Which is First?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Which is First?

Postby gib » Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:06 am

Otto_West wrote:Philosophy is that of discussing values and existence in a way that science alone is inefficient or not up to task for.


That's nice and succinct. :D
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
little shitheaded Buddha
 
Posts: 8428
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Which is First?

Postby James S Saint » Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:42 am

The chicken.
No, no.
The egg.
No, no...
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Faust » Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:56 pm

Otto_West wrote:Philosophy is that of discussing values and existence in a way that science alone is inefficient or not up to task for.


One could say, with only some accuracy, that science tells us what we know and philosophy tells us what it means.

That's a little "greeting card philosophy" but everyone likes greeting cards.

Almost everyone.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby surreptitious57 » Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:52 pm

Actually we can say with very remarkable accuracy indeed that science tells us what we know while philosophy tells us what it means because
science pertains to knowledge [ scientia means to know ] and philosophy pertains to wisdom [ philo means love of and sophia means wisdom ]
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arminius » Fri Aug 11, 2017 4:54 pm

Faust wrote:Was reading an article in the SEP and came upon this:

Ontology is the study of beings or their being — what is.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge — how we know.
Logic is the study of valid reasoning — how to reason.
Ethics is the study of right and wrong — how we should act.
Phenomenology is the study of our experience — how we experience.

Philosophers have sometimes argued that one of these fields is “first philosophy”, the most fundamental discipline, on which all philosophy or all knowledge or wisdom rests. Historically (it may be argued), Socrates and Plato put ethics first, then Aristotle put metaphysics or ontology first, then Descartes put epistemology first, then Russell put logic first, and then Husserl (in his later transcendental phase) put phenomenology first.

Not Russel, but Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege put logic first. The modern logic (logistic, analytic etc.) was founded by Frege. Frege was Russel’s mathematical, logical, philosophical father.

Image
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5445
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arminius » Fri Aug 11, 2017 4:57 pm

Faust wrote:Which one would you put first?

I would put logic first.

Philosophy is primarily about logic. In other words: "Philosophy without logic“ is no philosophy. Even if you put other philosophical fields first: you have to always answer the question whether your thinking about them is logically right or false (wrong). If ontology, epistemology, phenomenology, ethics are not logically right, then they are almost nonsensical, without any philosophic and scientific basis; and ontology, epistemology, phenomenology even contain the word "logic“, so any comment is superfluous in those cases.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5445
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arminius » Fri Aug 11, 2017 4:59 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Logic/epistemology, which is the study of reasoning, is the most fundamental philosophy.
Betrand Russell sounds like a really cool guy.
I think that these Anglo-Saxon philosophers are underrated by their continental friends.

They are not underrated by their continental friends. Gottlob Frege was German (thus: continental European) and Russel’s mathematical, logical, philosophical father. Frege founded the modern logic - both the modern mathematical logic and the modern philosophical logic - logistics, analytics etc..

Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege influenced everyone, also Edmund Husserl who followed Frege especially by adopting his distinction between logic and psychology (cp. Frege’s „Sinn und Bedeutung“) which led Husserl to his kind of phenomenology.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5445
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arminius » Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:00 pm

gib wrote:I go for logic myself. Logic is the very skill of thinking. With that, all other branches of philosophy become a breeze.

Yes. Logic comes before all other branches of philosophy. Just as "mathematics without logic“ is no mathematics at all, "philosophy without logic“ is no philosophy at all.

A child in a womb can already behave according to logic - but not according to ethics. Every child’s development shows clearly that logic comes before ethics. Also is behaving according to ethics earlier than knowing about ethics.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5445
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arminius » Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:07 pm

Dan~ wrote:
encode_decode wrote:
    2017

    In 2017 - and beyond - I vote for ethics . . .

    =D>


    Ethics is about how to live. Logic is about how to think.
    But living comes before thinking.

    Living comes before thinking. That is absolutely right. But that does not mean that ethics comes before logic.

    It goes like a circle. When living without ethics has reached thinking, then it has reached logic and starts going backwards: from logic to living, which is now a living with ethics.

    Even the most primitive laws are based on ethics based on logic. So they are primarily based on logic. The reason of any taboo and any totem may be ethics, but reason is not cause. They are caused by logic (based on logic), because only logic can lead to ethics. Ethics without logic is not possible. Logic without ethics is possible. Even an anarchist has to argue logically when it comes to the elimination of laws.

