Welcome to the channel! I'm glad you're here and interested in Peirce's work. If you have any questions about Peirce's ideas, feel free to reach out. Enjoy exploring!
Absolutely fantastic!!! Hopefully this comment makes sense: my prior notions of non-extant objects were limited to qualia, which I had rationalized away as simulation, that is, the brain using qualia as the simulation of an organism reacting to color, the reality of which does not exist. While this does not account for the aspect of "red" as experienced, it does "contain" this aspect as a particle-based simulation of how "red" may be experienced. However, the discussion of thirdness and the qualities of physical laws, such as the notion of materials having any non-material qualities (in the simplest case, the quality of existence itself, which must be distinct from the material, as there are forms of different structure, though existence could be a material, but then a materialist and non-materialist are one-in-the-same, and would say that laws are material, though one may deduce that then the laws are necessitated by their own existence, which is close admitting a god already) led me into epiphany. Thank you for making these videos, sincerely. You are doing God's work (pun intended).
I would like to know how Peirce defines "supernatural" and why would he be certain that such thing is not 'real'? Someone like Thomas Aquinas would consider God to exist as an immaterial being, but the form of natural things which is the principle of their movement is also considered immaterial.
I didn't find any direct definition of supernatural, but I found this text from 1906 which discusses miracles: I call your attention to the circumstance that some of the most respected theologians, such as St. Augustine, and others before him, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bishop Joseph Butler, are decidedly of the opinion that God never interfered with what they call the cursus naturæ, which is what we call the operations of the laws of nature. ... For my part, I do not see how we can ascertain a priori whether miracles (be they violations of the laws of nature or not) and special providences take place or not. In so far Hume is entirely in the right. It is simply a question of evidence. His argument has a certain weight. If there are no miracles nowadays, there is a strong presumption against those which took place amidst a rabble of Galileans. But are there no miracles nowadays? I do not feel so sure of it. ... Miracles ... are always sui generis. The only ones that were not so, the falling of stones out of the heavens, lost all their prestige when it was found how common the occurrence was. The isolatedness of the miracle is really no argument against its reality. It is nearly the same with works of great genius. You have Rafael and Michelangelo together, and then for a long time nothing surprising. Dante stands all alone. Byron was unparalleled before or since; for A. de Musset is surely not to be compared with him. Indeed every branch of art and science can furnish such examples. The isolation, then, is no argument against miracles, but it effectively prevents our ever having sufficient evidence of them. Here is more on Peirce's view on God. www.gnusystems.ca/CSPgod.htm
@@PhiloSign Thank you for the text! I wonder why he wrote "others before him" considering that Augustine was born in the 4th century, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century and Joseph Butler in the 17th century. Peirce seems to be concerned with miracles as per Hume's definition here. My research is on Thomas Aquinas so I rely on quality videos like yours for a quick scope of modern thoughts. It's slightly difficult for me to venture too deep right now, but this has definitely piqued my interest. I still wonder if Peirce means by "supernatural" something altogether different from 'existence' and 'real.' If by 'existence' Peirce means having interaction with other things in space and time, then Aquinas would agree too that God doesn't 'exist' that way. Aquinas' understanding of 'existence' may encompass both 'existence' and 'real' in this sense then. Thank you again for the videos on Peirce.
Super clear explanation of some tough concepts! You're doing a great job!!
Just found this channel, thanks a lot! I just discovered Peirce a few months ago ❤
Welcome to the channel! I'm glad you're here and interested in Peirce's work. If you have any questions about Peirce's ideas, feel free to reach out. Enjoy exploring!
Absolutely fantastic!!! Hopefully this comment makes sense: my prior notions of non-extant objects were limited to qualia, which I had rationalized away as simulation, that is, the brain using qualia as the simulation of an organism reacting to color, the reality of which does not exist. While this does not account for the aspect of "red" as experienced, it does "contain" this aspect as a particle-based simulation of how "red" may be experienced.
However, the discussion of thirdness and the qualities of physical laws, such as the notion of materials having any non-material qualities (in the simplest case, the quality of existence itself, which must be distinct from the material, as there are forms of different structure, though existence could be a material, but then a materialist and non-materialist are one-in-the-same, and would say that laws are material, though one may deduce that then the laws are necessitated by their own existence, which is close admitting a god already) led me into epiphany.
Thank you for making these videos, sincerely. You are doing God's work (pun intended).
I would like to know how Peirce defines "supernatural" and why would he be certain that such thing is not 'real'? Someone like Thomas Aquinas would consider God to exist as an immaterial being, but the form of natural things which is the principle of their movement is also considered immaterial.
I didn't find any direct definition of supernatural, but I found this text from 1906 which discusses miracles:
I call your attention to the circumstance that some of the most respected theologians, such as St. Augustine, and others before him, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bishop Joseph Butler, are decidedly of the opinion that God never interfered with what they call the cursus naturæ, which is what we call the operations of the laws of nature. ... For my part, I do not see how we can ascertain a priori whether miracles (be they violations of the laws of nature or not) and special providences take place or not. In so far Hume is entirely in the right. It is simply a question of evidence. His argument has a certain weight. If there are no miracles nowadays, there is a strong presumption against those which took place amidst a rabble of Galileans. But are there no miracles nowadays? I do not feel so sure of it. ... Miracles ... are always sui generis. The only ones that were not so, the falling of stones out of the heavens, lost all their prestige when it was found how common the occurrence was. The isolatedness of the miracle is really no argument against its reality. It is nearly the same with works of great genius. You have Rafael and Michelangelo together, and then for a long time nothing surprising. Dante stands all alone. Byron was unparalleled before or since; for A. de Musset is surely not to be compared with him. Indeed every branch of art and science can furnish such examples. The isolation, then, is no argument against miracles, but it effectively prevents our ever having sufficient evidence of them.
Here is more on Peirce's view on God.
www.gnusystems.ca/CSPgod.htm
@@PhiloSign Thank you for the text! I wonder why he wrote "others before him" considering that Augustine was born in the 4th century, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century and Joseph Butler in the 17th century. Peirce seems to be concerned with miracles as per Hume's definition here.
My research is on Thomas Aquinas so I rely on quality videos like yours for a quick scope of modern thoughts. It's slightly difficult for me to venture too deep right now, but this has definitely piqued my interest. I still wonder if Peirce means by "supernatural" something altogether different from 'existence' and 'real.' If by 'existence' Peirce means having interaction with other things in space and time, then Aquinas would agree too that God doesn't 'exist' that way. Aquinas' understanding of 'existence' may encompass both 'existence' and 'real' in this sense then. Thank you again for the videos on Peirce.
Aika darranen ääni