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 James S Saint » Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:17 am

Sauwelios wrote:
James S Saint wrote: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).

No, that is a rule of the logic. We are not talking about the rules of logic. We are talking about whether a proof concerning reality can be derived strictly from logic. Of course logic has its rules. Logic itself is not an axiom of logic, else it could be anything. Consistency of language (aka "logic") includes non-contradiction (aka non-inconsistency) by default.

Sauwelios wrote:All ontologies may also be false.

Currently all popular ontologies are.

Sauwelios wrote:Then a statement that is false in any specific ontology may reflect reality more truly than a "true statement".

False, by definition. Since being true means conforming to reality, and its converse is being "false", a true statement cannot be false. Don't confuse declared definitions (descriptions of concepts to be used) with "statements" of conclusion.

Sauwelios wrote:
(one cannot empirically demonstrate the existence of something that has no affect).


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

As I said, science can not tell you of truth, only that you weren't (logically) proven wrong (via demonstrated contradiction).

Sauwelios wrote:
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.

A religion is merely another ontology and applied philosophy. As long as it is internally consistent, comprehensive, and relevant it is true. Of course it might help if they bothered to define significant words such as "God", "spirit", "soul", and so on.
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: 25078
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:36 am

James S Saint wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
James S Saint wrote: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).

No, that is a rule of the logic. We are not talking about the rules of logic. We are talking about whether a proof concerning reality can be derived strictly from logic. Of course logic has its rules. Logic itself is not an axiom of logic, else it could be anything. Consistency of language (aka "logic") includes non-contradiction (aka non-inconsistency) by default.


That's not all I quoted from you, James. You said:

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.


We were, or at least I was, talking about the rules of logic. Logic, by the rules of logic alone, cannot establish soundness. You'd have to give (arbitrary) definitions like your example to do so. But even then it's not necessarily soundness in the sense that the premisses are true in the sense of matching reality, so it's not necessarily soundness, period.


Sauwelios wrote:All ontologies may also be false.

Currently all popular ontologies are.

Sauwelios wrote:Then a statement that is false in any specific ontology may reflect reality more truly than a "true statement".

False, by definition. Since being true means conforming to reality, and its converse is being "false", a true statement cannot be false. Don't confuse declared definitions (descriptions of concepts to be used) with "statements" of conclusion.


I'm not. And I said "false in any specific ontology". It doesn't matter if what I said is "false by definition". Those are just your (arbitrary) definitions, used to specify some ontology or other. And you said:

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.


The latter must--logically--have meant "necessarily true in the exampled ontology". After all, you'd also said:

Of course the ontology itself is only "true" when it matches reality.


This is not necessarily the case, for the exampled ontology or any other. It may only be "true" because of your exampled ontological definition, and it's certainly only necessarily "true" because of that.


Sauwelios wrote:
(one cannot empirically demonstrate the existence of something that has no affect).


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

As I said, science can not tell you of truth, only that you weren't (logically) proven wrong (via demonstrated contradiction).

Sauwelios wrote:
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.

A religion is merely another ontology and applied philosophy. As long as it is internally consistent, comprehensive, and relevant it is true.


In the sense of being internally consistent, comprehensive and relevant, yes; not necessarily in the sense of matching reality... "Revelation" in the context of religion means a revelation of reality, though.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7122
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arminius » Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:18 pm

Faust wrote:
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.

Frege was already famous before Bertrand Russel was born. Back then, everyone of those Europeans who were interested in mathematics, logic, philosophy read Frege; even certain Americans (especially those who had studied in Germany) read Frege at that time.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arminius » Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:23 pm

@ Sauwelios.

We already had the discussion about valid and sound arguments. We do not need to repeat it. James and I also discussed that subject.

And I doubt that a bacterium does not need to behave according to logic. We (the humans) are the interpreters - in any case, thus also in the case that you mentioned (that a bacterium does not need to behave according to logic). But you have not given any proof or evidence for your statement.

We (the humans) can only do what we can - not more.

Basically, we are talking about language, especially about words and very especially about lexemes, log(ic)emes. This may also be called "interpretation“. Even non-linguistic experiences or non-linguistic observations - summed up as non-linguistic empirism - have to be interpreted.