    Do bacteria have ethics? No, but they are behaving according to logic. Logic does not require ethics, but ethics requires logic (otherwise such "ethics“ would not really be ethics).

    So if we are arguing according to development in general or evolution and history in particular, we have to put logic first. Logic was before ethics.

    A child in a womb can already behave according to logic - but not according to ethics. Every child’s development shows clearly that logic comes before ethics. Also is behaving according to ethics earlier than knowing about ethics.

    So again: You are absolutely right about the fact that living comes before thinking. But you should not confuse ethics with living, because ethics does not mean "living“ (but the philosophical [!] answer to the also philosophical [!] question: "what should we do?“). Living can but does not have to lead to thinking, and logic can but does not have to lead to ethics.
    Image
    User avatar
    Arminius
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 5445
    Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
    Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

    Re: Which is First?

    Postby gib » Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:21 pm

    I think I agree with Sauwelios in that there is no "first" philosophy in terms of what must be developed first--it's more of a hodgepodge of thought that we go through as we develop and grow, every area of philosophy impinging on every other in parallel. But I do think that as one exercises one's rational thinking skills, one gets better at fleshing out all other areas of philosophy.
    My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

    It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
    Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
    - surreptitious75

    The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
    - encode_decode

    Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
    - Rick Sanchez
    User avatar
    gib
    little shitheaded Buddha
     
    Posts: 8428
    Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
    Location: lost (don't try to find me)

    Re: Which is First?

    Postby Arminius » Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:36 pm

    But there is a hierarchy within philosophy.

    Also, there are more than those five "fields" that are mentioned in the opening post of this thread.
    Image
    User avatar
    Arminius
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 5445
    Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
    Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

    Re: Which is First?

    Postby gib » Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:03 pm

    Arminius wrote:But there is a hierarchy within philosophy.


    What is that hierarchy? In my discussion with Sauwelios, it became clear that "first" is unclear. It could refer to chronological "first" (what must develop first), it could refer to dependency "first" (what is based on what), or it could refer to priority "first" (what ought to come first). Either way, you could have a hierarchy. The "hodgepodge of thought" I described in my previous post only rules out chronological first. It's not like a child must first flesh out his rational thinking skills to the brim before even starting to think about other philosophical topics. It's more parallel development, but the more logic is developed, the better you become in other areas of thought.
    My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

    It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
    Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
    - surreptitious75

    The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
    - encode_decode

    Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
    - Rick Sanchez
    User avatar
    gib
    little shitheaded Buddha
     
    Posts: 8428
    Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
    Location: lost (don't try to find me)

    Re: Which is First?

    Postby Arminius » Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:52 pm

    gib wrote:
    Arminius wrote:But there is a hierarchy within philosophy.


    What is that hierarchy? In my discussion with Sauwelios, it became clear that "first" is unclear. It could refer to chronological "first" (what must develop first), it could refer to dependency "first" (what is based on what), or it could refer to priority "first" (what ought to come first). Either way, you could have a hierarchy. The "hodgepodge of thought" I described in my previous post only rules out chronological first. It's not like a child must first flesh out his rational thinking skills to the brim before even starting to think about other philosophical topics. It's more parallel development, but the more logic is developed, the better you become in other areas of thought.

    It is not a "parallel development", precisely said. It is just the development that shows why logic is the first field of philosophy.

    I know that in modern times ethics is the one that philosophically attracks more than the other philosophical fields. But that does not mean that ethics must or should be put first.
    Image
    User avatar
    Arminius
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 5445
    Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
    Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

    Re: Which is First?

    Postby Arminius » Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:06 pm

    Arminius wrote:Philosophy is primarily about logic. In other words: "Philosophy without logic“ is no philosophy. Even if you put other philosophical fields first: you have to always answer the question whether your thinking about them is logically right or false (wrong). If ontology, epistemology, phenomenology, ethics are not logically right, then they are almost nonsensical, without any philosophic and scientific basis; and ontology, epistemology, phenomenology even contain the word "logic“, so any comment is superfluous in those cases.
    Arminius wrote:Logic comes before all other branches of philosophy. Just as "mathematics without logic“ is no mathematics at all, "philosophy without logic“ is no philosophy at all.

