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 Dan~ » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:36 am

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.
    I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
    https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
    User avatar
    Dan~
    ILP Legend
     
    Posts: 9731
    Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
    Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

    Re: Which is First?

    Postby gib » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:49 am

    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.


      But how does one know how to live?
      My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

      “Global acts of terrorism happen every day. Uh, here's something that's never happened before: I'm a pickle! I'm Pickle Rick!!!"
      - Rick Sanchez
      User avatar
      gib
      little shitheaded Buddha
       
      Posts: 8272
      Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
      Location: lost (don't try to find me)

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby encode_decode » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:53 am

      gib wrote:But how does one know how to live?

      By thinking.

      :lol:
      The emotion is "in the world," not in the mind, the psyche, or the soul. (Robert C. Solomon - 1998)
      - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -
      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Thinker
       
      Posts: 611
      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
      Location: Watching the Nishikigoi

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby gib » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:54 am

      encode_decode wrote:
      gib wrote:But how does one know how to live?

      By thinking.

      :lol:


      And what does thought require? (drum roll please :D )
      My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

      “Global acts of terrorism happen every day. Uh, here's something that's never happened before: I'm a pickle! I'm Pickle Rick!!!"
      - Rick Sanchez
      User avatar
      gib
      little shitheaded Buddha
       
      Posts: 8272
      Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
      Location: lost (don't try to find me)

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby encode_decode » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:56 am

      gib wrote:And what does thought require? (drum roll please :D )

      Living . . .

      ?

      Possibly?

      :-k
      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Thinker
       
      Posts: 611
      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
      Location: Watching the Nishikigoi

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby Sauwelios » Sun Aug 06, 2017 4:20 am

      gib wrote:
      encode_decode wrote:
      gib wrote:But how does one know how to live?

      By thinking.

      :lol:


      And what does thought require? (drum roll please :D )


      Laws.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought
      User avatar
      Sauwelios
      Philosophical Supremacist
       
      Posts: 7122
      Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
      Location: Amsterdam

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby encode_decode » Sun Aug 06, 2017 4:28 am


      Do the laws work when you are dead?

      #-o
      The emotion is "in the world," not in the mind, the psyche, or the soul. (Robert C. Solomon - 1998)
      - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -
      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Thinker
       
      Posts: 611
      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
      Location: Watching the Nishikigoi

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby gib » Sun Aug 06, 2017 4:31 am

      People, people... I was going for logic.

      Why don't we say this: the most important branch of philosophy is ethics (by definition). But the first philosophy is logic. It's like if you want to cure cancer. What do you study first: advanced medicine or grade school mathematics?
      My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

      “Global acts of terrorism happen every day. Uh, here's something that's never happened before: I'm a pickle! I'm Pickle Rick!!!"
      - Rick Sanchez
      User avatar
      gib
      little shitheaded Buddha
       
      Posts: 8272
      Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
      Location: lost (don't try to find me)

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby encode_decode » Sun Aug 06, 2017 4:38 am

      gib wrote:People, people... I was going for logic.

      Why don't we say this: the most important branch of philosophy is ethics (by definition). But the first philosophy is logic. It's like if you want to cure cancer. What do you study first: advanced medicine or grade school mathematics?

      I was getting confused . . .

      :lol:

      Kidding . . . I knew what you were going for that is why I returned to living.

      Teach you Yoda-speak. I will . . . OOYL . . . Only Once You Live . . . Logic first, must study you . . . OOYL . . .
      The emotion is "in the world," not in the mind, the psyche, or the soul. (Robert C. Solomon - 1998)
      - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -
      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Thinker
       
      Posts: 611
      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
      Location: Watching the Nishikigoi

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby Sauwelios » Sun Aug 06, 2017 4:44 am

      gib wrote:People, people... I was going for logic.


      I was basically saying logic. The laws of thought are the axioms of logic.


      Why don't we say this: the most important branch of philosophy is ethics (by definition). But the first philosophy is logic. It's like if you want to cure cancer. What do you study first: advanced medicine or grade school mathematics?


      Medicine is more different from ethics than mathematics is from logic. And who's telling you you have to go to grade school? The Law. Ethics.

      But ethics and Ethics are not the same. The study of ethics is not required to have ethics. Same for Logic and logic.
      User avatar
      Sauwelios
      Philosophical Supremacist
       
      Posts: 7122
      Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
      Location: Amsterdam

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby gib » Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:11 am

      encode_decode wrote:Teach you Yoda-speak. I will . . . OOYL . . . Only Once You Live . . . Logic first, must study you . . . OOYL . . .


