Shaken by Nominalism: The Theological Origins of Modernity
I'm a big fan of Dr. Michael Allen Gillespie, Professor of Political Science and Professor of Philosophy,
Durham NC. I've exchanged emails with him, as he is rare in his in depth knowledge of the root causes of the divisive problems we are having right now in America. I will no longer post links to anything on this forum, as I've already been accused of promoting, even though that is not now, nor has it ever been my intention. But if you would really like to learn about the root causes of many of our challenges today, and even potentially learn how you can make a small difference, I recommend looking up the title of this post and reading that excellent article, and then reading Dr. Gillespie's book. His sequel to it is in the works now, and he speaks about this in an interview done by the John Locke Foundation in a video you can find on YouTube. Fully understanding nominalism and ontological individualism, where we took a drastic, misguided turn in the Middle Ages, and then revisiting Duns Scotus, is crucial to understanding much of Charles S. Peirce's thought. ... Thank you for reading this and considering this learning. Kindly, Catherine
Durham NC. I've exchanged emails with him, as he is rare in his in depth knowledge of the root causes of the divisive problems we are having right now in America. I will no longer post links to anything on this forum, as I've already been accused of promoting, even though that is not now, nor has it ever been my intention. But if you would really like to learn about the root causes of many of our challenges today, and even potentially learn how you can make a small difference, I recommend looking up the title of this post and reading that excellent article, and then reading Dr. Gillespie's book. His sequel to it is in the works now, and he speaks about this in an interview done by the John Locke Foundation in a video you can find on YouTube. Fully understanding nominalism and ontological individualism, where we took a drastic, misguided turn in the Middle Ages, and then revisiting Duns Scotus, is crucial to understanding much of Charles S. Peirce's thought. ... Thank you for reading this and considering this learning. Kindly, Catherine
Comments (174)
No one complained to you because you had links in your text, Catherine.
People complained that your topic mostly asked people to go through a huge amount of sources you deemed worthy instead of giving arguments for anything or any kind of reason to go through your sources except the fact that you deemed them worthy.
That seems like promoting to many. How is this topic any different? It doesn't have links, but it still asks people to go through large sources because you deem them worthy.
These are interesting topics I'd like to discuss, Catherine. But there are millions of sources to read about these issues. I'm not going to go through your specific sources unless you give me reasons that make them interesting. Like: saying some key arguments or interesting points they make. Then we could start discussing those and if that discussion was intriguing that would make people more interested in reading your sources.
Could you explain this term?
Well, you could at least say in your title and text that this topic is mainly about these specific sources, since people seem to get the wrong idea that it is a general discussion about the topic and get frustrated since there is nothing to talk about except a couple of particular sources.
There is nothing wrong about starting a thread about particular sources, but your titles and texts are misleading.
It's the same as starting a topic: Religion: an interesting thing. And then just promoting the bible and saying that your are only interested in talking about what the bible says without giving any specific examples of what you are interested in the bible.
As our brain networking develops prenatally, we start creating a 'cognitive map' of our physical and metaphorical environment, creating a scaffold of semiotic understanding of our own model of reality. Everyone's is unique, because no person has the same experiences or is exposed to the same environmental factors. Every mapped connection in the brain is engrained, and leads to how future interactions or experiences are processed, incorporated. and mapped, leading to understanding or often 'misunderstanding'. If something is misunderstood, the person will incorporate new experiences in such a way as to make it fit with that misunderstanding. This happens in every human brain.
America was founded during a time in history when individual rights were front and center, and Descartes' "I think therefore I am", and mind/body dualism, was encouraging a freedom of individual thought, separating and elevating humans to a realm seemingly above nature, theologically in an attempt to understand the mind of God. We lost sight of the importance of shared understanding. Everyone wants to be right, when no one is. The 'Medium' is always cloaked, unless we interact with each other through dialogue toward a shared understanding. This has all caused us to get further and further apart, encouraging divisiness, hatred, etc.. We are now dealing with screen infested, narcissistic demands, and less and less cooperation and dialogue. ..... I hope this explanation helps a little. This is 'ontological individualism'.
No, you are not giving them. Your points are in your sources and people are asking for you to give examples or anything that make your sources interesting in your text. If the problem is people not being interested enough to read your sources, you have to do something outside your sources.
Many people have started very fruitful threads based on large sources most haven't read. But they have almost always given examples or something that can be discussed or understood without reading the sources to make people interested. And they have made it clear in their text that the thread is specifically about those sources.
I'm just trying to help you, Catherine. A fruitful discussion can be had about your sources in this forum. I hope that you are successful in starting one.
I appreciate your willingness to help. I can only say that understanding Peirce's thought is very difficult because it does not align with what is typically understood in our culture. There has to be some base knowledge of some of these topics in order to understand, and that can only come from reading the sources.
I do believe there are a few people here who understand my approach, and I look forward to our discussions. All I can hope for is that the others find some interest along the way. It's impossible to please everyone. I will always try to explain topics as clearly as possible.
It's clear that there is a difference in how America developed this 'thought' compared to Europe, and it makes sense, since individual and religious freedom was the driving force in how America came to be. It was and is hyper-individual. Now we are dealing with it.
I don't see why you say that this is a drastic misguided turn. Further, I don't think Peirce represents this as a drastic misguided turn, so I don't see the association you are making here.
Quoting Mapping the Medium
That an individual is in a very certain, and real sense, isolated from others, is a fundamental brute fact. To deny this isolation, and emphasize the reality of a united humanity, society, or some such thing, is to belie the true essence of the "Medium".
There are two approaches to this "Medium". One takes the Medium as a natural separation between individuals, and the other takes the Medium as a natural unification of the whole, humanity, or society. The latter is clearly wrong. The Medium exists as a natural separation between the individuals, and it must be manipulated artificially, through language, construction, manufacturing, production, and other institutions like those of education, to create the unity which we call society. That the Medium might become a force of unification, when its essence is separation, is the result of the inspired efforts of ambitious free willing individuals. To deny this, and claim that the Medium is a natural force of unification is to deny the reality of free will.
Care to describe this so-called "third window"?
From Amazon about this book.
I'm happy to get into the details. I just don't have time right now.
Easy: we're God's finger puppets. When we go to war with each other, God is smashing his hands together and rolling all over heaven making explosive sound effects.
Speaking of the Islamic world, my pet project now is delving into Henry Stubbe. I recently purchased an amazing written work if his! He is the first to have used the term and highlight the importance of semiotics.
What you call 'ontological individualism' has been criticized for quite a while in the continental tradition. The idea of a cloaked medium is also central in Wittgenstein and Heidegger. Both of these are some of my favorite philosophical themes.
I'm not sure that we've lost sight of the importance of mutual understanding. We may not be good at it, but popular culture sings its praises. Prejudice, intolerance, xenophobia...these are the sins of our time. For just that reason they themselves are tangled up in divisiveness.
And note that you yourself spoke of shame with respect to materialism and dualism. Aren't you one more person who wants to be right? And do you not link us to screens whose content you control? While some of your critics have been harsh, I haven't seen much dialogue on your part with the few who are open to conversation. Linking to off-site content as a substitute for composing posts looks like evangelism. Are you true to your own stated principles? Or are we witnessing a monologue about the virtue of dialogue?