    A child in a womb can already behave according to logic - but not according to ethics. Every child’s development shows clearly that logic comes before ethics. Also is behaving according to ethics earlier than knowing about ethics.
    Arminius wrote:Living comes before thinking. That is absolutely right. But that does not mean that ethics comes before logic.

    It goes like a circle. When living without ethics has reached thinking, then it has reached logic and starts going backwards: from logic to living, which is now a living with ethics.

    Even the most primitive laws are based on ethics based on logic. So they are primarily based on logic. The reason of any taboo and any totem may be ethics, but reason is not cause. They are caused by logic (based on logic), because only logic can lead to ethics. Ethics without logic is not possible. Logic without ethics is possible. Even an anarchist has to argue logically when it comes to the elimination of laws.

    Do bacteria have ethics? No, but they are behaving according to logic. Logic does not require ethics, but ethics requires logic (otherwise such "ethics“ would not really be ethics).

    So if we are arguing according to development in general or evolution and history in particular, we have to put logic first. Logic was before ethics.

    A child in a womb can already behave according to logic - but not according to ethics. Every child’s development shows clearly that logic comes before ethics. Also is behaving according to ethics earlier than knowing about ethics.

    So again: You are absolutely right about the fact that living comes before thinking. But you should not confuse ethics with living, because ethics does not mean "living“ (but the philosophical [!] answer to the also philosophical [!] question: "what should we do?“). Living can but does not have to lead to thinking, and logic can but does not have to lead to ethics.
    Image
    User avatar
    Arminius
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 5445
    Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
    Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

    Re: Which is First?

    Postby gib » Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:43 pm

    Arminius wrote:It is not a "parallel development", precisely said. It is just the development that shows why logic is the first field of philosophy.


    In fact, it is a parallel development. What child do you know of who studies logic arduously until he has mastered all its intricacies before moving onto any other field of thought? Though I understand what you mean--though all fields of thought develop in the brain more or less simultaneously, there comes of a point when we have exercised logical thinking enough to recognize that in all other fields, we've been making mistakes and, to an extent, must start over.

    Arminius wrote:I know that in modern times ethics is the one that philosophically attracks more than the other philosophical fields. But that does not mean that ethics must or should be put first.


    Again, this depends on in what sense we mean "first"--if by "first" we mean what ought to take priority, then moral philosophy, by definition I'm willing to say, ought to come first. However, in terms of what depends on what, or what is a prerequisite to what, I'd say logic comes first, for without logic, one can't derive anything of worth from any other field. This needn't be construed as a conflict of priorities--it just means that if we are to arrive at the best, or the most reliable, moral conclusions on matters of life and things of importance, we must hone our skills at logic and rationality first. Therefore, exercising our skills at logic and rationality serves our pursuits in moral philosophy in the long run. Taken to its logical conclusion, one can say that we have a moral obligation to hone our logical and rational thinking skills in order to think through all other fields of thought with the most care and in the most productive way.
    My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

    It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
    Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
    - surreptitious75

    The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
    - encode_decode

    Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
    - Rick Sanchez
    User avatar
    gib
    little shitheaded Buddha
     
    Posts: 8428
    Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
    Location: lost (don't try to find me)

    Re: Which is First?

    Postby Sauwelios » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:01 pm

    Arminius wrote:Philosophy is primarily about logic. In other words: "Philosophy without logic“ is no philosophy. Even if you put other philosophical fields first: you have to always answer the question whether your thinking about them is logically right or false (wrong).


    "Wrong", not "false". Logic can only establish whether an argument is valid, not whether it is sound. That is to say, it can only determine that, if an argument's premisses are true, the conclusion must also be true; it cannot establish whether the premisses are true.

    And even this holds only insofar as reality is logical--i.e., insofar as it corresponds to human reason.


    Do bacteria have ethics? No, but they are behaving according to logic.


    You're confusing two things here (perhaps not in your mind, but certainly in your words). A bacterium need not behave according to logic; it may just seem to behave that way, because we cannot think otherwise than "according to logic"--i.e., to human logic.

    This is the profoundest insight with regard to logic. The rest is--no more than logical. To be sure, this insight requires the good use of logic. It is logical thought apprehending its own limits.