Nietzsche said: „Das vernünftige Denken ist ein Interpretieren nach einem Schema, welches wir nicht abwerfen können.“ (Translated into English: "Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme that we cannot throw off.“) Wir können dieses Interpretieren nicht abwerfen! We cannot throw off this interpretation! We are the interpreters - in any case (see above).

When it comes to the "first-field-of-philosophy“-issue, I am arguing more historically or, more generally said, in a developmental way.

A young child can already argue logically before knowing anything about ethics or morality. This must have been the same during the early human evolution.

And during that early human evolution, there were no human "herds“ but merely human small groups, at least smaller than herds are per definitionem. Human herds occured a bit later.

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

That is just a statement. There are no proofs or evidence for it.

So I repeat and will always repeat my statement: Language and logic preceded the concept "herd morality“.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arminius » Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:26 pm

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. 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.

Exactly. That is what I am saying too. It is our - the human - language that also preceded e.g. the logical concept „herd morality“ and not the other way around, as Sauwelios is suggesting. The concept "herd morality“ is based on an interpretation, on language, on thinking, on logic. Wether there was a "herd morality“ before it was invented logically by using language logically (philosophically) or not is a matter of the interpretation and changes during the time; but I have good reasons for saying that language preceded e.g. the logical concept "herd morality“, and I have given evidence for that. Try to teach a child of a certain developmental age what ethics is by using logic, and you will be successful; but try to teach achild of a certain developmental age what logic is by using ethics, and you will be unsuccessful.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Which is First?

Postby James S Saint » Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:26 pm

Arminius wrote: Try to teach a child of a certain developmental age what ethics is by using logic, and you will be successful; but try to teach achild of a certain developmental age what logic is by using ethics, and you will be unsuccessful.

Great example.

Faust wrote:
    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.

Which one would you put first?

I consider that language, if not spoken, then language of mind (thinking), had to come before that entire list. Language void of consistency in use, isn't language. And since logic is merely the consistency of language, I would have to put logic as "First" on that list.

Studying anything on that list, including logic itself, requires logic to already be engaged, although perhaps poorly so.
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: 25078
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Faust » Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:46 pm

Hi, James. It goes without saying, or should, that philosophy is impossible without language, and difficult with a poor grasp of language. Poor language skills haven't stopped many philosophers, however, from trying.
"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 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:47 pm

Faust wrote:
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.

Makes sense, greeting card?
Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.
User avatar
Otto_West
Doom Pornographer
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 7:40 pm
Location: Dumbfuckistan- Will Work For (FRN) Shekels.

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arminius » Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:52 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote: Try to teach a child of a certain developmental age what ethics is by using logic, and you will be successful; but try to teach achild of a certain developmental age what logic is by using ethics, and you will be unsuccessful.

Great example.

Faust wrote:
    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.

Which one would you put first?

I consider that language, if not spoken, then language of mind (thinking), had to come before that entire list. Language void of consistency in use, isn't language. And since logic is merely the consistency of language, I would have to put logic as "First" on that list.

Studying anything on that list, including logic itself, requires logic to already be engaged, although perhaps poorly so.

I agree.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Which is First?

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:24 pm

Arminius wrote:@ Sauwelios.

We already had the discussion about valid and sound arguments. We do not need to repeat it. James and I also discussed that subject.


That may be, but did you show in any of those discussions that you understand the difference? If so, can you reproduce that part here?


And I doubt that a bacterium does not need to behave according to logic.


I, too, doubt it, actually. But doubt is not an argument.

Nietzsche writes:

"On the origin of logic. The fundamental inclination to posit as equal, to see things as equal, is modified, held in check, by consideration of usefulness and harmfulness, by considerations of success: it adapts itself to a milder degree in which it can be satisfied without at the same time denying and endangering life. This whole process corresponds exactly to that external, mechanical process (which is its symbol) by which protoplasm makes what it appropriates equal to itself and fits it into its own forms and files." (Will to Power 510 whole, Kaufmann trans.)


We (the humans) are the interpreters - in any case, thus also in the case that you mentioned (that a bacterium does not need to behave according to logic). But you have not given any proof or evidence for your statement.


