There is truly continuity in all things (synechism). — Mapping the Medium
What we have so prevalent in our world today due to those medieval misguided turns, is the slicing and dicing (nominalism) and the missing of a hugely important component (Cartesian dualism= diadic, versus what should be triadic), ultimately encouraging the idolization of the 'individual'. — Mapping the Medium
Are you just not paying attention? Infinitesimals do not have distinct boundaries, which is why the principle of excluded middle does not apply to them. — aletheist
Are you just not paying attention? Your judgment is incorrect; Peirce vehemently rejected materialism, explicitly identifying his metaphysics as objective idealism. — aletheist
As for forms, your comments are all over the place. For Aquinas God has infinite form, angels are form, and humans are form and matter. When a human understands something, it's form enters the intellect. That's it. There is not much else to his philosophy on this. I have no idea where you are going with your posts on here — Gregory
This is the unsupported premise, the thing taken for granted which no one seems to be able to back up with reasonable principles. — Metaphysician Undercover
Now this is an example of splitting hairs, so I will rephrase. Infinitesimals are necessarily indefinite, while boundaries are necessarily distinct, so infinitesimals have no boundaries.Saying that the boundaries are vague and not distinct, does not say that there are no boundaries. — Metaphysician Undercover
Ah, so now you are claiming that Peirce was either self-deluded or a liar. Time to show your work--provide quotes demonstrating that his metaphysics was based on materialist principles, or just admit that you are not familiar with his thought and are just making stuff up.Someone like Peirce, can say "I am not materialist, my metaphysics is objective idealism", and still offer us a metaphysics based in materialist principles. — Metaphysician Undercover
Now this is an example of splitting hairs, so I will rephrase. Infinitesimals are necessarily indefinite, while boundaries are necessarily distinct, so infinitesimals have no boundaries. — aletheist
Ah, so now you are claiming that Peirce was either self-deluded or a liar. — aletheist
Time to show your work--provide quotes demonstrating that his metaphysics was based on materialist principles, or just admit that you are not familiar with his thought and are just making stuff up. — aletheist
No, that is not what "indefinite" means in this context.Indefinite, means unlimited, which is the same as infinite. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, that is not what "infinitesimal" means in this context."Infinite" implies unlimited, while "infinitesimal" implies a limit. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, calling Peirce a materialist (dialectic or otherwise) demonstrates complete unfamiliarity with his actual writings, as evidenced by the persistent refusal to offer any supporting quotes or citations whatsoever."Self-deluded" might be accurate, but "deceptive" might actually be more precise, as described below. — Metaphysician Undercover
False dichotomy. The real is that which is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. This does not entail that the real is independent of thought in general.The world clearly exists as a reality, not as thought. — Gregory
He did not think that the world is subjective; see the definition of "real" above. Besides being an objective idealist, he was also an extreme scholastic realist.And why has he been called an objective idealist instead of a subjective one if he thinks the world is subjective? — Gregory
Colour is a fascinating subject. When I see an array of flowers, each having its own unique special blend of hues, on a summer day, I am awestruck by the beauty, and the fact that each particular colour is something created by that individual living being. But I don't see what this has to do with the reality of continuity. In fact, it seems more like evidence of the reality of individuality. — Metaphysician Undercover
As for Peirce, do your own homework.Christians try to get out of moral responsibility by saying God "became sin" and destroyed it. All you have to do is accept that he did and your responsibility is removed. — Gregory
I don't even like the guy. — Gregory
According to Peirce, there is indeed both immanent mind and transcendent mind, but only the latter is properly called God.... to understand Peirce means to understand that reality... 'Mind'.. is immanent AND transcendent. Whether you want to call that mind 'God' is left up to the interpreter. — Mapping the Medium
In case there is any doubt about what he was denying here, it turns out that he wrote the definition of "immanent" for the Century Dictionary, which includes the following.I do not mean by God a being merely "immanent in Nature," but I mean that Being who has created every content of the world of ideal possibilities, of the world of physical facts, and the world of all minds, without any exception whatever. — Peirce, R 843, 1908
If God is not immanent, then by this definition He is necessarily transcendent; both pantheism (the world is God) and panentheism (the world is in God) are ruled out. It is therefore untenable to ascribe either of these views to Peirce, as some scholars wrongly do; he was a Protestant Christian theist, although admittedly not a traditionally orthodox one.In modem philosophy the word is applied to the operations of a creator conceived as in organic connection with the creation, and to such a creator himself, as opposed to a transient or transcendent creating and creator from whom the creation is conceived as separated. The doctrine of an immanent deity does not necessarily imply that the world, or the soul of the world, is God, but only that it either is or is in God. — Peirce, Century Dictionary
Citation, please. The first verses of the Gospel of John explicitly identify the Logos (Word) with only one Person of the Trinity, the Son who became flesh and dwelt among us. The best treatment of the Trinity from a Peircean standpoint that I have come across so far is Andrew Robinson's 2010 book, God and the World of Signs: Trinity, Evolution, and the Metaphysical Semiotics of C. S. Peirce.Peirce actually sought to understand the trinity as 'Logos'. — Mapping the Medium
According to Peirce, there is indeed both immanent mind and transcendent mind, but only the latter is properly called God.
I do not mean by God a being merely "immanent in Nature," but I mean that Being who has created every content of the world of ideal possibilities, of the world of physical facts, and the world of all minds, without any exception whatever.
— Peirce, R 843, 1908 — aletheist
searched "conscience charles peirce" on google, and nothing came up — Gregory
Peirce actually sought to understand the trinity as 'Logos'.
— Mapping the Medium
Citation, please. The first verses of the Gospel of John explicitly identify the Logos (Word) with only one Person of the Trinity, the Son who became flesh and dwelt among us. The best treatment of the Trinity from a Peircean standpoint that I have come across so far is Andrew Robinson's 2010 book, God and the World of Signs: Trinity, Evolution, and the Metaphysical Semiotics of C. S. Peirce. — aletheist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.