    "We cease to think when we refuse to do so under the constraint of language [note: not necessarily of words]; we barely reach the doubt that sees this limitation as a limitation.
    Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme that we cannot throw off." (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 522, Kaufmann translation.)

    "We are unable to affirm and to deny one and the same thing: this is a subjective empirical law, not the expression of any 'necessity' but only of an inability.
    [...] Either [the law of contradiction] asserts something about actuality, about being, as if one already knew this from another source; that is, as if opposite attributes could not be ascribed to it. Or the proposition means: opposite attributes should not be ascribed to it. In that case, logic would be an imperative, not to know the true, but to posit and arrange a world that shall be called true by us." (op.cit., section 516.)

    "The earthly kingdom of desires out of which logic grew: the herd instinct in the background. The assumption of similar ["identical"] cases presupposes 'similar souls.' For the purpose of mutual agreement and dominion." (op.cit., section 509.)

    Thus ethics (herd morality) comes before logic. See http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187672.
    User avatar
    Sauwelios
    Philosophical Supremacist
     
    Posts: 7138
    Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
    Location: Amsterdam

    Re: Which is First?

    Postby Arminius » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:52 pm

    Sauwelios wrote:
    Arminius wrote:Philosophy is primarily about logic. In other words: "Philosophy without logic“ is no philosophy. Even if you put other philosophical fields first: you have to always answer the question whether your thinking about them is logically right or false (wrong).


    "Wrong", not "false".

    You are wrong.

    Sauwelios wrote:Logic can only establish whether an argument is valid, not whether it is sound. That is to say, it can only determine that, if an argument's premisses are true, the conclusion must also be true; it cannot establish whether the premisses are true.

    And even this holds only insofar as reality is logical--i.e., insofar as it corresponds to human reason.

    Logic can more than you think.

    Sauwelios wrote:
    Do bacteria have ethics? No, but they are behaving according to logic.

    You're confusing two things here (perhaps not in your mind, but certainly in your words).

    I am not confusing anything.

    Sauwelios wrote:A bacterium need not behave according to logic; it may just seem to behave that way, because we cannot think otherwise than "according to logic"--i.e., to human logic.

    And you are the only one who knows that a bacterium behaves according to its "bacterium logic"?

    We are talking about logic and ethics here!

    A bacterium logic is logic too - by definition.

    Sauwelios wrote:"We cease to think when we refuse to do so under the constraint of language [note: not necessarily of words]; we barely reach the doubt that sees this limitation as a limitation.
    Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme that we cannot throw off." (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 522, Kaufmann translation.)

    Original (German) text:

    „Wir hören auf zu denken, wenn wir es nicht in dem sprachlichen Zwange tun wollen, wir langen gerade noch bei dem Zweifel an, hier eine Grenze als Grenze zu sehn. Das vernünftige Denken ist ein Interpretieren nach einem Schema, welches wir nicht abwerfen können.“ - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Der Wille zur Macht, 522, S. 358.

    Okay.

    Sauwelios wrote:"We are unable to affirm and to deny one and the same thing: this is a subjective empirical law, not the expression of any 'necessity' but only of an inability.
    [...] Either [the law of contradiction] asserts something about actuality, about being, as if one already knew this from another source; that is, as if opposite attributes could not be ascribed to it. Or the proposition means: opposite attributes should not be ascribed to it. In that case, logic would be an imperative, not to know the true, but to posit and arrange a world that shall be called true by us." (op.cit., section 516.)

    "The earthly kingdom of desires out of which logic grew: the herd instinct in the background. The assumption of similar ["identical"] cases presupposes 'similar souls.' For the purpose of mutual agreement and dominion." (op.cit., section 509.)

    Thus ethics (herd morality) comes before logic.

    No. In order to have ethics logic is needed. The "herd morality" and "ethics" are concepts, created by language, by human language. Concepts must be defined, must be logical. So logic comes before ethics. Ethics depends on logic. There is no "herd morality" without logic, regardless how romantic (beautiful) the counter "arguments" are.
    Image
    User avatar
    Arminius
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 5445
    Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
    Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

    Re: Which is First?

    Postby Sauwelios » Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:57 pm

    Arminius wrote:
    Sauwelios wrote:
    Arminius wrote:Philosophy is primarily about logic. In other words: "Philosophy without logic“ is no philosophy. Even if you put other philosophical fields first: you have to always answer the question whether your thinking about them is logically right or false (wrong).