By "need not" I meant that there is no proof that bacteria behave according to logic. Asking me to prove that statement is therefore asking me to prove a negative.


We (the humans) can only do what we can - not more.

Basically, we are talking about language, especially about words and very especially about lexemes, log(ic)emes. This may also be called "interpretation“. Even non-linguistic experiences or non-linguistic observations - summed up as non-linguistic empirism - have to be interpreted.

Nietzsche said: „Das vernünftige Denken ist ein Interpretieren nach einem Schema, welches wir nicht abwerfen können.“ (Translated into English: "Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme that we cannot throw off.“) Wir können dieses Interpretieren nicht abwerfen! We cannot throw off this interpretation! We are the interpreters - in any case (see above).

When it comes to the "first-field-of-philosophy“-issue, I am arguing more historically or, more generally said, in a developmental way.

A young child can already argue logically before knowing anything about ethics or morality. This must have been the same during the early human evolution.


No, this is nonsense. Logic is itself a form of ethics or morality. Consider Nietzsche's early essay "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense" (1873):

"Insofar as the individual wants to maintain himself against other individuals, he will under natural circumstances employ the intellect mainly for dissimulation. But at the same time, from boredom and necessity, man wishes to exist socially and with the herd; therefore, he needs to make peace and strives accordingly to banish from his world at least the most flagrant bellum omnium contra omnes ["war of all against all"]. This peace treaty brings in its wake something which appears to be the first step toward acquiring that puzzling truth drive: to wit, that which shall count as 'truth' from now on is established. That is to say, a uniformly valid and binding designation is invented for things, and this legislation of language likewise establishes the first laws of truth. [... T]o be truthful means to employ the usual metaphors. Thus, to express it morally, this is the duty to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie with the herd and in a manner binding upon everyone. Now man of course forgets that this is the way things stand for him. Thus he lies in the manner indicated, unconsciously and in accordance with habits which are centuries old; and precisely by means of this unconsciousness and forgetfulness he arrives at his sense of truth. From the sense that one is obliged to designate one thing as 'red', another as 'cold', and a third as 'mute', there arises a moral impulse in regard to truth. The venerability, reliability, and utility of truth is something which a person demonstrates for himself from the contrast with the liar, whom no one trusts and everyone excludes. As a 'rational' being, he now places his behavior under the control of abstractions. He will no longer tolerate being carried away by sudden impressions, by intuitions. First he universalizes all these impressions into less colorful, cooler concepts, so that he can entrust the guidance of his life and conduct to them. Everything which distinguishes man from the animals depends upon this ability to volatilize perceptual metaphors in a schema, and thus to dissolve an image into a concept. For something is possible in the realm of these schemata which could never be achieved with the vivid first impressions: the construction of a pyramidal order according to castes and degrees, the creation of a new world of laws, privileges, subordinations, and clearly marked boundaries--a new world, one which now confronts that other vivid world of first impressions as more solid, more universal, better known, and more human than the immediately perceived world, and thus as the regulative and imperative world. Whereas each perceptual metaphor is individual and without equals and is therefore able to elude all classification, the great edifice of concepts displays the rigid regularity of a Roman columbarium and exhales in logic that strength and coolness which is characteristic of mathematics. Anyone who has felt this cool breath [of logic] will hardly believe that even the concept--which is as bony, foursquare, and transposable as a die--is nevertheless merely the residue of a metaphor, and that the illusion which is involved in the artistic transference of a nerve stimulus into images is, if not the mother, then the grandmother of every single concept. But in this conceptual crap game 'truth' means using every die in the designated manner, counting its spots accurately, fashioning the right categories, and never violating the order of caste and class rank. Just as the Romans and Etruscans cut up the heavens with rigid mathematical lines and confined a god within each of the spaces thereby delimited, as within a templum, so every people has a similarly mathematically divided conceptual heaven above themselves and henceforth thinks that truth demands that each conceptual god be sought only within his own sphere. Here one may certainly admire man as a mighty genius of construction, who succeeds in piling an infinitely complicated dome of concepts upon an unstable foundation, and, as it were, on running water. Of course, in order to be supported by such a foundation, his construction must be like one constructed of spiders' webs: delicate enough to be carried along by the waves, strong enough not to be blown apart by every wind. As a genius of construction man raises himself far above the bee in the following way: whereas the bee builds with wax that he gathers from nature, man builds with the far more delicate conceptual material which he first has to manufacture from himself. In this he is greatly to be admired, but not on account of his drive for truth or for pure knowledge of things. When someone hides something behind a bush and looks for it again in the same place and finds it there as well, there is not much to praise in such seeking and finding. Yet this is how matters stand regarding seeking and finding 'truth' within the realm of reason. If I make up the definition of a mammal, and then, after inspecting a camel, declare 'look, a mammal' I have indeed brought a truth to light in this way, but it is a truth of limited value. That is to say, it is a thoroughly anthropomorphic truth which contains not a single point which would be 'true in itself' or really and universally valid apart from man. At bottom, what the investigator of such truths is seeking is only the metamorphosis of the world into man. He strives to understand the world as something analogous to man, and at best he achieves by his struggles the feeling of assimilation. Similar to the way in which astrologers considered the stars to be in man's service and connected with his happiness and sorrow, such an investigator considers the entire universe in connection with man: the entire universe as the infinitely fractured echo of one original sound--man--; the entire universe as the infinitely multiplied copy of one original picture--man. His method is to treat man as the measure of all things, but in doing so he again proceeds from the error of believing that he has these things [which he intends to measure] immediately before him as mere objects. He forgets that the original perceptual metaphors are metaphors and takes them to be the things themselves." (http://nietzsche.holtof.com/Nietzsche_various/on_truth_and_lies.htm)