      Yoda speak is awesome for writing poetry. Try writing any poem. Even if you think you suck, write a poem, and then switch it to Yoda speak... it will sound ten times better.

      Sauwelios wrote:I was basically saying logic. The laws of thought are the axioms of logic.


      Ah, I thought you meant legal laws--like we have to bring in the thought police. But yes, laws of logic is what I was getting at.

      Sauwelios wrote:
      Why don't we say this: the most important branch of philosophy is ethics (by definition). But the first philosophy is logic. It's like if you want to cure cancer. What do you study first: advanced medicine or grade school mathematics?


      Medicine is more different from ethics than mathematics is from logic. And who's telling you you have to go to grade school? The Law. Ethics.

      But ethics and Ethics are not the same. The study of ethics is not required to have ethics. Same for Logic and logic.


      I think you're focusing more on the analogy than the point. I'm just saying one has to learn to think properly before thinking of anything important.

      I agree with your point about the difference between ethics vs. Ethics, and logic vs. Logic, but the question the OP is asking is: what is first philosophy?
      My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

      “Global acts of terrorism happen every day. Uh, here's something that's never happened before: I'm a pickle! I'm Pickle Rick!!!"
      - Rick Sanchez
      User avatar
      gib
      little shitheaded Buddha
       
      Posts: 8272
      Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
      Location: lost (don't try to find me)

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby Sauwelios » Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:12 am

      gib wrote:
      Sauwelios wrote:
      Why don't we say this: the most important branch of philosophy is ethics (by definition). But the first philosophy is logic. It's like if you want to cure cancer. What do you study first: advanced medicine or grade school mathematics?


      Medicine is more different from ethics than mathematics is from logic. And who's telling you you have to go to grade school? The Law. Ethics.

      But ethics and Ethics are not the same. The study of ethics is not required to have ethics. Same for Logic and logic.


      I think you're focusing more on the analogy than the point. I'm just saying one has to learn to think properly before thinking of anything important.


      But can one learn to think properly without thinking about anything important?


      I agree with your point about the difference between ethics vs. Ethics, and logic vs. Logic, but the question the OP is asking is: what is first philosophy?


      Right. But philosophy, or thinking, can exist before thinking about thinking (Logic). The latter is only of instrumental, albeit indispensable, importance. What will cause philosophy to arise is the mystery surrounding the most important things. And you've affirmed that Ethics is the most important branch of philosophy. Even Aristotle's (as distinct from Socrates' and Plato's) "first philosophy", Metaphysics, followed from that:

      "Philosophy is the quest for the 'principles' of all things, and this means primarily the quest for the 'beginnings' of all things or for 'the first things.' [...] Prephilosophic life is characterized by the primeval identification of the good with the ancestral. Therefore, the right way [or custom: ethos] necessarily implies thoughts about the ancestors and hence about the first things simply." (Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History, pp. 82-83.)
      User avatar
      Sauwelios
      Philosophical Supremacist
       
      Posts: 7122
      Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
      Location: Amsterdam

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:20 pm

      Sauwelios wrote:
      gib wrote:I think you're focusing more on the analogy than the point. I'm just saying one has to learn to think properly before thinking of anything important.


      But can one learn to think properly without thinking about anything important?

      Absolutely not. Of course.
      Its just like with any other skill. The more seriously you take it, the better you'll be able to get at it.

      A lot of people think without weight, without putting themselves on the line.
      But world-shaping thought is very risky for the thinker.

      Lightweights like Gib (sorry man, you are the archetypical lightweight) do not know what it means to think. But very, very few people do. Perhaps on this site it is truly only we, the Pentad members, that understand what thinking is.
      Before the Light - No Country for Shrinks

      Image
      The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
      - Thucydides
      User avatar
      Fixed Cross
      Doric Usurper
       
      Posts: 6560
      Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby gib » Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:45 pm

      Sauwelios wrote:But can one learn to think properly without thinking about anything important?


      Yes. There's tons of logic puzzles and riddles on youtube. Like these:



      These can be fun--my daughter and I went through a few of them like this the other day--but they're hardly important--technically, they're a waste of time. I mean, yes, they're important for exercising one's thinking skills, but that's my point. It isn't important for any other reason.

      Sauwelios wrote:Right. But philosophy, or thinking, can exist before thinking about thinking (Logic). Yes. The latter is only of instrumental, albeit indispensable, importance. What will cause philosophy to arise is the mystery surrounding the most important things. And you've affirmed that Ethics is the most important branch of philosophy. Even Aristotle's (as distinct from Socrates' and Plato's) "first philosophy", Metaphysics, followed from that:

      Well, now you're talking about "first" in the chronological sense. I mean "first" in terms of priorities.

