consequence of utter nothing without substance or appearance is absurd.* *The only alternative is to suppose a necessary something whose mode of being transcends reality. *This is vague enough.* 'Necessary being' is the equivalent of 'something,' since nothing is self-contradictory and impossible*. But a necessary being adequate to account for the sum total of reality, however inscrutable, is not in all respects entirely vague. (R 288:91[178], 1905; bold added) CSP: Cosmology or the explanatory science of the Three Universes shows then plausibly at least how the Three Universes were produced, from an antecedent state. But their Phenomena are all the phenomena there are. *The task of Cosmology is therefore to show how all phenomena were produced from a state of absolute absence of any*; and logic requires that this problem [is] to be solved. *But it must suppose something to be in that antecedent state, and this must be that which would Really be in any possible state of things whatever, *that is, an *Ens Necessarium**.* This Ens necessarium being, then, the Principle of all Phenomena, must be the author and creator of all that could ever be observed of Ideas, Occurrences, or *Logoi*. (R 339:[295r], 1908 Aug 28; bold added) Claiming otherwise implausibly (and uncharitably) ascribes blatant self-contradiction to Peirce, especially since he wrote the Logic Notebook entry at almost exactly the same time as CP 6.490. I have already acknowledged several times now that the universe being perfused with first correlates (signs) of triadic relations of mediation entails that it is also perfused with second correlates (objects) and third correlates (interpretants) of such relations, but these are *also *first correlates (signs) of *other *triadic relations of mediation with their own second correlates (objects) and third correlates (interpretants), and so on in both directions. All semiosis proceeds from the (dynamical) object through the sign toward the (final) interpretant; hence, the semiosic continuum *as a whole* proceeds from God the Creator in the infinite past, through every state of the universe at a measurable point in time, toward God completely revealed in the infinite future (see CP 1.362, EP 1:251, 1887-8; note that this is in the very same manuscript as CP 1.412). None of this is theology; it is cosmology, a branch of metaphysics, which "consists in the results of the absolute acceptance of logical [i.e., semeiotic] principles not merely as regulatively valid, but as truths of being. Accordingly, it is to be assumed that the universe has an explanation, the function of which, like that of every logical explanation, is to unify its observed variety. It follows that the root of all being is One; and so far as different subjects have a common character they partake of an identical being" (CP 1.487, c. 1896). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 6:55 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > JAS, List > > 1]. You wrote: [informing us that the quotes were from 6.490] > > This confirms what I have been suggesting for years--Peirce's statement in > CP 6.490 (1908) that "the three universes must actually be absolutely > necessary results of a state of utter nothingness" is part of a *reductio > ad absurdum*. As he states plainly here, any claim that three-category > reality somehow came into being on its own, as "a necessary consequence ... > of utter nothing ... is absurd" because "nothing is self-contradictory and > impossible." > > Would you please explain why this section is meant, by Peirce, to be a > reduction ad absurdum? He doesn’t write: …that the ’three category reality > somehow came into being on its own, as a ’necessary consequence..of > utter nothing..is absurd”. Where does he state this? > > Instead, he clearly states that ’The three universes must actually be > absolutely necessary results of a state of utter nothingness” > > This whole long section [6.490] doesn’t seem to have any hint of ‘absurdum > in it; but a clearly argued analysis of the emergence of the three > categories/ universes. > > And of course - your next quotation fits right in. With his categorical > concepts of freedom, reaction and habit: > > "Now the question arises, what necessarily resulted from that [initial] > state of things? But the only sane answer is that where freedom was > boundless nothing in particular necessarily resulted. ... I say that > nothing *necessarily *resulted from the Nothing of boundless freedom" (CP > 6.218-219, 1898). > > That is - nothing *necessarily* resulted; ie, the universe is not > predetermined to be the way it is - because of the reality of Firstness [ > freedom] - and the reality of habit-taking..which is a process engaged in > by adaptation and evolution, ie, habits change. > > And after all- this argument of the emergence of the universe from > ’nothing’ and the developing complexity of habits has been argued, by him, > before - 1.412. ..and also- see all his analysis of Thirdness, as an > evolving, developing increasing complex mode. > > 2] As for the universe as ‘one immense sign’ or “the entire universe…all > this universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of > signs” [5.448ff]..the strange thing about your interpretation of these > quotes from Peirce - is that, since you insist that the the term ’sign’ > refers ONLY to the Representamen - then, this means, as I’ve pointed out > before, that your claim is that Peirce means that ’the entire universe is > ONLY the first correlate/is filled with first correlates. And- as you’ve > told us before, that this means that God is the Dynamic Object. But apart > from my reading that there is no such thing as an isolate correlate in the > triadic Sign of O-R-I - what your analysis sets up is that, since the FIRST > semiosic action rests with the Representamen - then, this puts God as the > SECOND action!!!! What a strange theology. > > Edwina >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 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.
