Which is First?

Faust · August 16, 2017, 8:03pm

This is from Wikipedia, and it is accurate:

Considered a major figure in mathematics, he [Frege] is responsible for the development of modern logic and making contributions to the foundations of mathematics. He is also understood by many to be the father of analytic philosophy, where he concentrated on the philosophy of language and mathematics. Though largely ignored during his lifetime, Giuseppe Peano (1858–1932) and Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) introduced his work to later generations of logicians and philosophers.

Fixed_Cross · August 17, 2017, 2:30am

You are a genius.
I mean I assume these other people are reasonably intelligent, and that my sentence was EXTREMELY complicated.

Yeah, Im Faust.
Heres where I split up into two persons.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETVOd4tcvis[/youtube]

Im enjoying the fact that I have 50 posters circling me purely based on how cool I am to be around - none of them even reads my posts. They just want to be close, to think about my person.

It does distract from the topic, but hey, I already resolved it.
For those who are intelligent but still have trouble doing the work:

Ethics is the study of right and wrong — how we should act.

1: we should act logically.

Logic is the study of valid reasoning — how to reason.

2: now we can reason.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge — how we know.

3: now we can apply reason to formulate a statement.

Ontology is the study of beings or their being — what is.

4: now we try for a statement that pertains to something.

Phenomenology is the study of our experience — how we experience.

5: now we can apply our statement to our making of the statement. Now, we can begin to philosophize.

Sauwelios · August 17, 2017, 3:02am

I must admit that at first glance, I thought you meant “when I posted in this thread for the first time in almost six years”, but then I read the words “had done”, and knew that couldn’t be the case. Logically.

surreptitious57 · August 17, 2017, 3:03am

Does ethics not pertain to how we should act morally rather than logically
Acting logically is not always ethical so logic cannot be the basis for ethics

James_S_Saint · August 17, 2017, 7:54am

Logic does not pertain to behavior. Logic only applies to language and thought structure. You are thinking of people who behave inconsiderately out of self interest. IF someone has only the betterment of their self as a goal and rationally pursue that goal, they can be seriously unethical. Some people call that “being too logical”, but that is a misuse of the term.

surreptitious57 · August 17, 2017, 8:23am

I think a better term would be rational because that pertains to behaviour whereas logic pertains to thinking like you said

Faust · August 17, 2017, 12:55pm

Why this never made it to Cannes, I will never know.

Fixed_Cross · August 17, 2017, 5:08pm

Depends on the ethics.

It is ethical in as far as one has the ethics to act logically.

Alf · August 17, 2017, 7:04pm

The only safe source we know about “you” is this:

So Leyla is possibly right: “you” are possibly the fifth sock puppet of the one who has no real supporters.

Fixed_Cross · August 17, 2017, 7:13pm

Kdding, Faust. Alf is my sock-puppet.

Fixed_Cross · August 17, 2017, 7:14pm

Its true I have no followers though.
I have friends, fellow philosophers.

And a whole shitload of trolls, but I agree that these can’t be seen as followers, as they don’t care about my philosophy, only about me.
Or are those actually what one calls followers?

Hm.

On the fence.

Fixed_Cross · August 17, 2017, 7:19pm

Wel, crap. Logic forces me to regard my trolls as my followers.
They follow me from thread to thread, and post underneath my posts wherever I make them.

Their voice in my life:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3JGxj2rvAs[/youtube]

Fixed_Cross · August 17, 2017, 7:23pm

Leftism.

Sauwelios · August 17, 2017, 7:24pm

Funny that Fixed Cross does seem to be more popular than Satyr these days. I mean, formerly Satyr was the one known for his many sock-puppets, and suspected of having even more.

Wait, could this mean Alf and Leyla are not Satyr’s sock-puppets?!

Fixed_Cross · August 17, 2017, 7:31pm

Funny indeed.

Also my ascribed sock puppets are getting to be of notably higher status.
Im honoured that I am considered capable of inventing Fausts mind and persona.

James_S_Saint · August 17, 2017, 7:44pm

The term is “groupie”.

Alf · August 17, 2017, 8:06pm

I was only talking about the fact that we know nearly nothing about the ILP member “Faust”. Who really knows more than this about “Faust”; username, avatar, numbers of posts, registration date, post content, pm-content?

Leyla · August 17, 2017, 9:08pm

As for him, the term is “delusional overestimation” of himself, alternating with “persecution mania” (don’t know, which is first)

James_S_Saint · August 17, 2017, 9:11pm

I can tell you that Faust and FC are very, very different people.

