ONT Re: Sources
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
| I now found myself forced by a great many different indications to the conclusion
| that an evolutionary philosophy of some kind must be accepted -- including among
| such philosophies systems like those of Aristotle and of Hegel. From this point
| the reasoning was more rapid. Evolution had been a prominent study for half a
| generation; and much light had been thrown upon the conditions for a fruitful
| evolutionary philosophy. The first question was, how far shall this evolution
| go back? What shall we suppose 'not' to be a product of growth? I fancy it is
| this cautious reflectiveness of my procedure which especially displeases Dr. Carus.
| It is not positivistic: it is architectonic. But the answer to the question was not
| far to seek. If an evolutionary explanation is to be adopted, philosophy, logic, and
| the economy of research all dictate that in the first essay, at least, that style of
| explanation be carried as far back as explanation is called for. What elements of
| the universe require no explanation? This was a simple question, capable of being
| decided by logic with as much facility and certainty as a suitable problem is solved
| by differential calculus. Being, and the uniformity in which being consists, require
| to be explained. The only thing that does not require it is non-existent spontaneity.
| This was soon seen to mean absolute chance. The conclusion so reached was clinched by
| a careful reëxamination of the office of chance in science generally, and especially
| in the doctrines of evolution. Arrived at this point, the next question was, what
| is the principle by which the development is to proceed? It was a difficult
| inquiry, and involved researches from different points of view.
|
| CSP, 'Collected Papers', CP 6.604
|
| Charles Sanders Peirce, "Reply to the Necessitarians",
|'The Monist', 3(1893), pages 526-570. (CP 6.588-618).
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