      "Philosophy is the quest for the 'principles' of all things, and this means primarily the quest for the 'beginnings' of all things or for 'the first things.' [...] Prephilosophic life is characterized by the primeval identification of the good with the ancestral. Therefore, the right way [or custom: ethos] necessarily implies thoughts about the ancestors and hence about the first things simply." (Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History, pp. 82-83.)


      Strauss seems to be talking about the fundamental here--that which all other things rest on--which is another way of talking about "first" and subsequent principles. You're right that thinking philosophically probably comes before thinking about thinking (chronologically), but what's important is that we hone our thinking skills before drawing conclusions about anything of great importance. Of course, it can all be done at the same time--trying to be conscientious about thinking properly (rational) while thinking of deeply moral issues--but here you would have to put in a concerted effort to distinguish between which conclusions are truly rational and which are just preferable.
      My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

      “Global acts of terrorism happen every day. Uh, here's something that's never happened before: I'm a pickle! I'm Pickle Rick!!!"
      - Rick Sanchez
      User avatar
      gib
      little shitheaded Buddha
       
      Posts: 8272
      Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
      Location: lost (don't try to find me)

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby Sauwelios » Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:37 pm

      gib, this last post of yours is a great example of why I value you. (I must admit I enjoyed Fixed Cross's characterization of you as "the archetypical lightweight", though. Then again, one can be a lightweight and still be a champion in that class--and thereby be stronger than most people who (would) fall in the heavyweight class.)

      ::

      gib wrote:
      Sauwelios wrote:But can one learn to think properly without thinking about anything important?


      Yes. There's tons of logic puzzles and riddles on youtube. Like these:



      These can be fun--my daughter and I went through a few of them like this the other day--but they're hardly important--technically, they're a waste of time. I mean, yes, they're important for exercising one's thinking skills, but that's my point. It isn't important for any other reason.


      I'll check the video later, but yes, logic puzzles and riddles and such constitute a great counterexample. Or at least they seem to do so. For I think this example is not incompatible with my argument. The thing is, I think of philosophy as itself essentially a form of play. Philosophers don't tend to think about things just because those things are "sooo important"; that reeks of moralism and taking oneself too seriously.


      Sauwelios wrote:Right. But philosophy, or thinking, can exist before thinking about thinking (Logic). Yes. The latter is only of instrumental, albeit indispensable, importance. What will cause philosophy to arise is the mystery surrounding the most important things. And you've affirmed that Ethics is the most important branch of philosophy. Even Aristotle's (as distinct from Socrates' and Plato's) "first philosophy", Metaphysics, followed from that:

      Well, now you're talking about "first" in the chronological sense. I mean "first" in terms of priorities.


      Right, good point. And yet I have a problem with it. If we begin with Logic, who's to say we'll ever go beyond it? Logic puzzles may suffice to keep us occupied, without any incentive to move on to more important riddles. And even if we see Logic as only instrumental, it may still be a study which requires at least a lifetime...


      Sauwelios wrote:"Philosophy is the quest for the 'principles' of all things, and this means primarily the quest for the 'beginnings' of all things or for 'the first things.' [...] Prephilosophic life is characterized by the primeval identification of the good with the ancestral. Therefore, the right way [or custom: ethos] necessarily implies thoughts about the ancestors and hence about the first things simply." (Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History, pp. 82-83.)


      Strauss seems to be talking about the fundamental here--that which all other things rest on--which is another way of talking about "first" and subsequent principles. You're right that thinking philosophically probably comes before thinking about thinking (chronologically), but what's important is that we hone our thinking skills before drawing conclusions about anything of great importance. Of course, it can all be done at the same time--trying to be conscientious about thinking properly (rational) while thinking of deeply moral issues--but here you would have to put in a concerted effort to distinguish between which conclusions are truly rational and which are just preferable.


      Right. But I think it goes deeper than logic. For one thing, logic or reason can hardly establish values. (I've personally established the rational value of valuation (i.e., valuing) itself, but using that to establish the value of logic would be circular.) I think the first consideration in the study of logic--as distinct from just doing logic puzzles for fun--should be this:

      http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=1987083#p1987083

      Compare Will to Power 508-522, especially 516:

      https://archive.org/stream/TheWillToPower-Nietzsche/will_to_power-nietzsche_djvu.txt
      User avatar
      Sauwelios
      Philosophical Supremacist
       
      Posts: 7122
      Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
      Location: Amsterdam

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby gib » Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:13 am

      Sauwelios wrote:gib, this last post of yours is a great example of why I value you. (I must admit I enjoyed Fixed Cross's characterization of you as "the archetypical lightweight", though. <-- Oh? I must have missed that. Then again, one can be a lightweight and still be a champion in that class--and thereby be stronger than most people who (would) fall in the heavyweight class.)