Xunzian · August 18, 2017, 7:24am

I’m not really sure what the initial “seed” is, does it matter? Substance and function is an iterative and mutually reinforcing process and we’re right in the middle of it. When you’re having a drink, what is first? The liquid you are drinking? The vessel containing what you are drinking? The hands that pick up what you are drinking? The eyes that see it so you can pick it up? The nose that smells it and the mouth that tastes it? The body that needs it? The totality of these things together?

Does it matter? A chopped off hand in the desert isn’t picking up a drink. Liquid can exist qua liquid without need of being drank. Etc.

What’s most important? Well, what question are you asking? Ontology and epistemology are complimentary in that way.

If I could contrast a few of the philosophers that I find relevant:

Xiong Shili:

The word principle (li) originally has the meaning of order or pattern. But we should not say, as Sung and Ming Neo-Confucianists said, that it is order within material force (qi). Many of them considered material force to be a real thing and consequently considered principle to be merely order within material force. According to this, principle itself is an empty form and material force alone is real. […] Here I do not want to criticize them [the Sung and Ming Neo-Confucianists] too much. I merely want to explain my idea of principle and material force. I believe they cannot be sharply divided into two pieces. The word “principle” is a general term for both substance and function, whereas “material force” refers only to function. When the meaning of the word “material force” was explained above, it was already made quite clear that material force is the function.

[…]

Substance also means the source of all transformations, the foundation of all things and the converging point of all principles. It should be called true principle or concrete principle. It can also be called ultimate principle. Spoken from the point of view of function, in the wonderful functioning of opening and closing, all characters and phenomena seem functioning of closing and opening, all characters and phenomena seem to be manifest. Here phenomena follow a certain order, easily pervasive without any obstruction. It is also called principle, for phenomena and principle are identical, that is, phenomena are principle. Principle in the first instance refers to substance. It is the one source, which actually involves all manifestations. Principle in the second instance derives its name from function. It is the many manifestations which returns to the one source. Although principle may be said to be two, essentially, it is neither one nor two. As meanings as substance and function differ it is not one. But since it is at the same time substance and function it is not two.

Feng Youlan:

Chu Hsi regards principle as that by which actual things necessarily are what they are and the specific principle according to which they should be. Our idea of principle is the same. As square thing must follow the principle of the square before it can be square, and it must completely follow the principle of the square before it can be perfectly square. Whether a square thing is perfectly square depends on whether or not it follows the principle of the square completely. According to this reasoning, the principle of the square is the standard of all square things; it is the specific principle according to which they should be.

[…]

In our system we can still say that “the principle is one but its manifestations are many.” But when we say so, the principle we are talking about is still the principle when we discuss it as such. Let us first take the example of things in a certain class. The things in this class all follow one principle. However, although they all follow the same principle, they each have their own individuality. From the point of view of things of this class being related within the class, we can say that their principle is one but its manifestations are many. As we said before, the principle of a class implies the principle of a general class, all specific classes within the general class can also be stated in terms that the principle is one but its manifestations are many . . .

Both philosophers from their respective sections in Wing-Tsit Chan’s “A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy.”
Next, I think that a bit from Tu Weiming is necessary:

Tu Weiming:

We have already suggested that man’s structure of being and man’s process of becoming are two complimentary points of view. Indeed, if I interpret Yangming’s perception correctly, they actually represent two inseparable dimensions of human reality. Therefore, we must recognize that man is both a given structure and an indeterminate process. To say that I am a given structure is not to deny the freedom of choice, for I alone can make the inner decision to become what I ought to be. And such a decision necessarily transforms the restrictive ties of my given structure into a set of instrumentaria for self-realization. To say that I am an indeterminate process is not to undermine my inner identity. No matter how I choose to act, I do so in the context of being a meaningful entity. Therefore, a measure of freedom is an integral part of the given structure, and a sense of identity is an integral part of the indeterminate process. Although the structure is given for the sake of self-realization, it must undergo a process of transformation. By the same token, the indeterminate process constantly assumes a temporal structure because of self-identity. Consequently, man’s being what he is must be sought in his becoming what he ought to be, and vice versa.

–Subjective and Ontological Reality – An Interpretation of Wang Yang-ming’s Mode of Thinking.

So the task here is how to synthesize these separate concepts. When Tu talks about a “given structure” we can say that it is the function of the thing a la Xiong Shili; whereas the indeterminate process of transformation is the “substance” Xiong Shili spoke of. We can see that these things are linked and, to a certain degree, inseparable. But the principle that serves as the source for the thing in question is poorly defined in this case, which is why Feng Youlan’s more developed concept of how the principle can be one but its manifestations are many is in order.

So, at this point we have substance and function giving rise to each other which would be circular if time weren’t taken into account: any given function is the result of its substance and substance is the result of its function. However, if this process is not viewed as a static process but rather a temporal one, a helix is formed stretching across time. This entire process is what I think of as “principle”.