I am back now. My lack of dialogue is only because I have a very busy life.
Thank you for your insight. I am always open to dialogue and learning from others. It is my mantra, and the reason I joined this forum. It is unfortunate that I feel so unwelcome here, and clearly very misunderstood.
Do I want to celebrate the strides that the biological sciences have made? Absolutely! Which is why I wanted to share them here. I was hoping there were others here who also stay informed of these things and could share information with me. I am always wanting to learn about new discoveries and converse with others who are just as excited to learn as I am. I do not disagree with the strides that science has made due materialism and dualism. On the contrary. We have made tremendous scientific progress. However, I see life as triadic, not diadic. And I feel we are missing a huge component. The triadic nature is the momentum of continuity.
I have been kind and polite. I don't feel that has been reciprocated. I'm not sure I fully understand why, but it's very clear that I'm not welcome here. I do not have the luxury of staying online all day. I work hard at all that I do. If I don't give the lengthy answer that is insisted I give in the time frame of the demander, I am chastised for it.
I am very aware that I need others to learn. I do not have all of the answers. Otherness is the key to understanding. I will look elsewhere for otherness. I wish everyone here only the very best. Happy New Decade. Catherine
I read that last year. He is biased
One of the links on here says "there is no escape from the fact that one’s presuppositions lead either to a transcendental, participatory philosophy or theology, or else a nihilistic philosophy that creates its own counterfeit theology". When I listen to sitar music I have a nominalistic thoughts. They are very psychedelic, but done without drugs. There is nothing nihilistic about nominalism.
So not even free will?
"the barbaric conception of personal identity must be broadened" Pierce
Pronounced 'purse'.
Complex
I ain't singing kumbaya with Mengele. If you think your him, you're screwed
What's counterfeit theology? I thought all theology was counterfeit, dogmatic, sharlatanism.
They say materialism like us still believe in religion because matter becomes sacred for us
One thing is missing: the supernatural. Materialists and atheists believe that the world operates without any supernatural power's intervention.
It's a belief all right, but it's not religion. Religion necessitates the belief in supernatural powers.
No materialist worships matter. That's very interesting, isn't it?
Ooooo....kay... (I slowly back out, making no sudden moves.)
He is a fundamentalist Catholic who thinks all philosophies that don't agree with Thomism can be lumped into one theory.
Well, in a way he is right. All philosophies that are different from single philosophy can be lumped together. "Not X" is the lump, if the philosophy is X.
This I never thought would be printed. But everything under the Sun comes to pass, I reckon.
He has no arguments to prove Aquinas was right and Descartes wrong about "substance", yet he accepts it as gospel truth that there is an invisible substance, for one thing
Which means, in effect, that nothing happens that science cannot explain in principle. That's how it works out.
https://epochemagazine.org/the-continuity-of-being-c-s-peirces-philosophy-of-synechism-9fa5c341247e
For anyone interested, here is the subject to be discussed:
The problem with Peirce's metaphysics is that he allows that pure, absolute continuity, which can only be expressed by us human beings through the terms of infinity, to be polluted by the concept of "infinitesimal". A succession of infinitesimal points does not provide the necessary conditions to fulfil the criteria of "continuity". Positing a degree of difference as existing between the infinitesimal points, no matter how large or small that degree of difference is, necessitates the conclusion that there is something "change", which occurs between such points, rendering the supposed continuity as non-continuous. To assert that such a difference is a difference which does not make a difference is to assert contradiction.
Because Peirce proposes a polluted, and impure form of continuity, rather than starting with a pure and true continuity as his first principle, his approach to agapasm is demonstrably a materialist approach. And, he provides no bridge between his materialist foundation he provides, and the true spiritual "Love" which he espouses, because his synechism is a false, deceptive synechism.
Hehe. so the holy triniti does not happen because theists don't know how to explain it.
The recorded and documented 238 logical self-contradictions in the New Testament can't be explained by theists, so the New Testament is smafu.
That's also what you are saying, Wayfarer.
If you can't explain something, there is still the possibility of an explanation. We just don't have it.
Of course extremely biassed people can't accept that, because they are not philosophers,they are devout religionists.
Again, I am not a Thomist. but I am hoping to find a philosopher here who has studied Thomism and Duns Scotus, and who is willing to delve into the differences with me.
Invoke @Dfpolis
Thank you
It appears like you want someone to agree with you, not someone to delve into "differences".
I want to logically discuss the differences between Thomism and Scotus. I decided I should give this forum one last opportunity to seriously discuss philosophy with me at this depth. It is an important topic to me. I can't do anything about the fact that it is not important to you, or that you have no interest or background in the studies of it. My time is valuable to me.
Did you read my last post? I quoted from your referenced article on Peirce's synechism, and offered a critique from my own "Thomistic" perspective.
Where do you see the differences in Scotus's view?
I'm not as familiar with Scotus. I found him rather shallow and uninteresting in comparison to Aquinas, so I focused more on the latter.
Aristotle's cosmological argument denies the possibility of prime matter (the fundamental potentiality), as an asserted possibility, which is actually impossible. That is the force of the cosmological argument, it demonstrates that the concept of prime matter is incoherent in relation to empirical evidence.
Peirce's "infinitesimals" may be consistent with "prime matter", and it may be the case that Dons Scotus supported the concept of prime matter. This would place Peirce as closer to Scotus than to Aquinas, who supported Aristotle's cosmological argument. Aquinas supports the logical need to position God as the actual eternal being, denying the eternal potential of prime matter, thus justifying true infinity.
Thank you. ..... I am not able to respond right now due to obligations pulling me away, but I will. :)
It seems a reasonable analysis, but why is it called ontological individualism, when it describes individual's beliefs and belief-forming processes (i.e. it's epistemological). It also doesn't seem limited to the US.
I highly recommend reading C.S Peirce's 'The Fixation of Belief'. True, it's not just limited to the US, but it was at a peak frenzy at the time the US was founded. It is the mindset that the US was conceived in and steeped in.
If we were able to rationally go back to the time of Scotus and examine the differences between what became ontological individualism and Islamic thought, perhaps there could be fodder for potential discussions between the two. Wishful thinking, I know.
How much of Peirce's metaphysics (and mathematics, and phenomenology, and logic/semeiotic) have you actually studied carefully? What fundamental distinction are you positing here between the concepts of "infinity" and "infinitesimal"?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Peirce would agree with this, although "infinitesimal point" is a contradiction in terms. There are infinitesimals, and there are points; they are two very different concepts, since infinitesimals have extension (though smaller than any assignable/measurable value), while points do not. His parallel terms when discussing time are moments, which have duration (though shorter than any assignable/measurable value), and instants, which do not.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Peirce would agree with this, as well. Infinitesimals (and moments) are indefinite, and thus cannot be individually distinguished; we can only discern differences once we have marked off specific points (or instants). In fact, one of Peirce's own definitions of a moment is "a time in which no change which can in any way be made sensible can take place." A finite lapse of time between two marked instants is required for any difference to become discernible. In his own words, "between any two instantaneous states there must be a lapse of time during which the change is continuous, not merely in that false [Cantorian] continuity which the calculus recognizes but in a much stricter sense."