And during that early human evolution, there were no human "herds“ but merely human small groups, at least smaller than herds are per definitionem. Human herds occured a bit later.


This distinction of yours between herds and "human small groups" assumes that herds cannot be small. "Small" is a relative term.


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

That is just a statement. There are no proofs or evidence for it.


Sure there are. Nietzsche coined the term "herd morality" in the late 1800s to refer to something that already existed in prehistory.


So I repeat and will always repeat my statement: Language and logic preceded the concept "herd morality“.


The concept "herd morality" is not the same as that which that term refers to...

At most, language is coeval with herd morality. Language won't emerge if there is no herd or group, no others for the individual to communicate with. The development of the rules of language, however, is of a kind with the development of the morality of custom. For the latter especially see Nietzsche's Dawn.


Arminius 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. 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.

Exactly. That is what I am saying too. It is our - the human - language that also preceded e.g. the logical concept „herd morality“ and not the other way around, as Sauwelios is suggesting.


That's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is that herd morality--not the logical concept "herd morality"--preceded human language (though not language in general, as bees also have language).


The concept "herd morality“ is based on an interpretation, on language, on thinking, on logic. Wether there was a "herd morality“ before it was invented logically by using language logically (philosophically) or not is a matter of the interpretation and changes during the time; but I have good reasons for saying that language preceded e.g. the logical concept "herd morality“, and I have given evidence for that. Try to teach a child of a certain developmental age what ethics is by using logic, and you will be successful; but try to teach achild of a certain developmental age what logic is by using ethics, and you will be unsuccessful.


Wrong. You can teach a child to think logically by teaching it that it's bad, not allowed, punishable to contradict oneself, for example. Indeed, this is how the development of logical thinking always works. At the very least one is punished with not being understood, being considered thick, mad, etc.

Here's something for you to ponder. Was there a prehistory before the concept was "invented logically by using language logically"? The concept "prehistory" was invented in history; the term obviously defines it in relation to history. But "prehistory" refers to the period before history...
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7122
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arminius » Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:48 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Arminius wrote:@ Sauwelios.

We already had the discussion about valid and sound arguments. We do not need to repeat it. James and I also discussed that subject.


That may be, but did you show in any of those discussions that you understand the difference? If so, can you reproduce that part here?


And I doubt that a bacterium does not need to behave according to logic.


I, too, doubt it, actually. But doubt is not an argument.

Nietzsche writes:

"On the origin of logic. The fundamental inclination to posit as equal, to see things as equal, is modified, held in check, by consideration of usefulness and harmfulness, by considerations of success: it adapts itself to a milder degree in which it can be satisfied without at the same time denying and endangering life. This whole process corresponds exactly to that external, mechanical process (which is its symbol) by which protoplasm makes what it appropriates equal to itself and fits it into its own forms and files." (Will to Power 510 whole, Kaufmann trans.)