    "Wrong", not "false".

    You are wrong.


    Am not.


    Sauwelios wrote:Logic can only establish whether an argument is valid, not whether it is sound. That is to say, it can only determine that, if an argument's premisses are true, the conclusion must also be true; it cannot establish whether the premisses are true.

    And even this holds only insofar as reality is logical--i.e., insofar as it corresponds to human reason.

    Logic can more than you think.


    Can not. Or maybe can too, but as you don't elaborate, denying your statement suffices.

    Do you even know what the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument is? A sound argument is necessarily valid, but a valid argument is not necessarily sound.

    Can you give an example of logic establishing the truth or falsehood of a premiss?


    Sauwelios wrote:
    Do bacteria have ethics? No, but they are behaving according to logic.

    You're confusing two things here (perhaps not in your mind, but certainly in your words).

    I am not confusing anything.


    Are too.


    Sauwelios wrote:A bacterium need not behave according to logic; it may just seem to behave that way, because we cannot think otherwise than "according to logic"--i.e., to human logic.

    And you are the only one who knows that a bacterium behaves according to its "bacterium logic"?

    We are talking about logic and ethics here!

    A bacterium logic is logic too - by definition.


    I never mentioned (a) bacterium logic. An a bacterium logic, if there is such a thing, is a logic by definition. Is is not logic simply, which then doesn't exist.


    Sauwelios wrote:"We cease to think when we refuse to do so under the constraint of language [note: not necessarily of words]; we barely reach the doubt that sees this limitation as a limitation.
    Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme that we cannot throw off." (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 522, Kaufmann translation.)

    Original (German) text:

    „Wir hören auf zu denken, wenn wir es nicht in dem sprachlichen Zwange tun wollen, wir langen gerade noch bei dem Zweifel an, hier eine Grenze als Grenze zu sehn. Das vernünftige Denken ist ein Interpretieren nach einem Schema, welches wir nicht abwerfen können.“ - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Der Wille zur Macht, 522, S. 358.

    Okay.

    Sauwelios wrote:"We are unable to affirm and to deny one and the same thing: this is a subjective empirical law, not the expression of any 'necessity' but only of an inability.
    [...] Either [the law of contradiction] asserts something about actuality, about being, as if one already knew this from another source; that is, as if opposite attributes could not be ascribed to it. Or the proposition means: opposite attributes should not be ascribed to it. In that case, logic would be an imperative, not to know the true, but to posit and arrange a world that shall be called true by us." (op.cit., section 516.)

    "The earthly kingdom of desires out of which logic grew: the herd instinct in the background. The assumption of similar ["identical"] cases presupposes 'similar souls.' For the purpose of mutual agreement and dominion." (op.cit., section 509.)

    Thus ethics (herd morality) comes before logic.

    No. In order to have ethics logic is needed. The "herd morality" and "ethics" are concepts, created by language, by human language.


    Herd morality preceded the concept "herd morality"; it preceded human language as well.


    Concepts must be defined, must be logical. So logic comes before ethics. Ethics depends on logic. There is no "herd morality" without logic, regardless how romantic (beautiful) the counter "arguments" are.


    "M. Rousseau, he [Maistre] says, tells us that he wants to know about the origins of language. Well, of course M. Condillac, who can answer all questions, can answer this question too. How was language constructed? Why, of course, by the division of labour. A lot of rationalist persons, seeking their own personal advantage, cosily gathered together and proceeded to invent language, says Maistre. The first generation of men, presumably, said BA and the next generation of men said BE. The Assyrians invented the nominative, and the Medes invented the genitive. This is how grammar was made.
    This kind of bitter irony is very appropriate. Maistre was one of the first to perceive that the whole eighteenth-century notion that human institutions are constructed by rational men for limited and intelligible purposes is totally untrue to human nature. Herder had had some such ideas already, and of course the German romantics had them too. Maistre employed a particularly biting and mordant irony for the purpose of dismantling the rickety structures of eighteenth-century theories about the origins of society, especially their peculiarly unhistorical approach." (Isaiah Berlin, Freedom and its Betrayal, "Maistre".)
    User avatar
    Sauwelios
    Philosophical Supremacist
     
    Posts: 7138
    Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
    Location: Amsterdam

    Re: Which is First?