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Peirce would vehemently deny both charges here--he does start with a pure and true continuity as his first principle, or at least consistently strives to do so; and he explicitly rejects materialism, calling it "quite as repugnant to scientific logic as to common sense," instead affirming objective idealism as "the one intelligible theory of the universe." It treats "the physical law as derived and special, the psychical law alone as primordial," such that "matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws." Accordingly, Peirce's cosmology understands the very constitution of being as true continuity underlying indefinite possibilities, some of which are actualized by the ongoing process of determination.
So sorry, I didn't answer your direct question. I'm juggling stuff here.
It is ontological because at its root it is based on an understanding of 'being' and how that relates to free will and individual rights.
‘Miracles are not against nature, only what we know about nature’ ~ St. Augustine.
Are you not aware of the difference between infinitesimal and infinite?
Quoting aletheist
Let me rephrase that then, Peirce replaces the "point" with the "infinitesimal", as the point might be designated as unreal, and incapable of producing a continuity. The duration of time cannot consist of "instants", or points, which have zero duration, but it may consist of "infinitesimals", which I might have carelessly referred to as points with extension.
Quoting aletheist
This is why such infinitesimals cannot be taken as real. Each infinitesimal requires a point of division, a boundary, to separate it from another infinitesimal. Without such a boundary the infinitesimal has no existence. But these boundaries are said to be vague because such dimensionless points cannot have any real existence in an extended medium. So Peirce proposes nothing to substantiate any boundaries and therefore nothing substantiates any infinitesimals. The infinitesimals are imaginary, simply a proposal, as that which constitutes the continuity. But the reality of the continuity is only supported by the infinitesimals. So the position is in fact, circular.
Let me explain better. For various reasons we are inclined to assume the reality of continuity. However, the existence of change and difference makes it very difficult to validate logically any supposed continuity. If infinitesimals are real, this provides the logical foundation for the reality of continuity. But the only thing which supports the reality of the infinitesimals is the "need" to support the continuity. Of course it's a pragmatism, the infinitesimals are assumed for the purpose of making continuity real, but there is nothing real to support this "need".
Quoting aletheist
See, the problem here is that the "two instantaneous states " are not real. There is nothing to validate the still "instant" in the continuous passage of time. And if such instants were real, they would break the continuity. They are only posited to allow that the infinitesimals which exist as continuous change between the instants, are real. But if divisions in time are created artificially by positing such points, then there is no principle to deny dividing time infinitely. So the infinitesimals are posited solely for the purpose of denying infinite division, without any real substance.
Quoting aletheist
It's very clear that Peirce abandons true continuity by denying infinite divisibility, and replacing it with infinitesimals . And, it is also clear that this procedure is logically incoherent. In order to have real existence, the infinitesimals require real boundaries. So if the infinitesimals are real, then the continuity is not, due to the existence of the boundaries. If the infinitesimals are produced from arbitrary divisions created by us, then there is no principle by which infinite divisibility is denied.
Peirce does not "replace" points with infinitesimals; they are two different concepts, and there is still a role for points--not as the parts of a line, but as the discrete boundaries between its continuous parts. He helpfully clarifies this in one manuscript (R 144, c. 1900) by referring to points (or instants) as limits and the line segments (or lapses of time) between them as portions. In later writings he reverts to "parts" for the latter, but suggests "connections" for the former.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The duration of time does not consist of infinitesimal moments, either. As with anything truly continuous, the whole is ontologically prior to any of its parts.
The parts are indefinite (infinitesimals/moments) unless and until we arbitrarily mark them off (with points/instants).
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, the very nature of infinitesimals/moments is that they are not distinct from one another at all.
We can only introduce points/instants as the boundaries between adjacent segments/lapses that have finite length/duration.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
If we have good reason from our phenomenal experience to posit that continuity is real, and the hypothesis of infinitesimals "provides the logical foundation for the reality of continuity," then we have good reason to conclude that infinitesimals are likewise real.
What is the argument for denying the reality of infinitesimals?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That is not a problem at all, it is precisely Peirce's view.
Instantaneous states are creations of thought for describing real events in time. We arbitrarily mark them at finite intervals, but the reality is continuous motion/change.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Nonsense, Peirce consistently affirms that time is (potentially, not actually) infinitely divisible, and that this is always necessary (but insufficient) for true continuity. In fact, he asserts repeatedly that instants of any multitude, or even exceeding all multitude, may be inserted within any lapse of time--even an infinitesimal moment.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is a confusion of reality and existence. Indefinite infinitesimals/moments are real, but do not exist; distinct points/instants exist, but only by virtue of being marked off by an act of someone's will.
Scotus supported "ontological individualism" against certain Islamic thought that said we had a world soul. Scotus sided with Aquinas on this. Aquinas and Scotus believed in free will. But all sin for Aquinas is infinite, but for Scotus even mortal sin is finite (but deserving of eternal punishment still). I learned this from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia (new advent dot com)
St. Augustine also believed that having slaves was a good thing, and having those who refused to convert to Christianity spiked on a stake or burnt alive underwater was a good thing.
Your appeal to authority may appeal to you, but it has no philosophical weight. And this is a philosophy website, not a site to promote religion (other than on rational, philosophical grounds).
In my opinion, and in yours, miracles are signs of god, so if they are not supernatural, and they have no signs of impossibility about them, then by definition they are not miracles. For instance, raising from the dead by nothing other but sheer will, or healing the blind by nothing other than placing a hand, are miracles. Their only explanation is intervention by a supernatural being, god namely. I hardly would believe that you would argue against that.
So are miracles compatible with natural forces, like St. Augustine said, or are they the acts of a supernatural, of god? Clearly, they are acts of god, so St. Augustine was clearly wrong with his false beliefs.
With the exception of miracles. Miracles are the direct effect of god circumventing the laws of the universe.
Miracles can't be explained by science.
But scientists and atheists are on the opinion that miracles don't ever happen.
Burned alive underwater! Must have taken some powerful magic. However it’s false, the burning of heretics didn’t start until many centuries later, medieval period. Augustine never dreamed of punishing heresy on pain of death. Rather he was one of history’s great rhetoricians. Of course it’s true that the ancients tolerated slavery. Swap you for chemical warfare.
Quoting god must be atheist
They might, though. To say ‘miracles can’t happen’ as matter of principle verges on superstition of another kind, as it put scientific orthodoxy in a role previously assigned to religious authority. But there are many basic facts about life and mind which science has no grasp of. Science deals with what can be objectified.
Besides the Catholic Church has procedures for canonisation which require two bona fide accounts of miracle cures. And this has had the consequence of building up a very large data set -about which, see this account (written by a self-described atheist although apparently one with no ideological ax to grind.)
You never heard of Greek fire? As for miracles, strange things happen in ALL religions. Catholics just pay attention to the ones they want to..
You dressed up the facts in a different clothing... you used differently slanted words to describe one of the tenets of the philosophy of science. It is one of the fundamental beliefs of scientific thinking that everything that happens can be explained rationally, without supernatural influences.
Yes, it is a tenet, and an underlying principle. You say it's wrong to reject the underlying principles of religion on a scientific basis, because science uses an underlying principle too.
This I can't debate. You are right about that. But you have to commit to one or to the other, because you can't commit to both. I commit to science. It appears, you commit to the power of the supernatural.