We (the humans) are the interpreters - in any case, thus also in the case that you mentioned (that a bacterium does not need to behave according to logic). But you have not given any proof or evidence for your statement.


By "need not" I meant that there is no proof that bacteria behave according to logic. Asking me to prove that statement is therefore asking me to prove a negative.


We (the humans) can only do what we can - not more.

Basically, we are talking about language, especially about words and very especially about lexemes, log(ic)emes. This may also be called "interpretation“. Even non-linguistic experiences or non-linguistic observations - summed up as non-linguistic empirism - have to be interpreted.

Nietzsche said: „Das vernünftige Denken ist ein Interpretieren nach einem Schema, welches wir nicht abwerfen können.“ (Translated into English: "Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme that we cannot throw off.“) Wir können dieses Interpretieren nicht abwerfen! We cannot throw off this interpretation! We are the interpreters - in any case (see above).

When it comes to the "first-field-of-philosophy“-issue, I am arguing more historically or, more generally said, in a developmental way.

A young child can already argue logically before knowing anything about ethics or morality. This must have been the same during the early human evolution.


No, this is nonsense. Logic is itself a form of ethics or morality. Consider Nietzsche's early essay "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense" (1873):

"Insofar as the individual wants to maintain himself against other individuals, he will under natural circumstances employ the intellect mainly for dissimulation. But at the same time, from boredom and necessity, man wishes to exist socially and with the herd; therefore, he needs to make peace and strives accordingly to banish from his world at least the most flagrant bellum omnium contra omnes ["war of all against all"]. This peace treaty brings in its wake something which appears to be the first step toward acquiring that puzzling truth drive: to wit, that which shall count as 'truth' from now on is established. That is to say, a uniformly valid and binding designation is invented for things, and this legislation of language likewise establishes the first laws of truth. [... T]o be truthful means to employ the usual metaphors. Thus, to express it morally, this is the duty to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie with the herd and in a manner binding upon everyone. Now man of course forgets that this is the way things stand for him. Thus he lies in the manner indicated, unconsciously and in accordance with habits which are centuries old; and precisely by means of this unconsciousness and forgetfulness he arrives at his sense of truth. From the sense that one is obliged to designate one thing as 'red', another as 'cold', and a third as 'mute', there arises a moral impulse in regard to truth. The venerability, reliability, and utility of truth is something which a person demonstrates for himself from the contrast with the liar, whom no one trusts and everyone excludes. As a 'rational' being, he now places his behavior under the control of abstractions. He will no longer tolerate being carried away by sudden impressions, by intuitions. First he universalizes all these impressions into less colorful, cooler concepts, so that he can entrust the guidance of his life and conduct to them. Everything which distinguishes man from the animals depends upon this ability to volatilize perceptual metaphors in a schema, and thus to dissolve an image into a concept. For something is possible in the realm of these schemata which could never be achieved with the vivid first impressions: the construction of a pyramidal order according to castes and degrees, the creation of a new world of laws, privileges, subordinations, and clearly marked boundaries--a new world, one which now confronts that other vivid world of first impressions as more solid, more universal, better known, and more human than the immediately perceived world, and thus as the regulative and imperative world. Whereas each perceptual metaphor is individual and without equals and is therefore able to elude all classification, the great edifice of concepts displays the rigid regularity of a Roman columbarium and exhales in logic that strength and coolness which is characteristic of mathematics. Anyone who has felt this cool breath [of logic] will hardly believe that even the concept--which is as bony, foursquare, and transposable as a die--is nevertheless merely the residue of a metaphor, and that the illusion which is involved in the artistic transference of a nerve stimulus into images is, if not the mother, then the grandmother of every single concept. But in this conceptual crap game 'truth' means using every die in the designated manner, counting its spots accurately, fashioning the right categories, and never violating the order of caste and class rank. Just as the Romans and Etruscans cut up the heavens with rigid mathematical lines and confined a god within each of the spaces thereby delimited, as within a templum, so every people has a similarly mathematically divided conceptual heaven above themselves and henceforth thinks that truth demands that each conceptual god be sought only within his own sphere. Here one may certainly admire man as a mighty genius of construction, who succeeds in piling an infinitely complicated dome of concepts upon an unstable foundation, and, as it were, on running water. Of course, in order to be supported by such a foundation, his construction must be like one constructed of spiders' webs: delicate enough to be carried along by the waves, strong enough not to be blown apart by every wind. As a genius of construction man raises himself far above the bee in the following way: whereas the bee builds with wax that he gathers from nature, man builds with the far more delicate conceptual material which he first has to manufacture from himself. In this he is greatly to be admired, but not on account of his drive for truth or for pure knowledge of things. When someone hides something behind a bush and looks for it again in the same place and finds it there as well, there is not much to praise in such seeking and finding. Yet this is how matters stand regarding seeking and finding 'truth' within the realm of reason. If I make up the definition of a mammal, and then, after inspecting a camel, declare 'look, a mammal' I have indeed brought a truth to light in this way, but it is a truth of limited value. That is to say, it is a thoroughly anthropomorphic truth which contains not a single point which would be 'true in itself' or really and universally valid apart from man. At bottom, what the investigator of such truths is seeking is only the metamorphosis of the world into man. He strives to understand the world as something analogous to man, and at best he achieves by his struggles the feeling of assimilation. Similar to the way in which astrologers considered the stars to be in man 's service and connected with his happiness and sorrow, such an investigator considers the entire universe in connection with man: the entire universe as the infinitely fractured echo of one original sound-man; the entire universe as the infinitely multiplied copy of one original picture-man. His method is to treat man as the measure of all things, but in doing so he again proceeds from the error of believing that he has these things [which he intends to measure] immediately before him as mere objects. He forgets that the original perceptual metaphors are metaphors and takes them to be the things themselves." (http://nietzsche.holtof.com/Nietzsche_various/on_truth_and_lies.htm)