    Postby James S Saint » Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:58 pm

    The word "Logic" only applies to language and its reasoning or argumentation. It does not apply to people, animals, bacterium nor reality itself. Reasoning can be logical. People and anything alive can be rational. The universe itself or reality has nothing to do with logic nor rationality. The universe can neither be illogical nor logical, rational nor irrational. Only a living creature's reasoning and use of language can be logical. And only a living creature's behavior can be rational.
    Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
    Else
    From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

    The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

    You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
    The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
    It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
    As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

    Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
    Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

    The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
    .
    James S Saint
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 25436
    Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

    Re: Which is First?

    Postby James S Saint » Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:03 am

    surreptitious57 wrote:Actually we can say with very remarkable accuracy indeed that science tells us what we know while philosophy tells us what it means because
    science pertains to knowledge [ scientia means to know ] and philosophy pertains to wisdom [ philo means love of and sophia means wisdom ]

    Science can only tell you if you were wrong. It cannot tell you if you are right, nor what you know. In a sense, Science can only tell you that you don't know something.
    Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
    Else
    From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

    The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

    You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
    The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
    It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
    As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

    Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
    Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

    The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
    .
    James S Saint
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 25436
    Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

    Re: Which is First?

    Postby Sauwelios » Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:11 am

    James S Saint wrote:The word "Logic" only applies to language and its reasoning or argumentation. It does not apply to people, animals, bacterium nor reality itself. Reasoning can be logical.


    I think it's good that you insist on precision in using these terms, but when is reasoning logical? When it happens in accordance with axioms that cannot be falsified by reason? "The axioms of logic" may only be the laws of human thought (and not even necessarily of all human beings--unless we define "human" by those laws).
    User avatar
    Sauwelios
    Philosophical Supremacist
     
    Posts: 7138
    Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
    Location: Amsterdam

    Re: Which is First?

    Postby James S Saint » Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:47 am

    Sauwelios wrote:
    James S Saint wrote:The word "Logic" only applies to language and its reasoning or argumentation. It does not apply to people, animals, bacterium nor reality itself. Reasoning can be logical.


    I think it's good that you insist on precision in using these terms, but when is reasoning logical? When it happens in accordance with axioms that cannot be falsified by reason? "The axioms of logic" may only be the laws of human thought (and not even necessarily of all human beings--unless we define "human" by those laws).

    Reasoning is logical when it is consistent and coherent. That is all that is required.

    You were correct in saying that logic tells of validity, not necessarily soundness. But there are times when logic can establish soundness. Definitional Logic entails using, as the axioms, only declared definitions. Declared definitions cannot be false. Any proper logic based simply upon true definitions, is necessarily true.

    Example:
    Declared ontological definition: "To exist" is to have affect.

    Within the ontology (the chosen language of thought), such a declaration cannot be disputed. It is a definition of a concept. It is true to the ontology by default. The declaration is saying that if there is anything that has no affect, we are going to call that item "nonexistent". You might personally want to call such items by some other category. Anyone is free to choose their own ontology. Of course the ontology itself is only "true" when it matches reality. But if you say, "no, existence is .. something else..", you have erred. People can understand reality in differing ways, possibly each as true as the other. Just don't go mixing ontologies. If you declare that "existence" means something incompatibly different, you must limit your use of the word to your different ontology.

    Given the exampled ontological definition, it is logical to continue by saying, "if there is an affect happening, there is an existence present." That conclusion is necessarily true. Science could never dispute the conclusion, and in fact, is dependent upon its truth (one cannot empirically demonstrate the existence of something that has no affect).

    A great deal more can be logically derived from that indisputable beginning. As long as the logic is valid, every conclusion concerning existence will be necessarily true. The scientific method can only let you know if you make a mistake. Science could never verify that you are right, only that your logic was invalid, if and when it was invalid (a contradiction in your statements).

    As it turned out, from that beginning, one can derive indisputable facts concerning every aspect of physics, even beyond what popular science claims to know.
    Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
    Else
    From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

    The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

    You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
    The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
    It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
    As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

    Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
    Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

    The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
    .
    James S Saint
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 25436
    Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

    Re: Which is First?