So be it. Please don't tell me that I am wrong in my belief; and I won't tell you that you are wrong in your belief. I just won't rely on someone to cure my blindness by touching me, and I don't believe that a corpse can be brought back to life by willing it. You believe that, and good for you.
The "miracle" is that there are millions who believe the same things you do. Philosophically speaking, nobody can fault them for that. Rationally speaking, the world would look very funny if things were run on the principles of religion.
Not at all. What does 'supernatural' mean? It means, can't be brought within the ambit of current science, can't be objectively validated or proven or disproven in the lab. But the results of those investigations I mentioned are nevertheless empirical data. Jacalyn Duffyn, a haemotologist and academic historian of science, maintains that she's an atheist, but that in all these cases there are cures that can't be explained scientifically.
And I bet it's a lot easier for me to understand what you believe, or don't believe, than for you to understand what I believe. But I will try and say a few words on it. I am not conventionally religious, but set out to understand what Eastern religious mean by 'enlightenment'. I studied that in depth and detail. You will find, if you look into it, that there are core ideas which appear in many cultures and periods of history. Collectively these have been referred to as forming the 'philosophia perennis', the perennial philosophy. There are religious aspects, but also philosophical aspects, and even scientific aspects. But the cultural dynamics of the West are such as to have a created what I see the false dichotomy of religion v science, which I think you adhere to. Actually the the book mentioned in the OP, which, as I mentioned, I read, does have some interesting things to say about this, but I don't want to pursue it further here.
Reading Peirce is difficult. Here is an audio version of 'The Fixation of Belief". It might be easier to digest, and you can listen to it while you are doing other things.
https://youtu.be/gJAGMWZ3YQU
As I said, these "discrete boundaries" cannot be real, because they would break the continuity. They are arbitrary and artificial, imposed as our pragmatic divisions in the continuity of time. Nor can such boundaries be "points", because they are vague (and this is borne out by special relativity), due to a combination of our inability to impose an actual "point" into the passing of time, and there being no actual points within the passing of time. Therefore the traditional concept of "point" really has no role in Peirce's metaphysics. Though he might discuss the "point" it's something he rules out as impossible, with his principles, just like Aristotle discusses "prime matter", but rules it out as impossible, with his principles.
Quoting aletheist
Peirce is very clear in his principles, that such boundaries or "limits" are vague. Therefore they cannot be points according to the classical definition. That you can refer to one time when he pondered the existence of points, does not mean that he didn't dismiss them altogether at a later time. The fact that he later calls them "connections" rather than "points", is an indication of this. The "connections" between the "parts" of temporal duration are not produced by clear cut points of "now", they actually must have extension inherent within, as is indicated by what is expressed in special relativity, the impossibility of giving "now" a particular point.
Quoting aletheist
Yes, sure, but this is the very point I am arguing. The infinitesimals of the continuity are not actually distinct from one another, they are only separated through the arbitrary imposition of "points". However, we as human beings have not got the capacity to insert true "points" into a natural continuity. Therefore the so-called "points" which we actually use are not really points at all, they are divisions with vagueness inherent, not points. So we can throw the concept of "point" right out the window because it has no purpose for us.
Quoting aletheist
The problem is that we know sensations deceive. A succession of still frames creates the illusion of continuous motion. So we cannot simply assume continuity is real.
Quoting aletheist
If the passage of time, or anything else for that matter, is assumed to be continuous, then it is assumed that there are no real divisions within that continuity. If that continuity is divided into parts, such a division is done for pragmatic purposes only, the divisions are arbitrary in that sense, not based in the assumption of any real parts, or real divisions. Therefore any "infinitesimals" produced by such a division are artificial, arbitrary, having no real substance to the divisors. And, we might just say that any such infinitesimal could actually be divided again, ad infinitum. There is no substance to the infinitesimal.
Quoting aletheist
Right, and since such "instantaneous states", or what you called above, "points", are required as divisors, to create the infinitesimals. Therefore the infinitesimals themselves are just creations of thought. Then, if we add the further development to Peirce's thought, that such "points" are not points at all, but vague divisors, we find that the infinitesimals themselves are lost into a veil of vagueness. Therefore our capacity to understand the thing which appears to us as continuous motion/change, completely breaks down and is lost into this incoherent sea of vagueness, that is if we adopt these principles.
Quoting aletheist
if this is the case, then it is clear evidence that "infinitesimals" are completely fictitious and serve no purpose in the understanding of continuity. But this is not what Peirce argues so I do not believe it is true.
I do have my answer for you. I haven't forgotten. Running late for my work day, but I will get it to you within a couple of hours.
Please provide citations or (better) quotes from Peirce's writings to substantiate your assertions about his views, as I did for mine. I remain unconvinced that you have carefully studied them to gain a thorough understanding of his expansive mathematical, phenomenological, semeiotic, and metaphysical thought. Distinct points/instants are indeed arbitrary and artificial creations of thought, but indefinite infinitesimals/moments are real, with length/duration less than any assignable value and no discernible boundaries. We can only mark points/instants to divide lines/time into finite segments/lapses.
Well, Pierce actually wrote it, and it was published, about a century after the U.S. was founded. Maybe someone noted that already.
Scotus.....
- Agrees with Abelard that Unity is transcendental.
- Denies whatever is 'one' is an individual.
- Asserts that there is a kind of Unity that is 'less than numerical'.
- Asserts that 'common natures' have a 'degree' of reality (or being), BUT he strenuously denies that universals exist. Universality is a feature of our mental life (due to abstraction).
- Walks a line of thinking that falls between Plato and Aristotle.
- Against nominalists' claims that common natures are real.
- Against realists' claims that common natures are not universal.
- Accounts for causation in this 'degree of less than numerical'. (Experience and events provide this 'degree' of influential causation. Think about what science is now discovering about epigenetic/environmental/experiential influences.)
- Agrees with some of the Islamic polymath, Avicenna, views on common natures.
- Disagrees with Aquinas' views on common natures/species.
What constitutes an individual's essence is its 'difference' from another. We cannot grasp the lesser degree of common nature ( I would add consciousness here as well) because of our dependence on embodied physical sensation. (Again, think about epigenetics. We cannot know what influences our experiences and environment are currently having on what we will pass to our offspring because we are limited in space, time, and embodiment. We can only study what has happened in the past and the change between then and now.). Singular essences are unknowable to us, even though they ARE real. We refer to their reality indirectly by recognizing and differentiating what it is not. Example: Humans develop and recognize 'self' only in relation to that which is 'not' self.
The nominalists gleaned from Scotus what would fit their stance, and the realists gleaned from Scotus what would fit their stance. They have also done this with Peirce's work. The nominalists and realists were and are both misguided.
Moving forward from Scotus into the future of this misunderstanding.....
Ockham took the nominalist vein and ran with it, later influencing Martin Luther and Rene Descartes. Eventually becoming the protestant evangelical and scientism thinking we have today. They both still battle the realist perspective. But again, the nominalists and the realists are still both misguided. So we have all of these 'camps' of thought going round and round on this merry-go-round, and never getting off.