And during that early human evolution, there were no human "herds“ but merely human small groups, at least smaller than herds are per definitionem. Human herds occured a bit later.


This distinction of yours between herds and "human small groups" assumes that herds cannot be small. "Small" is a relative term.


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

That is just a statement. There are no proofs or evidence for it.


Sure there are. Nietzsche coined the term "herd morality" in the late 1800s to refer to something that already existed in prehistory.


So I repeat and will always repeat my statement: Language and logic preceded the concept "herd morality“.


The concept "herd morality" is not the same as that which that term refers to...

At most, language is coeval with herd morality. Language won't emerge if there is no herd or group, no others for the individual to communicate with. The development of the rules of language, however, is of a kind with the development of the morality of custom. For the latter especially see Nietzsche's Dawn.


Arminius 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. 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.

Exactly. That is what I am saying too. It is our - the human - language that also preceded e.g. the logical concept „herd morality“ and not the other way around, as Sauwelios is suggesting.


That's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is that herd morality--not the logical concept "herd morality"--preceded human language (though not language in general, as bees also have language).


The concept "herd morality“ is based on an interpretation, on language, on thinking, on logic. Wether there was a "herd morality“ before it was invented logically by using language logically (philosophically) or not is a matter of the interpretation and changes during the time; but I have good reasons for saying that language preceded e.g. the logical concept "herd morality“, and I have given evidence for that. Try to teach a child of a certain developmental age what ethics is by using logic, and you will be successful; but try to teach achild of a certain developmental age what logic is by using ethics, and you will be unsuccessful.


Wrong. You can teach a child to think logically by teaching it that it's bad, not allowed, punishable to contradict oneself, for example. Indeed, this is how the development of logical thinking always works. At the very least one is punished with not being understood, being considered thick, mad, etc.

WHAT A NONSENSE !

If you you try to teach a child, as you said, "to think logically by teaching it that it's bad, not allowed, punishable to contradict oneself", then you are alraedy arguing logically, because in this case the child alraedy knows what "bad" means, what "not allowed" means, what "punishable" means, what "contradict oneself" means (otherwise you could not use those words in order to teach the child). So you should urgently rethink your example and search for another one. But I can guarantee you: you will never find one. Good luck! :)

The ONLY "argument" you have is "Nietzsche". But Nietzsche was not always right, as you should know.

