Gary R, List I am not going to deal with the concept of god - since I consider it a belief that one either accepts or rejects, and thus, outside the realm of scientific or even logical examination. [the logic tends to be circular] - but some of your phrases made me think of Peirce’s foundational argument for pragmaticism:
“Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, you conceive the objects of your conception to have. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object [5.438]. To me, this means that, as Peirce pointed out with his support of objective idealism rather than idealism [ 6.24], that reality requires at some time, a movement into discrete existentially or ‘really being'. That is, the universe does not operate within only the generalities of Thirdness [ or even the qualities of Firstness] but requires Secondness. I understand the term of ‘reality’ as a reference to the general mode of organization - and thus, conclude that this ‘general’, though real in the sense that it is not a subjective or intellectual [ human] concept cannot be ‘real’ unless articulated within actualities. That is - hypotheses remain abstract concepts - and thus, in the human species which alone uses symbolic concepts, these concepts if left as such without any movement into scientific empiricism, remain confined to their rhetorical ideology. One can maintain them as such [ ie, the belief/hypothesis of the reality of bad luck numbers] . Or one can move them into the empirical realm of testing [ the acknowledgment that bacteria exist and cause illness]. Or- if left as hypotheses/beliefs - They can, of course, become dangerous, as they did in the medieval Christian era of which claims, heresy, inquisitions. My point is that Peirce’s work is founded on pragmaticism and objective idealism and thus - I don’t see how outlines describing purely idealist concepts fit in with this work. Edwina > On Oct 24, 2024, at 3:53 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > Helmut, Jon, List, > > HR: ". . .there is the "distinction of being thought and really being" > GR: Peirce claims that this is not the case for God. CSP: ". . . it may be > said that the distinction of being thought and really being does not exist in > the case of deity. . ." For after all 'God' is 'our God' even if one > conceives of God cosmically as both Jon and I do. > > And it is fairly easy to imagine a far distant point in humankind's history > where there was no thought of God (no abduction: 'there is God') despite > God's timeless Reality. > > And the definition of God as "Ens Necessarium" is, after, a hypothetical one, > and Peirce's God in 'A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God' is a > hypothetical God. You can imagine in that essay that Peirce imagines that a > future scientific metaphysics might make some headway towards proving his > hypothesis. That certainly seems to be what Jon is up to. > > HR: ". . . the truth exists before, or without being "constituted". . ." > GR: Reality is such as it is no matter what anyone, or any group (even of > scientists), or any community or society thinks it is. But the Truth of > Reality is discovered along the way (as it is paradigmatically discovered in > science), but in the long run or, rather, asymptotically approached. > > HR: "[is there simply an] announcement of achieved knowledge? > GR: All knowledge is fallible. But there are some things which seem fairly > scientifically secured, for example, that water is H2O. But that 'certain > truth' could possibly be overturned in some future rigorous investigation. > Peirce once suggested that even 1 + 1 = 2 might not necessarily hold up in > future far reaching investigation. > > HR: I mean, God existed before organisms capable of "thought" existed, or not? > GR: Despite the necessity of the use of the word 'is' even when discussing > God, Peirce made it clear that to say that God 'exists' is fetishistic. God > is not an existential 'thing' like other 'things' in the universe. God, > however is 'Real. Now what is meant by saying 'God is Real' is another, far > reaching discussion. > > What I personally think that Peirce is getting at is that a 'real > definition' of God -- Peirce's definition being, 'Ens Necessarium' -- is > required to get the investigation going. > > I might add that while Jon and I disagree on certain significant points > relating to religious metaphysics, we are both attempting to approach the > topic scientifically. So was Peirce, of course. > > Best, > > Gary R > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 1:51 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Gary, Jon, List, >> >> I find this very confusing. I think, there is the "distinction of being >> thought and really being", and that the truth exists before, or without >> being "constituted", whatever "constituted" means, does it mean generated, >> like a constitution is, or is it just an announcement of achieved knowledge? >> I think the latter. Otherwise we have platonism, anthropocentrism, >> nominalism, whatever. I mean, God existed before organisms capable of >> "thought" existed, or not? >> >> Besr regards, Helmut >> >> >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. Oktober 2024 um 18:36 Uhr >> Von: "Gary Richmond" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> An: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Cc: "Peirce-L" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on Peirce and Anselm >> Jon, List, >> >> You quoted Peirce, then asked 4 questions: >> >> CSP: In defence of the argument, it may be said that the distinction of >> being thought and really being does not exist in the case of deity. ... That >> an ideal of a God is required to bring our general conceptions to unity is >> admitted on all hands. And that ideal God would not be such unless it were >> regarded as having existence and therefore it constitutes a hypothesis of a >> real God and as this hypothesis is required in every state of Cognition, its >> truth is constituted thereby. >> >> These statements prompt several questions in my mind. >> >> 1. What exactly does Peirce mean by "bring our general conceptions to unity"? >> 2. In what sense is "an ideal of a God" required for this, such that "a >> hypothesis of a real God ... is required in every state of Cognition"? >> 3. Was this really uncontroversial in the mid-19th century, i.e., "admitted >> on all hands"? >> 4. Even if so, is it still uncontroversial today? (I suspect not.) >> >> I'm away from my downtown apartment and, so, my desk and library, and I will >> be for about a week. Consequently I can't read the 6th Lowell lecture just >> now. So, my question and comments may turn out to be off base (or obvious). >> >> My question is: Does it in any way change the direction of our thinking if >> we make this one editorial change in the Peirce quotation above? >> >> CSP: In defence of the argument, it may be said that the distinction of >> being thought and really being does not exist in the case of deity. ... That >> an ideal of a God is required to bring our general conceptions [of God] to >> unity is admitted on all hands. And that ideal God would not be such unless >> it were regarded as having existence