List My own view of Peirce and objective idealism [ 6.24] is that Peirce, by this term, means the reality of ‘matter as effete mind'; that is the Aristotelian view that the two are integrated. Therefore, I’m not convinced of any references to platonism.
As for Jerrys’ post - my reading of it [and I could be wrong!] was that he was referring to Peirce’s focus on Dicisigns as propositions, ie, those triads which incorporate Secondness in their Interpretants,and thus ’say something about something' [ Stjernfelt p.51] ie,, they provide sourced, connected [indexical] information about the Dynamic Object. “A proposition is a representamen which is not an argument but which separately indicates what object it is intended to represent” 1903: EP 2;204. Without such indexical connections with the object. [MS[R]491.5 - you easily move into what Marty calls ‘magical thinking’ The lack of this indexical reference to the object - enables unscientific conclusions. See F.Stjernfelt Natural Propositions Docent Press 2014. See also Robert Marty’s The Lattice of Five Paths [ in academia.edu <http://academia.edu/>]. Edwina > On Nov 2, 2024, at 1:02 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Jon S, Jerry, List, > > Did Peirce reject Platonism in favor of scholastic realism regarding the > status of abstract objects? > > That is not how I interpret Peirce's inquiries in metaphysics and cosmology. > Rather, I agree with several scholars who take Peirce at his word when he > says that the position he is developing is an extreme form of scholastic > realism and, at the same time, a form of objective idealism. Platonic > idealism is label used to characterize a wide range of metaphysical positions > that reject various forms of materialism in favor or objective idealism. > > We've inherited two important distinctions from the classical metaphysics of > Plato and Aristotle: the division between realism and nominalism, and the > division between idealism and materialism. As an interpretative strategy, I > agree with Richard Smyth, Kelly Parker and others who suggest that Peirce is > developing ideas in logic, epistemology and metaphysics that stem from the > Neo-Platonic tradition of Plotinus and Porphyry. See, for instance, Kelly > Parker's short essayhttps://kellyaparker.net/kap/Neoplatonism/, or Smyth's > Reading Peirce Reading. > > The general thrust of Neo-Platonic thought is to seek a synthesis between > Platonic Idealism and Aristotelian Realism. Peirce, I think, is exploring the > various ways an evolutionary cosmology might open the door to a richer and > deeper synthesis of these two traditions in philosophical metaphysics. > > So, no, I don't think Peirce rejects Platonism in favor of scholastic > realism. As an interpretative strategy, I tend to think such bold claims miss > the mark. > > Yours, > > Jeff > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on > behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2024 4:22 PM > To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on Peirce and Anselm > > Jerry, List: > > As has generally been the case with your other recent posts, I frankly do not > see the relevance of this one to what the rest of us have been discussing. It > does not appear to have anything at all to do with the thread topic. > > It is not a "conjecture" that Peirce rejected fictionalism, conceptualism, > and Platonism regarding the ontological status of abstract objects (including > propositions) in favor of scholastic realism. It is also not a "conjecture" > that he classified propositions as dicent symbols and therefore > legisigns/types, which do not (metaphysically) exist except when and where > they are embodied in sinsigns/tokens as replicas/instances. > > I am not in any way seeking to downplay Peirce's originality as a thinker. > After all, he went well beyond the term logic of Aristotelian syllogisms by > inventing modern first-order predicate logic independently of Frege. In fact, > it is Peirce's notation for the latter (not Frege's), employing the > existential and universal quantifiers, that evolved (via Russell) into what > we use today. > > 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, Nov 1, 2024 at 11:35 PM Jerry LR Chandler > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > List, Jon, Gary, Helmut: > On Nov 1, 2024, at 5:10 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Of course, Peirce rejected all three of these in favor of scholastic > realism--propositions do not (metaphysically) exist, but they are real as > representations of purported facts prescinded from reality as a whole. > From the perspective of the histories of the sciences and the goals of > meaningful communication, I find this conjecture to nothing less than absurd. > > CSP developed his notions of logic from chemical demonstrations and gives > many many examples of this throughout his texts. (Personal and scientific > integrity require every CSP scholar to acknowledge the scientific role of > these concepts in evaluating CSP texts.) These demonstrations of material > facts are remote from the assertions that CSP's originality is merely a minor > extension of "scholastic realism” > > I would suggest that the first four Aristotelian categories (substance, > quality, quantity, and relatives) are the principle basis of the developments > of the structuralism presented in: > > Quality-signs, sin-signs, legi-signs, > Images(icons), indicies, symbols > Rhema, decisions, arguments > > such that chemical demonstrations are grounded on the chemical indices as > constituents of chemical symbols and the “legi-signs" (identities) of the > sin-signs. > > I would further suggest that for CSP, the role of the indices is placed in > the center of the eight other terms because it is a direct logical > quantitative connective to the qualities and term assignments of all > chemicaldemonstrations. The corresponding grammar of the chemical > connectives (essential to semiosis) are expressions of the meanings of > connectivity of the semiotic with the semes (cognitive signs), the semiology > (legisigns) with the semantics. > > My reasoning for this logical perspectives is that it is consistent with > chemical practice, then and now. > The modern chemical practice is grounded in the TERM logic of Aristotelian > syllogisms, (chemical elements as names of objects) not the sentential logic > of modern first predicate logic grounded in various connectives that are > totally unrelated to CSP expressions of chemical connectives as the source of > lattice points. > > In modern terminology, the Quali-signs (semiotic terms) determine the indices > of the sin-sign (identity of the object) which in turn determine the > argument that generates the legi-sign (the name of the chemical object). In > set theoretic terms, the set of indices (determined / demonstrated from) the > quali-sign are arranged to assign the organization of the legisign. This > line of reasoning follows the structuralism of modern mathematics in the > sense of [ “sets” —> "permutation groups” —> “categories”] for any chemical > object, including higher order perplex structures. > > Cheers > Jerry > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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.
