They may have things in common, but a distinction is necessary: Peirce never recognized any transcendent or a priori basis in his philosophy. On the contrary, he bases his philosophy on logic (semiotics) as the basis for metaphysics. This would lead us to understand that the transcendent is only a logical hypothesis and not an underlying basis, as Voegelin's endeavor seems to be.
It’s true that for Peirce logic precedes metaphysics and that there is no metaphysical a priori in his philosophy. However, I would argue that logic itself is transcendent for Peirce. In this piece https://philosign.substack.com/p/escaping-the-abyss-of-nihilism I wrote:
“As a formal a priori science, logic sets boundaries on what is logically possible, much like Euclidean postulates define the possibilities within triangles by stipulating that their internal angles always sum to 180 degrees. However, such postulates don't make any claims about the actual existence of such triangles in reality.
Logic is thus transcendent, being independent of the actual universe [metaphysics]. Put differently, the laws of physics hold in every part of this universe, but not in every possible world. In contrast, the laws of logic hold in every possible world.
Therefore, if logic precedes metaphysics, and our mind as capable of conceiving the principles of logic, then our mind is capable of reaching the transcendent.
This is the key! We are not limited into our species specific minds in our small corner of the universe, but we can comprehend the fundamental form and structure of reality - the logic of reality, the eternal verities, the Truth.
Most importantly, this is not merely a metaphysical claim driven by our existential crisis and psychological needs, but rather a necessary implication of viewing logic as universal, objective, and normative. If we desire to uphold logic, we must posit it as transcendent. This way logic serves as the bridge to the transcendent.”
They may have things in common, but a distinction is necessary: Peirce never recognized any transcendent or a priori basis in his philosophy. On the contrary, he bases his philosophy on logic (semiotics) as the basis for metaphysics. This would lead us to understand that the transcendent is only a logical hypothesis and not an underlying basis, as Voegelin's endeavor seems to be.
It’s true that for Peirce logic precedes metaphysics and that there is no metaphysical a priori in his philosophy. However, I would argue that logic itself is transcendent for Peirce. In this piece https://philosign.substack.com/p/escaping-the-abyss-of-nihilism I wrote:
“As a formal a priori science, logic sets boundaries on what is logically possible, much like Euclidean postulates define the possibilities within triangles by stipulating that their internal angles always sum to 180 degrees. However, such postulates don't make any claims about the actual existence of such triangles in reality.
Logic is thus transcendent, being independent of the actual universe [metaphysics]. Put differently, the laws of physics hold in every part of this universe, but not in every possible world. In contrast, the laws of logic hold in every possible world.
Therefore, if logic precedes metaphysics, and our mind as capable of conceiving the principles of logic, then our mind is capable of reaching the transcendent.
This is the key! We are not limited into our species specific minds in our small corner of the universe, but we can comprehend the fundamental form and structure of reality - the logic of reality, the eternal verities, the Truth.
Most importantly, this is not merely a metaphysical claim driven by our existential crisis and psychological needs, but rather a necessary implication of viewing logic as universal, objective, and normative. If we desire to uphold logic, we must posit it as transcendent. This way logic serves as the bridge to the transcendent.”