Physician Henry Stubbe (1632-1676) was considered to be the most noted Latin and Greek scholar of his age, as well as a great mathematician and historian. He was the first person to use the term 'semiotics'. Stubbe studied all of this in great depth, and actually tried to get the Christian community to acquire a better understanding of Islam because he too saw where the thinking split. Not that he was a proponent of Islam. He just understood what happened and was frustrated at the ignorance. Stubbe also understood that nominalism and realism were both misguided. The nominalist drive was just too popular, due to the promotion of ontological individualism. Everyone wanted respect for their own, personal, cognitive maps (their fixations of beliefs).
Even when John Locke wrote 'An Essay Concerning Human Understanding' (the second time the word 'semiotics' was used), he was leaning to the nominalist view. He broke human understanding into three categories; Physics, Pragmatism, and Semiotics. However, 'semiotics' was kind of an afterthought of the time, and never held in high enough importance due to the popularity of nominalism and the new science frenzy choosing not to include it as a relative feature.
So, here we are today, dealing with a western culture steeped in ontological individualism, evangelical Christianity, scientism, etc., (Ilya Prigogine referred to the western schizophrenia) thinking that if they just keep insisting that the Muslims have a skewed perspective that one day the 'barbarians' will wake up. Well, I've got news for everyone. We all need to wake up!
The only way to make any difference in what has happened is to try and teach the general public how human beings actually develop and how life interacts with each other. If we only recognize ourselves and our 'medium' by what it is not, then we have to realize that the only way to learn and reach a shared understanding is through dialogue with others who have a different perspective.
THIS is my reason for being here, and what motivates me to do what I do.
With all due respect, this sweeping generalization is rather misleading. Peirce described his own view as "extreme scholastic realism" (CP 8.208; c. 1905), calling himself "an Aristotelian of the scholastic wing, approaching Scotism, but going much farther in the direction of scholastic realism" (CP 5.77n; 1903) and "a scholastic realist of a somewhat extreme stripe" (CP 5.470; 1907). It is not much of a stretch to say that his entire philosophy is the result of a lifelong crusade against nominalism, and there was no more disparaging statement from his pen than the charge that someone else was a nominalist.
So if you want to say that we humans cannot perform supernatural miracles, even when other people don't understand how we're doing what we're doing, then instead "miracles" and "supernatural" must mean things that cannot in principle be explained by any science ever. That is the sense usually used by naturalists and atheists who say that there is nothing supernatural, no miracles: that anything can, in principle, eventually, be explained, even if we don't know how yet.
I argue that if we are in a state where we don't know whether or not that is true, all we can do is act in a way that assumes one answer or another, by either trying to explain things or not trying. So saying that something is supernatural or a miracle is tantamount to simply not trying to explain it. But assuming we would like to explain things, even if we're not sure if we can, it is pragmatically in our best interest to always try, and never to simply give up and thereby guarantee failure. In doing so, we implicitly assume that there is nothing supernatural, no miracles, and so on: just as-yet-unexplained phenomena, that are still natural inasmuch as an explanation is assumed (implicitly, by the fact that we're not giving up) to be possible.
Agreed
Peirce's view is described as "nuanced realism". It is realism of a different stripe, for sure.
Again, Peirce himself considered his realism to be "extreme." That does not seem very "nuanced" to me. :smile:
When taken in context to what he was up against, yes he referred to it as extreme, no doubt.
I never said he followed Scotus precisely, but Scotus motivated him.
The trouble is a univocity thesis is first and foremost a nominalist one, at least with respect to how the term is being used in this thread.
Univocity always begins In the grasping of a distinction between the human individual and unity. God is recognised not be human at all, no matter how much they are together or connected. It is the ghost which haunts univocity. Everyone trying to collapse everything into unity is always going to get caught be the initial nominalist distintion they made in the first place.
It's obvious their claim to only unity is only trying to paper over, to hide a distinction implict in their reasoning in the first place, an exercise in pretending we are not distinct from God.
Scotus also conducted his work in Aristotelian fashion. But his 'Univocity of Being' carried a realism aspect.
Do you not see the problem here? You yourself said "there is still a role for points--not as the parts of a line, but as the discrete boundaries between its continuous parts". An "infinitesimal" requires such a boundary to exist as an infinitesimal. Do you agree with this, there is no infinitesimal without a boundary to separate it from others? If the boundary is arbitrary, an artificial creation, as you say here, then so is the infinitesimal created by the boundary.
Where do you get the idea that Peirce thought there were infinitesimals which are not created by those arbitrary divisions? As I explained, if the boundaries required for such infinitesimals, actually existed within the medium, then these boundaries would break up the continuity of the medium, such that it would not be continuous.
No, I do not agree with this, and neither did Peirce. Infinitesimals/moments are indefinite, not distinct. The principle of excluded middle does not apply to them. Points/instants are arbitrarily inserted as boundaries between continuous segments/lapses of finite length.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Again, his view was that infinitesimals/moments are real, while points/instants are artificial creations. I have already provided several quotes from his writings to support this summary. Unless you can produce citations to the contrary, we have nothing more to discuss here.
I totally don't get your position on nominalism.
The word transcendental with regard to Abelard is misleading. That has to do with form. Abelard didn't believe in form. He believed in Cartesian extension. That is what nominalism is. You say Scotus "denies whatever is 'one' is an individual"? One and individual are the same thing! He doesn't deny that tautology. Scotus was not a nominalist so of course he believe in unity that was more than the numerical sum of the parts. Thisness! Yes Scotus also denied Platonic forms. But he did NOT agree with Islamic ideas that we all share a cosmic soul together. And I fail to see where Scotus "disagrees with Aquinas' views on common natures/species".
Quoting aletheist
I know, I explained this, the boundaries between moments are vague. That's why we can throw the "point" out the window. The "point" does not apply, as special relativity demonstrates. So the point is useless and that's why I said Peirce dismisses it.
Quoting aletheist
Claiming that the law of excluded middle may be violated does not resolve the problem. It is a matter of contradiction. The existence of infinitesimals in the medium requires that there are natural boundaries.
If there are boundaries within the medium, then the medium is not continuous. Saying that there are boundaries which are "indefinite, not distinct", and concluding therefore that they are not boundaries at all and therefore there is continuity, is simple contradiction.
Peirce is a dialectical materialist, or dialetheist, one who allows for the law of non-contradiction to be violated.
Quoting Mapping the Medium
Can you elaborate on this point? How is there a difference between being "one" and being an "Individual"?
Quoting Mapping the Medium
And could you expound on this as well? What is this feature of reality which you call "less than numerical", what is this Unity which is less than numerical?
Neo-Platonist principles, which I believe ground Christian metaphysics holds the fundamental unity as the "One". Neo-Platonism is a sort of unified Plato/Aristotle perspective, prior to the more comprehensive unification provided by Aquinas. This prior conditioning of Neo-Platonism (Augustine for example), into Christian metaphysics, is prerequisite for Aquinas' approach towards making Aristotelian principles consistent with Christian principles, thus facilitating this process.
Therefore, I am interested in where this idea of a unity which is somehow not consistent with the arithmetical numerals is derived from. How is there such a thing as a unity which cannot be represented by the numeral "one"? What makes this "unity" different from a normal "unity" which we represent with "one"?
