I honestly don't care. Apparently you didn't search that in order to see if your idol says anything relevant about life.

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. — aletheist

Clearly there was a reason Peirce attended the Episcopal Church, a midway between Catholic and Protestant. Very different from Lutheranism. I have studied this in-depth. I was baptised Lutheran, and recognize the nominalism within it.

This is one good reference that may shed some light on his views.....
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40321287?seq=1

Are you a "recovering Christian"?

Clearly there was a reason Peirce attended the Episcopal Church, a midway between Catholic and Protestant. — Mapping the Medium

Yes, probably because his first wife was Episcopalian--her father was a bishop--and she presumably only agreed to marry him if he converted from the Unitarianism of his family.

I was baptised Lutheran, and recognize the nominalism within it. — Mapping the Medium

I became Lutheran as an adult, and have not encountered anything in its theology that absolutely requires nominalism or rejects scholastic realism. In general, Lutherans are wary of imposing any particular philosophical system.

This is one good reference that may shed some light on his views. — Mapping the Medium

Naturally, I prefer this one.

If a religion is well inculcated in a person, I think it's impossible to get rid of it. You can reject the rituals and adopted some new views. But parents have the power to form a person's mind forever. It's just the way it is

Naturally, I prefer this one. — aletheist

Of course. I like that one too. :)

I recently purchased 'Kosmos Noetos'. A friend told me they found a pdf version online somewhere. It was a special treat for myself. One of the most thorough books on Peirce, and I've read almost all of them.
https://books.google.com/books/about/K%C3%B3smos_Noet%C3%B3s.html?id=a6I7DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button

For you to see the color, it takes you and the flowers, plus the other sensory aspects of the medium at the time you are looking at them. The color is not confined to the flower. Your seeing it is caused by many things other than you and the flower, and without that combination of all aspects (which we are still discovering) of the medium at that moment in time, you would not see the color, or perhaps that same shade as another person would. We each see color differently because of this. It is manifested by the continuum. And other life forms would see it even more differently than humans. — Mapping the Medium

How is this evidence that continuity is real?

I have led philosophy discussion groups on Peirce. I found that one of the most fascinating things to help others understand about his logic is in how he understood and applied 'negation'. I loved exploring that!

See if you can read page 6 on that Google books link I posted above. That should shed some light on the topic.

Try this: http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/ransdell/PHENOM.HTM

Back to the Logos....

This term was used centuries before Jesus, and Christians (as good sales people do with references) used a familiar term to apply it to Jesus and grab the attention of listeners.

Here is an excellent Harvard site explaining Heraclitus's logos, and you should be able to see my connection to Peirce...

"Since discourse (logos) indeed occupies the central position, as the sole reference of the passage, it sufficed to erase the difference between the word and what, according to the Heraclitean corpus, it expressed, that is, the difference between the logos and the utterances to which the structure deduced from it is applied. Thus the logos was seen as a term of pure substitution, the sign of an objective message."

https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/6638.17-the-heraclitean-logos

Max H. Fisch wrote extensively about Peirce.

As a member of the Charles S. Peirce Society, I have also really enjoyed reading comparison paper after paper in the quarterly journal about the differences between others and Peirce. Lots of great brain food!

https://peirce.sitehost.iu.edu/writings/v1/v1intro.htm

↪Mapping the Medium

Are you a "recovering Christian"? — Gregory

Not at all.

Although I was baptized Lutheran, my parents were not church goers. My paternal grandmother came from a family of German Lutheran immigrants, so my father wanted to please his mother and maternal grandmother. My mother's side of my family came from Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, and Quakers. They were only sporadic church goers. My maternal grandmother, and my mother (after divorcing my father when I was only 3), both eventually married Jewish men, and they were not attendees of synagogue.

My Jewish stepfather was an atheist. As a child, when my friends invited me to church I was not allowed to go.

My spirituality and intellect were very home-grown, spending a huge amount of time playing in the woods, interacting with animals, reading, and thinking.

When I became an adult, I went on a quest of research and discovery. I wanted to understand the history of philosophy and religion. By this time, I had already acquired a healthy background in biology. Biology, language, and the physical sciences were my favorite subjects in high school. I also enjoyed creative writing and clay sculpting. I attended a teaching zoo in college, as well as studies in world religions/history and creative writing. And when home computers made research more convenient, I was hooked on my adventurous expedition. :)

Along with my studies, I also attended various churches and spiritual gatherings. I enjoyed listening to others tell me their spiritual perspectives. I joined online philosophy and religious forums. I studied the Christian bible inside and out, alongside the Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, and other perspectives. I was even asked to teach bible study at the local evangelical Lutheran church, until the mutual understanding that my views were a bit too secular for a nominalist, protestant, evangelical church.

I enjoy being around spiritual AND intellectual people, and have often found it difficult to find open-minded combinations of the two. That's probably why I'm single. Ha! ;-)

To answer your question more directly. I am NOT a recovering Christian. I am a Synechist.

This term was used centuries before Jesus, and Christians (as good sales people do with references) used a familiar term to apply it to Jesus and grab the attention of listeners. — Mapping the Medium

"Borrowed" may be a better word. They borrowed so very much.