      What's the challenge in this sport?

      Sauwelios wrote:I'll check the video later, but yes, logic puzzles and riddles and such constitute a great counterexample. Or at least they seem to do so. For I think this example is not incompatible with my argument. The thing is, I think of philosophy as itself essentially a form of play. Philosophers don't tend to think about things just because those things are "sooo important"; that reeks of moralism and taking oneself too seriously.


      So in other words, we think about that which we enjoy thinking about. All forms of thought provide an opportunity to exercise one's rational thinking skills, so the exercise of logic can be applied to pretty much all areas of thought. The question of what constitutes moral philosophy is answered easily enough by saying: it's when you aim to establish what one ought to do. <-- That too can be done out of the pure enjoyment of thinking. I agree that this is different from "moralizing"--not just in the sense of telling others how to live their lives, but in thinking of yourself as doing moral philosophy because of moral obligations--as if you didn't really enjoy it.

      But that throws a bit of a wrench in the original question: what is first philosophy? It's almost asking: what ought we to study first? Any answer to this might be taken as "moralizing". But I don't think we have to take it as a moral question per se; it could just be a question of how to best achieve our goals: if we want to think clearly and intelligently about certain topics in philosophy, what ought we to put first? What will help us most in our goal. <-- No moral obligations, just practical considerations. This is why I opted for logic: because it has practical effects on all other areas of thought.

      Sauwelios wrote:Right, good point. And yet I have a problem with it. If we begin with Logic, who's to say we'll ever go beyond it? Logic puzzles may suffice to keep us occupied, without any incentive to move on to more important riddles. And even if we see Logic as only instrumental, it may still be a study which requires at least a lifetime...


      Well, I don't think the progression from one area of philosophy to another needs to be that linear. In fact, I don't think we can help but to think of all areas of philosophy as they occur to us. But I do think that the exercise of logic helps with later thoughts in other areas of philosophy. In other words, we go forward making mistakes in pretty much all areas of philosophy until we learn how not to make those mistakes.

      Sauwelios wrote:Right. But I think it goes deeper than logic. For one thing, logic or reason can hardly establish values. (I've personally established the rational value of valuation (i.e., valuing) itself, but using that to establish the value of logic would be circular.) I think the first consideration in the study of logic--as distinct from just doing logic puzzles for fun--should be this:

      viewtopic.php?p=1987083#p1987083


      You mean what statements we take to be true of the world? Unless such statements are deduced through a logic analysis, you are talking about assumptions. I agree with Faust that these are prelogical. We hold onto the assumptions we've experienced to be true in the real world, or which we've been told by a trusted authority, or which we intuite emotionally. <-- The key to choosing our assumptions is to be aware of what grounds are the most reliable. Or, if your goal is just to persuade, which assumptions are shared by those you're trying to persuade. But you do have to bring logic to the table when you try to draw out other truths from those assumptions.
      My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

      “Global acts of terrorism happen every day. Uh, here's something that's never happened before: I'm a pickle! I'm Pickle Rick!!!"
      - Rick Sanchez
      User avatar
      gib
      little shitheaded Buddha
       
      Posts: 8272
      Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
      Location: lost (don't try to find me)

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:50 pm

      I'm not a philosopher ... yet ... I agree with Moreno ... phenomenology first.

      Anyone here familiar with Edith Stein's contribution to phenomenology?

      I've known the name Edith Stein for about 15 years ... known of her interest in phenomenology for most of that time ... yet ... until today had no understanding of phenomenology.

      Let me share a metaphor to illustrate my current understanding ... be it right or wrong.

      A train ... at birth we are like the engine of a train ... the "I" ... the "self" ... the "ego" is the engine.

      As we travel through life we add "cars" to our train ... these "cars" are units/clusters of our personal experiences.

      As we age our "train" grows to be quite long ... many of the units of personal experiences are long forgotten ... yet ... we continue to pull them along.