Quoting Mapping the Medium
Isn't this fundamental to the nominalist approach? And it is consistent with Aquinas as well. Based in Neo-Platonism, Aquinas emphasizes a distinction between divine Forms with independent existence, and the (abstracted) forms of the human mind, which cannot be independent from matter because they dependent on the human mind which is attached to matter.
It is Aristotle's metaphysics which explains how the Form of the particular, singular, or individual object, must be prior in time to the material existence of that particular, or individual. This necessitates the independent Forms. of the Neo-Platonists. Notice that these Forms are forms of particulars, grounded in the "One", (the Form of the entire unity, the universe). They are not Platonic forms, which are universals which depend on the human mind.
The extreme difficulty is approached in Plato's Timaeus, which is to establish a relationship between the form of the individual, and the form the universal. There are numerous approaches offered, over the centuries, and each gets tangled and lost in numerous twists and turns, and category mistakes. Plato tries to offer the straight and narrow, but puts the universal form as prior, while Aristotle seeing the dead end to this approach turns things around to place the form of the particular as first, and this is represented in Neo-Platonism as the "One".
Quoting Mapping the Medium
I would not say that either of these camps are "misguided". They each manage to approach first principles, in their own way. To get to this point, of approaching first principles requires serious guidance. However, each has a slightly different approach, and neither manages to get beyond what I called the "extreme difficulty", so both appear to be somewhat misguided. But since the extreme difficulty remains unresolved, we cannot really say that they are misguided because the proper guidance remains unavailable. We'd have to say everyone is misguided, even though they managed to get this far.
Quoting Mapping the Medium
This sounds like a Wittgensteinian perspective, which is not really dissimilar to Peirce. The individual's perspective is first, the primary perspective, and we create a shared understanding. The issue is whether we can overcome differences between the individual perspectives, to validate real, true, universals, rather than taking the realist perspective, that the universal is real, prior, and imposes itself on us.
Citation, please. On the contrary, Peirce does not dismiss points/instants, he clarifies that they are creations of thought rather than real constituents of lines/time.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, the only boundaries within a continuous medium are the artificial ones that we arbitrarily insert at finite intervals for some particular purpose, such as measurement.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Citation, please. On the contrary, according to his own words Peirce is an objective idealist for whom the principle of non-contradiction does not apply to that which is vague/indefinite and the principle of excluded middle does not apply to that which is general/continuous. In accordance with the latter, he is now recognized as the first person ever to develop truth tables for a rudimentary three-valued logic--true, false, and the limit between truth and falsity.
Thank you. These are exactly the topics I came here to dig deeper into. I appreciate it very much.
I will respond again with my thoughts later during some freer time. I look forward to you both providing some feedback to help me clarify my thinking.
I'll throw these questions out for contemplation...
1) Do you think that consciousness is 'real'?
2) If so, do you think it can be explained/described numerically?
3) If not, how is consciousness manifested and used if it is not 'real'?
4) Considering the above questions, which came first, consciousness, numbers, or semiotics?
5) How do all of the above questions factor into time, evolution, and ever-changing linguistics?
Yes, although before going any farther we need to establish what we mean in this context by "consciousness" and "real."
Quoting Mapping the Medium
I am not sure what that would even mean, but like anything else, I think that it can be explained/described mathematically--i.e., with a retroductive hypothesis that we can then deductively explicate and inductively evaluate. The subject matter of mathematics is much broader than just numbers.
Quoting Mapping the Medium
Again, we need to define "consciousness," and numbers are strictly hypothetical. Semiotics is a relatively recent science, so it clearly came last; but if you meant to say semeiosis, the real process that semiotics studies, then I am inclined to believe that it came first.
Quoting Mapping the Medium
My current working hypothesis is that time is a manifestation of semeiosis, the ongoing evolution of the universe as dynamical objects determine sign tokens to determine dynamical interpretants. Linguistics is a special science that studies actual languages, while semiotics is a normative science that studies the nature of signs in general (speculative grammar), good vs. bad reasoning (logical critic), and methods for obtaining true beliefs (speculative rhetoric).
Again, hair-slitting. You either believe that Platonic Forms are real entities separate from God or not. Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas all thought not. Neo-Platonic Christianity and Christian Aristotelianism are not different. They just have a little different emphasis
Anyone can throw out questions, but that doesn’t mean they are reasonable questions. You’ll hav to dig MUCH deeper to frame what it is you mean before anyone can decide whether or not they can answer what you have in mind. If those questions are your best attempts then they’re simply not good enough.
1) Given that ‘real’ means ‘real’ - in the sense that ‘numbers are real’ - it is a pretty pointless question. I am conscious. What is ‘existent’ is ‘existent’ due to my conscious state. Once I am no longer ‘conscious’ (including sleep in this case) nothing ‘exists’ for me subjectively (not even the ‘me’).
I won’t go any further here or bother with the rest. I don’t see anything reasonable in your approach and I don’t find these ‘questions’ to be of any use other than to express confusion, become more confused, and to lead down several pointless branches of even more pointless questions.
You appear to be getting messier and messier. Take a step back and explain the obvious before missing several steps and ending up asking questions that only ‘appear’ to mean something - either you’re failing to express your questions fully or you’re thinking is too flimsy to see the gaping chasm you’ve ignored.
Chill, my dear. :wink:
There really is a reason to my rhyme. Time is a juggling act for me, hence my putting some questions out for 'contemplation', not necessarily expecting answers. Putting together thought puzzles is what I do in my writing. I'm really not trying to be difficult. Perhaps this will help....
A very genuine quest....
I need (want) to explain the differences between what mathematician Eric Temple Bell meant when he stated "the map is not the thing mapped", and when Alfred Korzybski (mis)-used Bell's epigram in his own book 'Science and Sanity' when he said "the map is not the territory". Eric Temple Bell's worldview was more realist, and Alfred Korzybski's worldview was more nominalist. Some people here would say that I am splitting hairs, but I seek clues to Scotus' and Peirce's thought dilemmas. The way that the questions above are interpreted might shine some light on some of the differences I am seeking. We DO find answers in differences. I have no doubt of that.
Once I can process understanding this, I can then re-word it in a way that the average person can understand.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt/search?q1=map;id=uc1.b3527577;view=1up;seq=13;start=1;sz=10;page=search;orient=0
Infinitesimals are within a continuous medium, and they also require boundaries. Therefore they are artificial, according to what you say here.
Quoting aletheist
Exactly as I said, Peirce allows for violation of the law of non-contradiction. Therefore he is dialetheist, and in my judgement, dialectical materialist. It is difficult to hold a "process" type metaphysics as Peirce does, without turning either to God or dialectical materialism for foundational support. Since Peirce allows for violation of non-contradiction his appeals to God are vacuous.
Quoting Gregory
Are you sure about this? I wouldn't agree to that. Do you recognize that Aristotle identified two types of substance, primary and secondary? Substance has real existence, and also must have form. Yet there are two distinct types of substance, this is fundamental to dualism. If no forms are separate from God, then why are there two distinct types of substance? What creates that division?
God creates the division. Augustine and Aquinas explicitly say the forms are in God. The doctrine of Plato that the forms are separate from God are held by few Christians.