Also: If you try to teach a child "to think logically by teaching it that it's bad, not allowed, punishable to contradict oneself", then the child will always ask "why?" (if not "what does that mean?" [see above]). So without referring to logic you will always (always!) be unsuccessful, because you will not be capable of giving an answer to the child without referring to logic.

We use language in order to teach, and we use just the logical part of language in order to teach. And even more so in the case of ethics, because ethics can only be taught by using logic.

What you are saying is always the same:

Sauwelios wrote:.... Nietzsche ...

That is no argument.

Forget the last German romanticist, leave the 19th century and be welcomed in the 21st century, Sauwelios! :)
Last edited by Arminius on Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Which is First?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:16 pm

The child matures when he stops thinking in terms of punishment and reward and begins thinking in terms of need, his own and other's. When the need is taught, the child matures more quickly.

Logic is about the need to construct thought and communicate. It is not so much about what one "should do or else".
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: 25078
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:59 am

Arminius wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Arminius wrote:The concept "herd morality“ is based on an interpretation, on language, on thinking, on logic. Wether there was a "herd morality“ before it was invented logically by using language logically (philosophically) or not is a matter of the interpretation and changes during the time; but I have good reasons for saying that language preceded e.g. the logical concept "herd morality“, and I have given evidence for that. Try to teach a child of a certain developmental age what ethics is by using logic, and you will be successful; but try to teach achild of a certain developmental age what logic is by using ethics, and you will be unsuccessful.


Wrong. You can teach a child to think logically by teaching it that it's bad, not allowed, punishable to contradict oneself, for example. Indeed, this is how the development of logical thinking always works. At the very least one is punished with not being understood, being considered thick, mad, etc.

WHAT A NONSENSE !

If you you try to teach a child, as you said, "to think logically by teaching it that it's bad, not allowed, punishable to contradict oneself", then you are alraedy arguing logically, because in this case the child alraedy knows what "bad" means, what "not allowed" means, what "punishable" means, what "contradict oneself" means (otherwise you could not use those words in order to teach the child). So you should urgently rethink your example and search for another one. But I can guarantee you: you will never find one. Good luck! :)


Something is not "nonsense" just because it's possible to think deeper, to elaborate on it.

The child will indeed first have to have learned that "bad", "not allowed" etc. mean that the kind of behaviour of which that is predicated tends to be followed by experiences that are unpleasant for the child.

This does mean ethics is preceded by--aesthetics...


The ONLY "argument" you have is "Nietzsche". But Nietzsche was not always right, as you should know.


The typical dismissal of those who cannot deal with the content of my quotes.

I asked you to consider that passage from "On Truth and Lies". Did you? And if so, do you not consider it most sensible?


Also: If you try to teach a child "to think logically by teaching it that it's bad, not allowed, punishable to contradict oneself", then the child will always ask "why?" (if not "what does that mean?" [see above]). So without referring to logic you will always (always!) be unsuccessful, because you will not be capable of giving an answer to the child without referring to logic.


If by "logic" you're referring to the logos in the sense of a (walking) stick, as I have investigated in my videos...

"Don't do that!"
--"Why not?"
[Smack]


We use language in order to teach, and we use just the logical part of language in order to teach. And even more so in the case of ethics, because ethics can only be taught by using logic.


If ethics can only be taught by using logic, how can logic be taught?


What you are saying is always the same:

Sauwelios wrote:.... Nietzsche ...

That is no argument.

Forget the last German romanticist, leave the 19th century and be welcomed in the 21st century, Sauwelios! :)


That's grand, coming from someone who thinks Kant is the greatest philosopher. Or have you come around on that since http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2531041#p2531041?

You said there that you were not a Kantian, but a historian of philosophy. But it's precisely as a historian that you are lacking. Where's your solution to the problem posed by historicism?