      From time to time something happens in our external world that triggers a "synthesis" ... a homogeneous grouping of selective units/clusters of experiences and we become more conscious of our life's purpose/meaning.
      "Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

      Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
      User avatar
      pilgrim-seeker_tom
      Philosopher
       
      Posts: 1323
      Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby gib » Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:22 pm

      Pilgrim,

      Do you think we can say that the study of logic is a very narrow focus of the study of phenomenology? I've always thought of phenomenology as the focus on our experiences and the attempt to draw out descriptions of how they feel, turning that into philosophy. Could the study of logic be that specifically applied to rational thought?
      My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

      “Global acts of terrorism happen every day. Uh, here's something that's never happened before: I'm a pickle! I'm Pickle Rick!!!"
      - Rick Sanchez
      User avatar
      gib
      little shitheaded Buddha
       
      Posts: 8272
      Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
      Location: lost (don't try to find me)

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:21 am

      Gib

      Seems to me Edith Stein ... in her thoughts concerning phenomenology ... would consider logic necessary for making sense of experience(s) yet independent of experience ... residing in the sphere ... realm ... of essence(s).
      "Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

      Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
      User avatar
      pilgrim-seeker_tom
      Philosopher
       
      Posts: 1323
      Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:45 am

      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.

      Always possible. Can you give a summary of Russel fundamentals?
      I agree with the statement that the future determines the present as much as the past does. In fact I've made that statement now and then myself, without having read Russell beyond his commentary on Wittgenstein, where I do think he is wrong.

      Russell seems to miss a beat with the shift from logic to semantics. But this does not invalidate his logic. Its just the case that we had to go through postmodernism to grasp the arbitrariness of semantics and the absence of logical consistency in conceptual language. That is what Wittgenstein figured out after which he had to dismiss his Tractatus which had impressed Russel and the English other analytics.

      There is probably still a lot to find in the disagreement of Wittgenstein with Russell and his former self.
      Before the Light - No Country for Shrinks

      Image
      The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
      - Thucydides
      User avatar
      Fixed Cross
      Doric Usurper
       
      Posts: 6560
      Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby gib » Wed Aug 09, 2017 5:21 am

      pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:Gib

      Seems to me Edith Stein ... in her thoughts concerning phenomenology ... would consider logic necessary for making sense of experience(s) yet independent of experience ... residing in the sphere ... realm ... of essence(s).


      Ah, I guess that's where Edith Stein and I differ. To me, the feeling of thought is just another quality of phenomena--it is a subjective experience being had by a brain. "Abstraction" is just its quality.
      My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

      “Global acts of terrorism happen every day. Uh, here's something that's never happened before: I'm a pickle! I'm Pickle Rick!!!"
      - Rick Sanchez
      User avatar
      gib
      little shitheaded Buddha
       
      Posts: 8272
      Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
      Location: lost (don't try to find me)

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:00 am

      Gib ... that's kool ... I subscribe to the "and/both" school :)
      "Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

      Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
      User avatar
      pilgrim-seeker_tom
      Philosopher
       
      Posts: 1323
      Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby Arcturus Descending » Wed Aug 09, 2017 8:25 pm

      gib,


      But how does one know how to live?


      Do we KNOW HOW to live or do we learn how to live moment by moment? I think that it is an ongoing journey learned by following both contiguous and non-contiguous paths.
      We learn by our experiences, both the negative and the positive ones.
      The negative ones, if paid attention to, can teach us more I think than even our positive ones.
      Our mistakes are scattered all over to learn from.

      A baby may also be able to teach you if you pay attention to one. First you at times must learn to live by crawling, then by taking baby steps...putting one slow wobbly foot in front of the other.
      SAPERE AUDE!


      If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


      What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

      Thomas Nagel


      I learn as I write!
      User avatar
      Arcturus Descending
      Consciousness Seeker
       
      Posts: 14666
      Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
      Location: A snowy dark luminous landscape bathed in solitude

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby Faust » Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:58 pm

      Logic is first. Philosopher should do more than just opine. They should make arguments for their positions. Good ones, preferably. Ethics is the disguise for the real work of academic philosophy outside of logic - which is politics.
      "Causation "itself" is simply an abstraction of the fact that there are always causes for everything that exists. Causation is an idea, the "cause" of this idea is (properly, namely that cause of the idea which is truly adequate to its ideatum) the fact that causation is always the case (that things always have causes);, or, perhaps you want to extend that causal structure to every moment of thought and experience you ever had that ended up contributing to your ability to understand the fact that causation is always the case." - Wyld
      User avatar
      Faust
      Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
       
      Posts: 16611
      Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

      Re: Which is First?

      Postby Otto_West » Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:10 am

      Philosophy is that of discussing values and existence in a way that science alone is inefficient or not up to task for.
      Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.
      User avatar
      Otto_West
      Doom Pornographer
       
      Posts: 772
      Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
      Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For (FRN) Shekels.

      PreviousNext

      Return to Philosophy



      Who is online

      Users browsing this forum: No registered users