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.

Matter is not at all sacred for us. You pray to something sacred, or you prevent defiling it, or you speak highly of it, or you worship it.

No materialist worships matter. That's very interesting, isn't it?

It's interesting, yes. But I do worship matter. Every object around is my idol. It's fun!

I read that last year. He is biased — Gregory

How? In what way?

It's interesting, yes. But I do worship matter. Every object around is my idol. It's fun! — Gregory

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.

He is a fundamentalist Catholic who thinks all philosophies that don't agree with Thomism can be lumped into one theory. — Gregory

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.

fundamentalist Catholic — Gregory

This I never thought would be printed. But everything under the Sun comes to pass, I reckon.

Everyone has some bias. I did not detect enough of any in his book to set off any warnings. I won't ask you to develop it, but a sentence or two on how you see his bias would be helpful to me.

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

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 — Gregory

Fair enough. Question asked and answered, and I appreciate that. Thank you! Now I have to go back to the book!

Materialists and atheists believe that the world operates without any supernatural power's intervention. — god must be atheist

Which means, in effect, that nothing happens that science cannot explain in principle. That's how it works out.

Bell's theorem is basically Godel' theorem from a different perspective. There is randomness and uncertainty in the world. But actually the random realm is where free will sits, not controlled by the random, but being a little free

The Continuity of Being: C.S. Peirce’s Philosophy of Synechism

https://epochemagazine.org/the-continuity-of-being-c-s-peirces-philosophy-of-synechism-9fa5c341247e

I want to clarify that although I highly admire Brian Kemple, I am not a 'Thomist'. I lean toward Duns Scotus. My main reason for joining this forum is hoping to find others who will discuss the differences between the two thoughts. Please let me know if anyone here has studied these in depth and would like to discuss them with me. Thank you

For anyone interested, here is the subject to be discussed:

These three varieties of evolution Peirce renames, respectively, as: tychasm, anancasm, and agapasm (using the related Greek roots to provide a technical terminology). The first two, he claims, are degenerate forms of the agapastic: that is, while each is a real evolutionary force, the reality of the evolutionary universe as a whole is comprised by the third form. While tychasm finds growth from the lower into the higher a matter of luck (as well as “lower” and “higher” being purely circumstantial adjectives), and anancasm sees it as a matter of internally-driven necessity (and is thus a Whiggish theory of nature, at heart), agapasm sees it as “a love which embraces hatred as an imperfect stage of it”; which seeks elevation of the lesser through a not-yet-realized better. That is: “Love, recognising germs of loveliness in the hateful, gradually warms it into life, and makes it lovely. That is the sort of evolution which every careful student of my essay ‘The Law of Mind’ must see that synechism calls for.”
This, as Peirce calls it, is creative love. It is not a love which seeks fulfillment of itself, but which calls out for as-yet-unrealized perfection. It is love as a final cause: first in intention, last in execution, the cause that makes anything to be at all. It is the cause that answers the question “why?” for anything.
Few people already convinced that evolution proceeds through random chance will be persuaded of its inherent purposiveness, let alone that this purposiveness is not itself the product of chance — it echoes too loudly of a theistic hand guiding the universe; and natural purposiveness implies all sorts of normative consequences, including moral ones.
The challenge that Peirce’s synechism issues us, however, is this: if the universe really is found to be continuous, such that between any two things there is no unbridged gap but a gradient of infinitesimal degrees of difference — in at least potency if not actuality — if this continuity exists in fact and not only in theory (and a careful examination, I think, can only lead one to the former conclusion): what then explains this continuity, if not agapasm?

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.

Which means, in effect, that nothing happens that science cannot explain in principle. That's how it works out. — Wayfarer

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.

So, we want the 'scientific method', which if you know anything about Peirce, we owe much of that to him, and we want the 'pragmatism', which his was distorted to appease the popular nominalist view, but we want to throw out his exceptional logic in how he came to his conclusions? Peirce was one of the most skilled logicians ever to grace history.

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

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. — Mapping the Medium

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.

Scotus was brilliant. VERY in depth, and difficult to follow, but his insights were wonderful! He was probably overlooked and difficult to understand because of his depth. Scotus's work holds the key to avoiding some of the slippery slope of Thomism, and clarifies Peirce's thought. Once you fully understand Scotus, it highlights why Thomism is a misguided turn. The difference between these two holds the key. I referenced an excellent, thorough, and in depth video earlier in this thread. Here is the link if anyone is interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9JVgL5Jx18

BY the way, Scotus explains free will. Perhaps that will get some attention.

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. :)

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'. ...

.... 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'. — Mapping the Medium

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.