Matt, List:
I disagree. The Proposition being expressed in ordinary language has
three *really
distinct* Subjects--paint, wetness, and freshness--which respectively fill
the blanks of its Continuous Predicate, "if _ possesses the character
of _, then it possesses the character of _."
On Feb 6, 2019, at 4:09 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
>
> Again, the obvious strategy for defeating my major premise is simply to
> provide a single counterexample--something that we can agree Peirce would
> have acknowledged to be a Sign, but that is not determined by an Object other
> than its
Matt, List:
Thank you for the additional clarifications. As I see it, my major premise
is not a *generalization *at all, it is a *definition*--something that is *not
*determined by an Object other than itself *cannot *be properly called a
Sign. In other words, it is *essential *to the Peircean c
List, Stephen
> On Feb 4, 2019, at 11:49 AM, Stephen Curtiss Rose wrote:
>
> L root is not on my radar. Does it have something to do with servers.
> Transcendence is in my view a positioning of something above something else.
> It is a verb mainly. It precedes predicates. As a thing in itself I
> On Feb 3, 2019, at 6:49 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
>
> MF: Yes, in my counter argument I rejected the part of Peirce's
> generalization that included the whole universe as a sign.
>
> I thought that you were rejecting the major premise, not the minor premise.
I was talking about your ma
Stephen:
The nature of transcendence is an intriguing challenge in most disciplines
because of the meaning of its L. root.
Can you clarify how transcendence relates to the scope and scale of predicates?
Cheers
Jerry
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:30 AM, Stephen Curtiss Rose wrote:
Transcendence is half a binary. Binaries are all suspect. Generally they
can be assumed to be one rather than two. Explicitly there is no way to
assume a creator without assuming that a triadic reality exists in which
Love, for example, is both what binary language calls transcendent and
immanent.
Edwina, list,
why not? If people, due to psychology, sociology and semiotics, are more able to watch and understand their own and other´s consciousnesses and the mechanisms of groupthink and group-dynamics, i.e. gather commonly called "wisdom", why should that not make them more peaceful?
The
Matt, List:
Thanks for the clarifications.
MF: Just as the character of points in the outer borderline of a black
dot doesn't follow the same logic which determines the character of the
points in the interior of the dot ...
In my view, the mistake here is not recognizing that the borderline i
First off, please ignore my second from last paragraph in my previous post, as
I didn't flesh out my ideas very well.
Further comments below.
> On Feb 3, 2019, at 5:13 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
>
> Matt, List:
>
> Which of the Five Ways of Aquinas includes only premises that "can possibly
Matt, List:
Which of the Five Ways of Aquinas includes only premises that "can possibly
have a shred of inductive support"? They are not intended to persuade
non-theists to become theists, but rather to demonstrate how certain
combinations of other beliefs *warrant *or even *require *theism. As
On Feb 3, 2019, at 3:55 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
> My argument is deductively valid, so in order to disagree with its
> conclusion, one must also disagree with at least one of its premises. With
> which of those premises do you specifically disagree, and why?
>
Jon, here's my 2 cents.
Edwina, List:
ET: Religion, of any type, is a belief system. You either believe in it -
or not. There is no evidence. Its axioms are infallible and outside of
debate. Science is subject to empirical objective and repeatable evidence -
and its axioms are fallible.
This comparison is a caricature
Gary R., List:
GR: One has at least to admit, I think, in positing the Universe as Sign
(Symbol) and God as the Object of that Sign, that both are wholly unique,
that they are atypical, even peculiar among all other Signs and Objects:
that they are, indeed, sui generis both in themselves, so to s
Helmut, list
I don't agree with any kind of transcendental force/agency - so, I
wouldn't agree with either panentheism or theism, both of which
assume an agential force that transcends time and space. My problem
with pantheism, which does NOT have this transcendental agency but
I see all earthly ills as the product of fear leading to the refusal to
use freedom to overcome it and treat others as you would be treated. When
freedom chooses courses or values that descend from selfishness, exclusion
and ganging up all the way to inflicting injury and death you have the
histor
Edwina, list,
You wrote: "I think that the ills of society are caused by the human psychological nature - nothing to do with either religion or science and following either will not change the effects of a bad psychological nature. That is - the 'deadly sins' of greed, lust, pride , envy, glutton
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R
1] Just a comment on your view of the role of science and religion
in a society.
I don't agree that the cause of the 'ills' of society is a 'limited
view of god' or a chasm between science and reli
Jon, list,
Jon wrote:
I am curious to learn exactly how you . . . would define panentheism in
this context, as contrasted with theism, and then attempt to revise the
major premise accordingly in order to obtain a compatible conclusion.
Peirce explicitly described the Object as "something external
Gary R., List:
Thank you for your very kind words. I look forward to further feedback and
discussion.
I actually debated formatting the summary just as you proposed, but
ultimately decided to add the fourth bullet as tacit acknowledgement that
identifying God as the Object that determines the Un
Jon, Gary
I suggest that while signs point to the Light or whatever universal name we
use to refer to the Cause, Creator, Force, etc.that it is this source that
makes semiotics the realization that it is -- in other words the basis of
Peirce's statement that all thought is in signs. I see semiotic
Jon, list,
This is, in my opinion, a most impressive semeiotic argument (really, an
extended *argumentation* in Peirce's sense) for the Reality of God. This is
to say that it would seem to me to be an explication of Peirce's (and, I
assume, your) religious views as they relate to his sign theory,
List:
One of Peirce's last published articles was "A Neglected Argument for the
Reality of God," and he made his theism--idiosyncratic though it
was--unmistakably clear in its very first sentence.
CSP: The word "God," so capitalized (as we Americans say), is *the *definable
proper name, signifyi
23 matches
Mail list logo