This particular borrowing (of "logos") was likely a part of the gradual deification of Jesus and his--uncomfortable, I think--identification with the Father and the uncertainly defined third member of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost or Spirit. Jesus wasn't referred to as God in the earlier Gospels, or in Paul, so the concept of logos served developing Christianity well. If, that is, you wanted Jesus to be God and not merely a man or an intermediary, or a lesser heavenly power.

I'm warming up to you. I find that recovering Christians are just in rebellion to what their parents forced down their throats. I found that in my own life. There is no escaping childhood. I consider myself ultra Catholic because I reject Catholicism as too merciful. For example, priests taking away mortal sins and giving people indulgences. Your path seems really interesting to me now. I like to read Hegel. Maybe Peirce will be good too

I'm warming up to you. — Gregory

I'm glad. :)

Perhaps you understand now why I had to take an unconventional approach to introducing myself here. There's no easy way to just put all of this out there.

Borrowed" may be a better word. They borrowed so very much.

This particular borrowing (of "logos") was likely a part of the gradual deification of Jesus and his--uncomfortable, I think--identification with the Father and the uncertainly defined third member of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost or Spirit. Jesus wasn't referred to as God in the earlier Gospels, or in Paul, so the concept of logos served developing Christianity well. If, that is, you wanted Jesus to be God and not merely a man or an intermediary, or a lesser heavenly power. — Ciceronianus the White

Agreed.

Feel free to stay on this forum for years sharing Peirce's insights

Jesus wasn't referred to as God in the earlier Gospels, or in Paul ... — Ciceronianus the White

Not really germane to the thread topic, but this is clearly false; e.g., see Matthew 1:23, Mark 1:1, Luke 3:21-22, Philippians 2:5-11, and Colossians 1:15-20, just for starters.

Not really germane to the thread topic, but this is clearly false; e.g., see Matthew 1:23, Mark 1:1, Luke 3:21-22, Philippians 2:5-11, and Colossians 1:15-20, just for starters. — aletheist

Well, no. And that's part of the problem faced, more or less, and debated over centuries. Immanuel, or the Son of God, isn't necessarily God. There were of course lots of sons of gods running about the ancient Mediterranean. For example, Augustus was divi filius, divine son, and was called such in coinage widespread over the empire in Jesus time. Then, there was Appollonius of Tyana, also proclaimed son of the divine or son of god by some. There were many pagan sons of god.

But more pertinent perhaps is the fact that the were quite a few sons of god in the Jewish tradition as well, and that the messiah wasn't defined as God. Angels were called sons of God, as were the kings of Israel. So the fact that Jesus is referred to by the earlier Gospels as Son of God, or born of the Father or the Holy Spirit, and was exalted by God above all others, doesn't, and didn't, make him God to the satisfaction of some. Just being born generally means one didn't exist prior to being born or conceived and that makes one different from God the Father, who existed always.

That's why there were Christians for a time who didn't believe Jesus was God, although he was divine and a kind of subordinate God, but having come later he was necessarily not the same divine being. The orthodox view through the years came to be that Jesus as "one in being" with the Father, one and the same even though his son and human for a time, but even after the empire became Christian there were several emperors who were not orthodox, and were instead Arian. Jesus eventually became not just the Son of God, but God the Son. There's a significant difference.

Immanuel, or the Son of God, isn't necessarily God. — Ciceronianus the White

Again, not germane to the thread topic, but "Immanuel" means "God with us," not "Son of God." Paul says that Jesus "was in the form of God ... but emptied himself," and calls him "the image of the invisible God" such that "by him all things were created" and "in him all things hold together." The earliest Christian creed was "Jesus is Lord," identifying him with the name typically used for God in place of the unspoken YHWH.

Immanuel taken from Isiah, who used it in reference to the messiah, and the house of David, not necessarily a divine figure, as I said. And Paul also called Jesus the "first born of creation" (not the creator") and "God's image" (just as we are).

There's no question Paul felt Jesus was more than human, and as someone born in Tarsus, where several Stoics lived and taught, and given his self-proclaimed mission to the Gentiles, Paul was familiar with pagan thought to an extent and I think it's likely he was influenced by it and his writings reflect that. So the Hellenization of Christianity began. But those were early days, and Jesus as Logos, the Word made flesh, and the Jesus who declares himself God does not show up until the Gospel of John. The authors of the earlier Gospels somehow neglected to note that Jesus said he was God, or didn't think he said that, or that it was not important enough to mention if he did. It's in John and thereafter we see Jesus being made the One God, as Christianity sucked up more and more of ancient pagan views and tried to merge them with the holy book of the Jews. Which necessitated, alas, Three Persons in one God

Offpoint, probably. But Pierce was fond of the number three. Maybe he got there from the Trinity.

Offpoint, probably. But Pierce was fond of the number three. Maybe he got there from the Trinity. — Ciceronianus the White

I haven't had time to find the source about Peirce and his interest in the Trinity. I will post it when I have a chance to look it up. It was a site delving into his letters. I remember it had a black background. Very interesting.

As I've mentioned before, different scholars and religions focus on different aspects of Peirce in order to support their own biases. It's time consuming to really get to know him.

It's time consuming to really get to know him [Peirce]. — Mapping the Medium

This is most certainly true.