Augustine supported the forcing of the Donatists into the Catholic Church. Aquinas supported the Inquisition. Both very creepy people
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3527577
He goes on in the pages that follow about the cosmos, unified theory, Pythagoras, abstracting, idealizing reality, etc., and even discusses doubt and belief. Peircean?
What he then goes on to say about the second law of thermodynamics brings me back to the 'From Being to Becoming' of another of my favorite thinkers, Ilya Prigogine.
He also mentions Augustine.
Lots of help to be found for me here,
.. I think?
Aquinas clearly distinguishes independent Forms ( God's intellect, and angels) from those forms dependent on the human mind (abstractions).
Quoting Gregory
I think you have your information mixed up. Aquinas was prior to the Inquisition.
"Some regard him as having demonstrated the failure of local realism (local hidden variables). Bell's own interpretation is that locality itself met its demise."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell
Just another example of the merry-go-round going round and round between realists and nominalists, when they are both misguided. They will always glean what they can to fit into their perspective. There is no end in sight. Clearly, it is related to perspective (observer effect?, if you want to call it that), and how in reality we only recognize anything in relation to what it is not. When we look directly at it without the 'medium' of influences in order to differentiate it, it collapses. There is truly continuity in all things (synechism). Such is the insufficient nature of individual material or cognitive mapping of any sort. It is severely limited representation without the full spectrum of perspective. Gregory Bateson was known for his insistence that we should never go down any path of a singular line of thinking. Charles Peirce understood the importance of a 'community of inquirers'. 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'. What will the future of humankind be if we do not recognize and teach the importance of dialoguing with different perspectives and the adhesion of community? <--- Rhetorical question.
Many people decipher Charles Peirce's agapasm to be an evangelical, religious, or devoutly spiritual perspective. They automatically associate it with the Christian concept of 'Agape' (originally Greek), sometimes implying that Peirce started with that concept, trying to 'fit' his logic, philosophy, and science into that box.
I understand it to be a purely logical conclusion, when factoring in semiosis, how biology strives 'toward', and recognizing that there is continuity in all things. The purest forms of creative love are revealed in the Unity of Opposites (Heraclitus). Think of the union of a man and a woman, resolutions of conflict, etc.. These things exist for a reason, and are a glimpse for us of the grand story.
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.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Are you just not paying attention? He held that the principle of contradiction (not the same as LNC) does not apply to that which is vague/indefinite.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Are you just not paying attention? Your judgment is incorrect; Peirce vehemently rejected materialism, explicitly identifying his metaphysics as objective idealism.
Aquinas said heretics should be burned at the stake. He was hard core into torture. My middle name is named after him. I know all about that freak.
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
Agreed.
Quoting aletheist
Agreed.
Quoting aletheist
Agreed.
I deliberately mixed up the terms 'semiotics' and 'semiosis' in order to point to the points you already made. It is a sad shame that 'semeiosis' was recognized centuries ago, but dismissed of its importance in the triad of human understanding until recently.
Quoting aletheist
Agreed.
'Semiotic causality' is receiving a LOT of attention in several fields of study. One of the reasons I am so fond of Mikhail Bakhtin is because he was a semiotician who also worked in linguistic studies. In the field of literary criticism, he always applied 'otherness' to the examination of semiotic causality in written works. I also found GEMS of thought in his 'Toward a Philosophy of the Act'.
That is painting with far too broad a brush. Peirce's objective idealism does not say that we create the world, it describes "the physical law as derived and special, the psychical law as primordial" such that "matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws" (CP 6.24-25; 1891).
It appears that your concept of mind is too narrow. "The world is mind" does not entail that "we create the world."
This is the unsupported premise, the thing taken for granted which no one seems to be able to back up with reasonable principles.
Quoting Mapping the Medium
Until real continuity can be demonstrated, the only true starting point is the "individual". The reality of the individual is supported by the existence of the "medium" which separates and distinguishes individuals, making the only acceptable starting point for any logical proceeding, the law of identity. The portrayal of the medium as creating a continuity is demonstrably a false representation, as the name "medium" implies.
Quoting aletheist
All you are doing is qualifying "boundaries" with "distinct", and insisting that infinitesimals do not have "distinct boundaries". Nevertheless, infinitesimals require "boundaries", as I said, and therefore a continuity cannot be composed of infinitesimals because these boundaries necessarily break the continuity whether they are distinct or not.. Saying that the boundaries are vague and not distinct, does not say that there are no boundaries. And if there are boundaries there is no continuity.
Quoting aletheist
Someone like Peirce, can say "I am not materialist, my metaphysics is objective idealism", and still offer us a metaphysics based in materialist principles. So I don't see how this claim is relevant.
Quoting Gregory
Do you recognize the fundamental Aristotelian principle, upheld by Aquinas, that there are two distinct types of "forms", the form of the particular (complete with accidents), and the universal form, abstracted by the human intellect? Because of this difference, it is incorrect to say that the form of a thing enters the human intellect. The form of the thing is a particular, whereas the form in the human intellect is a universal, it is an abstraction which does not contain the accidentals.
Because of this, we need to account for the process of abstraction, which is not a matter of "its form enters the intellect". This is why Aristotle introduced a division between the active (agent) intellect, and the passive intellect, a division which Aquinas upheld. The exact nature of these two, or even if the distinction is warranted, is what is at issue in the Nominalism/Realism debate.
Simply put, if the intellect receives forms, through sensation etc., or any other means, it must have a passive, receptive, aspect. This passive aspect is of the nature of potential, which is substantiated by Aristotle, as matter. This poses a somewhat vexing problem for St Thomas who wants to maintain the immateriality of the intellect. So he is inclined to posit a potentiality which is proper to the soul, but is not a material potentiality, to account for the passive intellect. The agent intellect, as pure act now, must be properly positioned as independent from the human body.
The nominalists, following an interpretation of Aristotle which was probably derived from Avicenna and Averroes, wanted an inversion of this position. They wanted the active intellect to be within the individual's soul, and the passive intellect to be external to the individual, in the realm of matter. But this appears to leave no way to validate the universal forms as they are evident, being proper to the human intellect. The nominalist must therefore demonstrate how the active intellect, within the individual human being, creates the universals, and gives them to the passive intellect in the material realm, in order to validate the existence of universals. Someone like Ockham might slice through these complexities, denying the reality of universals thereby denying the need for a passive intellect, claiming that all there is is symbols (words) in the material realm, and universals are simply words.
.
Absolutely not. Mind is not confined to human minds.
Perhaps examining the science of color might shed some light on this.....
"The interdisciplinary field of animal coloration is growing rapidly, spanning questions about the diverse ways that animals use pigments and structures to generate color, the underlying genetics and epigenetics, the perception of color, how color information is integrated with information from other senses, and general principles underlying color’s evolution and function. People working in the field appreciate linkages between these parallel lines of enquiry, but outsiders need the easily navigable roadmap that we provide here."