    Postby Faust » Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:10 am

    Arminius wrote:
    Faust wrote:Was reading an article in the SEP and came upon this:

    Ontology is the study of beings or their being — what is.
    Epistemology is the study of knowledge — how we know.
    Logic is the study of valid reasoning — how to reason.
    Ethics is the study of right and wrong — how we should act.
    Phenomenology is the study of our experience — how we experience.

    Philosophers have sometimes argued that one of these fields is “first philosophy”, the most fundamental discipline, on which all philosophy or all knowledge or wisdom rests. Historically (it may be argued), Socrates and Plato put ethics first, then Aristotle put metaphysics or ontology first, then Descartes put epistemology first, then Russell put logic first, and then Husserl (in his later transcendental phase) put phenomenology first.

    Not Russel, but Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege put logic first. The modern logic (logistic, analytic etc.) was founded by Frege. Frege was Russel’s mathematical, logical, philosophical father.

    Image


    mmmmmyeah. I didn't say that Russell was the first to put logic first, but that he put logic first. Either way, no one read Frege until Russell told them to.
    User avatar
    Faust
    Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
     
    Posts: 16726
    Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

    Re: Which is First?

    Postby Faust » Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:19 am

    Reasoning doesn't have to be "logical" because "reason" is a more general term.

    BTW, "first" is left ambiguous because A) the OP is mostly for fun and B) cannot be answered definitively in either sense.

    I think epistemology is, for instance, an archaic art, full of magic and religion. Others think it's fundamental to philosophy. Mostly, no one thinks about any of the major fields of philosophy as being expendable. IIRC, that's what i was getting at. FWIW.
    User avatar
    Faust
    Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
     
    Posts: 16726
    Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

    Re: Which is First?

    Postby Sauwelios » Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:43 am

    James S Saint wrote:
    Sauwelios wrote:
    James S Saint wrote:The word "Logic" only applies to language and its reasoning or argumentation. It does not apply to people, animals, bacterium nor reality itself. Reasoning can be logical.


    I think it's good that you insist on precision in using these terms, but when is reasoning logical? When it happens in accordance with axioms that cannot be falsified by reason? "The axioms of logic" may only be the laws of human thought (and not even necessarily of all human beings--unless we define "human" by those laws).

    Reasoning is logical when it is consistent and coherent. That is all that is required.

    You were correct in saying that logic tells of validity, not necessarily soundness. But there are times when logic can establish soundness. Definitional Logic entails using, as the axioms, only declared definitions. Declared definitions cannot be false. Any proper logic based simply upon true definitions, is necessarily true.

    Example:
    Declared ontological definition: "To exist" is to have affect.


    This already requires more basic axioms, such as the law of non-contradiction. Otherwise, any negation of your definition may be equally "definitional" (axiomatic).


    Within the ontology (the chosen language of thought), such a declaration cannot be disputed. It is a definition of a concept. It is true to the ontology by default. The declaration is saying that if there is anything that has no affect, we are going to call that item "nonexistent". You might personally want to call such items by some other category. Anyone is free to choose their own ontology. Of course the ontology itself is only "true" when it matches reality. But if you say, "no, existence is .. something else..", you have erred. People can understand reality in differing ways, possibly each as true as the other. Just don't go mixing ontologies. If you declare that "existence" means something incompatibly different, you must limit your use of the word to your different ontology.


    All ontologies may also be false. Then a statement that is false in any specific ontology may reflect reality more truly than a "true statement".


    Given the exampled ontological definition, it is logical to continue by saying, "if there is an affect happening, there is an existence present." That conclusion is necessarily true. Science could never dispute the conclusion, and in fact, is dependent upon its truth (one cannot empirically demonstrate the existence of something that has no affect).


    (But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.)


    A great deal more can be logically derived from that indisputable beginning. As long as the logic is valid, every conclusion concerning existence will be necessarily true. The scientific method can only let you know if you make a mistake. Science could never verify that you are right, only that your logic was invalid, if and when it was invalid (a contradiction in your statements).

    As it turned out, from that beginning, one can derive indisputable facts concerning every aspect of physics, even beyond what popular science claims to know.


    That's nifty. But what about religion? Revelation? That could still reflect reality better than any science or reason.
    User avatar
    Sauwelios
    Philosophical Supremacist
     
    Posts: 7138
    Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
    Location: Amsterdam

    PreviousNext

    Return to Philosophy



    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]