and therefore it constitutes a >> hypothesis of a real God and as this hypothesis is required in every state >> of Cognition, its truth is constituted thereby. >> >> Then the four questions might be reflected on in that light: that Peirce is >> not talking about "our conceptions" generally, but specifically of our >> conceptions of God. So: >> >> 1. What exactly does Peirce mean by "bring our general conceptions [of God] >> to unity"? [See below.] >> 2. In what sense is "an ideal of a God" required for this, such tha "a >> hypothesis of a real God ... is required in every state of Cognition" [of >> God]? [See below.] >> 3. Was this really uncontroversial in the mid-19th century, i.e., "admitted >> on all hands"? [Perhaps what everyone ("all hands") might have agreed upon >> was that an ideal of God (such as Ens Necessarium?) is required before >> other general conceptions (attributes/properties) of God might then be >> brought to unity? >> 4. Even if so, is it still uncontroversial today? (I suspect not.) >> [Those who today believe in God might even in our age hold something like >> Perice's view. That is, before one can consider God's possible attributes or >> properties (traditionally, omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence) that a >> hypothetical ideal God (such as is argued for in the N.A.) is needed. For >> Peirce God must be thought of, first, as Ens Necessarium, and that is God's >> real being (the thought and the reality are one). Everything that we might >> subsequently postulate about God's being would then be unified in that idea. >> As you wrote regarding the two kinds of definitions: "in a nominal >> definition, the copula only means would be, while in a real definition, it >> also means actually is." So, for Peirce the real definition of God is: Ens >> Necessarium. >> >> Now, again, I don't have that Lowell lecture at hand, nor can one access the >> PDF in your earlier post you linked to in the Peirce Archives, so I'm not >> certain of the context of your short quotation. Yet it seems to me that for >> Peirce the ideal of God as Ens Necessarium is logically the unifying idea >> that represents the reality that is God. >> >> Or perhaps I'm just redundantly stating the obvious. (I've been assuming >> that your take on the quotation was more general than mine.) >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 10:21 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Suteerth, List: >>> >>> Thanks for your response. FYI, my middle name is Alan (not Allen), and List >>> protocol is that we "reply all" to any post to which we are responding, or >>> (my personal preference) simply reply and then change the "To:" line to >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>. Either way, the >>> "Subject:" line is then unchanged in everyone's e-mail inboxes, and the >>> posts are properly threaded in the online archive >>> (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/). >>> >>> I am inclined to agree that "reducing our concepts to unity" likely means >>> "explaining diverse things using one idea." As for the definition of "God," >>> we have discussed in various recent threads--perhaps before you joined the >>> List--that Peirce's was ultimately Ens necessarium (CP 6.452, EP 2:434, >>> 1908), "that which would Really be in any possible state of things >>> whatever" (R 339:[295r], 1908). >>> >>> Taken together, his much earlier texts that I quoted in my previous post >>> (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-10/msg00046.html) seem to >>> imply that "a hypothesis of a real God" corresponds to "the conception of >>> being" as "that which completes the work of conceptions of reducing the >>> manifold to unity," especially in conjunction with this passage that he >>> wrote in between. >>> >>> CSP: Metaphysics consists in the results of the absolute acceptance of >>> logical 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) >>> >>> In summary, Peirce appears to be saying that it is impossible to unify the >>> observed variety of the universe--i.e., "bring our general conceptions to >>> unity"--without the ideal conception and explanatory hypothesis of a real >>> God as Ens necessarium, the One root of all being, "the Principle of all >>> Phenomena" and "the author and creator of all that could ever be observed >>> of Ideas, Occurrences, or Logoi" (R 339:[295r]). If that is right, then it >>> answers my first two questions, but I remain interested in seeing what >>> others have to say about all four of them. >>> >>> 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 Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 1:29 PM suteerth vajpeyi <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> I am certainly not that well read in religious literature but I can still >>>> put forward a conjecture. >>>> What is meant by reducing our general conceptions to unity ? >>>> By reducing our concepts to unity, peirce may mean explaining diverse >>>> things using one idea. So we explain the multitude of the qualities, >>>> relations and representations of dogs, cats, humans, apes, elephants, >>>> giraffes etc. by bringing them all under one concept- the concept of a >>>> mammal. How in the world is the idea of a god required for this? For that >>>> we must try to define god. God is the ultimate ideal of all degrees of >>>> truth, goodness and admirable-ness in the universe. That is why we worship >>>> god. Ideals are required for all types of unification of ideas. For that >>>> we must show that ideals are required for all the three peircean >>>> categories of thought. Thirdness or thought requires a basic reference to >>>> truth. Secondness or action requires a basic reference to the good and >>>> feeling requires reference to admirableness. In other words, if thought, >>>> action and feeling are to be able to fulfil their functions they must >>>> conform to ideals. Finally goodness, truth and admirableness in an >>>> infinite degree all united in one god/deity help to guide all the things >>>> we are capable of doing that is thinking, acting and feeling. >>>> I really have no clue about the non-controversial nature of this doctrine >>>> so I cannot answer your third and fourth questions. >>>> P.S. this is not decisive content. I can only hope that it helps to churn >>>> thought in you and others with the result that better ideas are put >>>> forward. >>> >>>> >>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >>> ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at >>> https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >>> https://www.cspeirce.com <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] <mailto:[email protected]> . >>> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >>> <mailto:[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. >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at >> https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >> https://www.cspeirce.com <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] <mailto:[email protected]> . ► To >> UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >> <mailto:[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. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