"Here, a group of evolutionary biologists, behavioral ecologists, psychologists, optical physicists, visual physiologists, geneticists, and anthropologists review this diverse area of science, daunting to the outsider, and set out what we believe are the key questions for the future. These are how nanoscale structures are used to manipulate light; how dynamic changes in coloration occur on different time scales; the genetics of coloration (including key innovations and the extent of parallel changes in different lineages); alternative perceptions of color by different species (including wavelengths that we cannot see, such as ultraviolet); how color, pattern, and motion interact; and how color works together with other modalities, especially odor. From an adaptive standpoint, color can serve several functions, and the resulting patterns frequently represent a trade-off among different evolutionary drivers, some of which are nonvisual (e.g., photoprotection). These trade-offs can vary between individuals within the same population, and color can be altered strategically on different time scales to serve different purposes. Lastly, interspecific differences in coloration, sometimes even observable in the fossil record, give insights into trait evolution. The biology of color is a field that typifies modern research: curiosity-led, technology-driven, multilevel, interdisciplinary, and integrative."
"Colors in animals and plants are produced by pigments and nanostructures (2). Although knowledge of mechanisms that manipulate ultraviolet (UV) to infrared wavelengths is accumulating (3), we lack an appreciation of the developmental processes involved in cellular structure and pattern formation at optical scales (nanometers to microns). Nonetheless, the field of soft condensed matter physics (4) holds great potential for new insights into optical architectures. This will be a critical foundation for future understanding of ordered self-assembly in colored biological materials, from ?-keratin in birds’ feathers (5) to chiral or uniaxial chitin structures in beetles (6). Such knowledge can illuminate the costs, constraints, and evolution of coloration."
" Perhaps the most striking case where the rules of “normal” color vision do not apply are stomatopods (mantis shrimps); these have many photoreceptor classes (up to 12) but relatively poor color discrimination ability (36) (Fig. 2)."
"Mechanisms of vision and visually guided behavior should be studied from the top down, as well as from the bottom up."
"Importantly, visual properties can be substantially affected by other sensory modalities. For instance, swallowtail butterfly responses to colors are modified by host plant odors (54)."
"Nonvisual sensory information alters how receivers respond to color signals."
"Whether and how organisms resolve trade-offs depends on the shape of the fitness curve resulting from different selective forces."
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6350/eaan0221
The bottom line is that any dualistic perception is very limited. We sense much more than what is pointing outward (observed) from 'self' (subject), but we do not recognize it from a dualistic perspective. When we remove 'otherness' from the equation, perception (measurement) ceases. We need to focus more on that missing component that was disregarding from Ockham forward. Thank goodness there are several fields of study engaging in what has been overlooked for centuries. It is my hope that advances will be made in time to address some of the damage.
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.
Quoting 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.
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.
Quoting aletheist
Indefinite, means unlimited, which is the same as infinite. So you've just led me around in a circle. We're back to where we started. And so I'll ask you the same question again. Do you understand the difference between "infinite" and "infinitesimal? "Infinite" implies unlimited, while "infinitesimal" implies a limit.
So all you have done now is removed the distinction between "infinite" and "infinitesimal" by claiming that infinitesimals have no boundaries. You are steeped in contradiction, trying to maintain the difference between infinite and infinitesimal, while at the same time trying to remove the very thing which constitutes that difference, the boundaries which infinitesimals necessarily have.
Quoting aletheist
"Self-deluded" might be accurate, but "deceptive" might actually be more precise, as described below.
Quoting aletheist
That's what I have been doing. The "infinitesimal" of Peirce is nothing other than prime matter as described by Aristotle. And your practise of contradiction as the only way to defend Peirce, along with your claim that Peirce allows for violation of the principle of contradiction, is indicative of dialectical materialism. Since dialectical materialism (as associated with Marxism) was not well respected in the United States, it makes sense for Peirce to offer another name for his metaphysics, objective idealism. Notice that both dialectical materialism, and objective idealism are derived from the Hegelian concept of "becoming"
No, Peirce's view was that mind is primordial, such that "matter is a peculiar sort of mind."
No, that is not what "indefinite" means in this context.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, that is not what "infinitesimal" means in this context.
Quoting 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.
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.
Quoting 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.
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.
Easy to say, impossible to show (apparently). You seem locked into specific conceptual dichotomies of mind/matter, thought/reality, and subjective/objective, such that you are unwilling/unable to consider a different point of view.
Ah, someone else who is completely unfamiliar with Peirce's writings, not to mention Christian theology. Unwilling to understand, yet eager to reject.
I've studied Christianity since I was 11 years old. So go ahead, give the quotes from Peirce on conscience and sin. Let's see if he is moral. Did he say anything at all? Go
Regarding Christian theology, I was referring to these incorrect statements.
Quoting Gregory
As for Peirce, do your own homework.
I don't even like the guy. You said he was moral but present an immoral picture of his ideas.
Christian say Jesus paid the price for our sins. So our responsibility is taken by an innocent person who was God who cleansed us against justice
The world is full of people who don't like other people because they don't understand them.
Perhaps this will help, Gregory. Watch this very easy to understand video about Process Philosophy. Think of how the mind processes information, then try to adjust your perspective by a few degrees once you've seen this very short video.
One thing that makes Peirce, Whitehead, Spinoza, and a few others so difficult for Protestant Christians (I highly suspect you are a Protestant) to understand is that your faith teaches you that you are an immanent creation of God's, and God is transcendent and 'out there', 'up there', 'man in the sky', etc. (separate realms, if you will), whereas 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.
You have been taught that Jesus was God incarnate (as immanent man), always idolizing the dualistic nature of God being separate from His creation (this is exactly what the title of this post is about, the theological origins of nominalism and dualism). Peirce actually sought to understand the trinity as 'Logos'. I do hope you fully understand 'Logos'. If so, you should be able to grasp Peirce once you study him more deeply. If not, I recommend you learn more about Heraclitus. Let me know if you would like some links.
Here's the video. I hope it helps you understand. .......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q6cDp0C-I8&list=PL5r3bNEcthJDR9HwurZbu9dTrFbPpzVrp&index=14&t=0s
I've told you before I am a materialist. I was raised Latin Catholic though. I am not interested in philosophies that try to take responsibility away from humans. Every homo sapein I've met is human. Not a tautology, you get what I mean. We all have a basic morality. All this means is that we are faced with situations where our conscience plays a role. Go against the conscience and you F up. So you have to make up for it and revert the will back to where it was. Where does conscience play a role in Peirce's philosophy?
According to Peirce, there is indeed both immanent mind and transcendent mind, but only the latter is properly called God.
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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Yes. I realize that. I was only trying to relate it to something Gregory might understand. .. Peirce said that he and Spinoza had much in common
You might consider reading Mikhail Bakhtin's 'Toward a Philosophy of the Act'. Peirce and Bakhtin had much in common. And there are references to proper ways of treating others all throughout Peirce's writings, usually in reference to 'Being'.
Do you believe it's possible for people to sin and consequently be punished for it?
I will get back to you with the citation. Again, I was trying to relate this to something Gregory might understand. I have good citations. Part of Peirce's trying to understand this was his 'unconventional' perspective as a member of the Episcopal Church.
Try downloading the combined PDF of the eight-volume Collected Papers and searching for "conscience" there.
I honestly don't care. Apparently you didn't search that in order to see if your idol says anything relevant about life.
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"?
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting Mapping the Medium
Naturally, I prefer this one.
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
How is this evidence that continuity is real?
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
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
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.
"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 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.
Agreed.
Feel free to stay on this forum for years sharing Peirce's insights
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is most certainly true.