"[T]he full phenomenon of a cow is for a Hindu constituted much more by the sacredness of the cow than by any other quality or aspect. This implies that one can no longer speak of our 'natural' understanding of the world; every understanding of the world is 'historical.' Correspondingly, one must go back behind the one human reason to the multiplicity of historical, 'grown' not 'made,' languages. Accordingly there arises the philosophic task of understanding the universal structure common to all historical worlds. Yet if the insight into the historicity of all thought is to be preserved, the understanding of the universal or essential structure of all historical worlds must be accompanied and in a way guided by that insight. This means that the understanding of the essential structure of all historical worlds must be understood as essentially belonging to a specific historical context, to a specific historical period. The character of the historicist insight must correspond to the character of the period to which it belongs. The historicist insight is the final insight in the sense that it reveals all earlier thought as radically defective in the decisive respect and that there is no possibility of another legitimate change in the future which would render obsolete or as it were mediatise the historicist insight. As the absolute insight it must belong to the absolute moment in history." (Strauss, "Philosophy as Rigorous Science and Political Philosophy", with my emphasis.)

Nietzsche solved the difficulty indicated here, by his philosophy of the eternal recurrence of the world as will to power.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7122
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Which is First?

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:06 am

James S Saint wrote:The child matures when he stops thinking in terms of punishment and reward and begins thinking in terms of need, his own and other's. When the need is taught, the child matures more quickly.

Logic is about the need to construct thought and communicate. It is not so much about what one "should do or else".


A need is something one "should do or else".
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7122
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arminius » Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:26 am

James S Saint wrote:The child matures when he stops thinking in terms of punishment and reward and begins thinking in terms of need, his own and other's. When the need is taught, the child matures more quickly.

Logic is about the need to construct thought and communicate. It is not so much about what one "should do or else".

That is right. But you need logic for understanding, explaining, using language in a coherent way etc.; thus: you also need it in order to learn and teach something about that what comes after logic, for example: ethics.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arminius » Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:13 am

Sauwelios wrote:Something is not "nonsense" just because it's possible to think deeper, to elaborate on it.

It is, because you have not thought deeper and not elaborated on it.

Sauwelios wrote:The child will indeed first have to have learned that "bad", "not allowed" etc. mean that the kind of behaviour of which that is predicated tends to be followed by experiences that are unpleasant for the child.

So you admit that logic comes before ethics. Okay. :)

Sauwelios wrote:This does mean ethics is preceded by--aesthetics...

Nobody said that here.

Sauwelios wrote:
The ONLY "argument" you have is "Nietzsche". But Nietzsche was not always right, as you should know.

The typical dismissal of those who cannot deal with the content of my quotes.

It does not matter whether it is typical or not, because you are in any case more typical than most others here (including me).

And what you are saying here has nothing to do with dealing with the "content" of your posts. It is just that I am not always in the mood to talk about the words of your god.

Sauwelios wrote:I asked you to consider that passage from "On Truth and Lies". Did you? And if so, do you not consider it most sensible?

I did.

Sauwelios wrote:
Also: If you try to teach a child "to think logically by teaching it that it's bad, not allowed, punishable to contradict oneself", then the child will always ask "why?" (if not "what does that mean?" [see above]). So without referring to logic you will always (always!) be unsuccessful, because you will not be capable of giving an answer to the child without referring to logic.


If by "logic" you're referring to the logos in the sense of a (walking) stick, as I have investigated in my videos...

"Don't do that!"
--"Why not?"
[Smack]

:?:

Sauwelios wrote:
We use language in order to teach, and we use just the logical part of language in order to teach. And even more so in the case of ethics, because ethics can only be taught by using logic.


If ethics can only be taught by using logic, how can logic be taught?

Did you never learn logic?
Are you that ignorant?
Or are you just joking? :P

Sauwelios wrote:
What you are saying is always the same:

Sauwelios wrote:.... Nietzsche ...

That is no argument.

Forget the last German romanticist, leave the 19th century and be welcomed in the 21st century, Sauwelios! :)

That's grand, coming from someone who thinks Kant is the greatest philosopher. Or have you come around on that since http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2531041#p2531041?

I was referring to af fact, the fact that you are always using the quotes of your false god and some of his translators (also always the same).
Again. I am not always in the mood to talk about them. Okay?

Sauwelios wrote:You said there that you were not a Kantian, but a historian of philosophy. But it's precisely as a historian that you are lacking. Where's your solution to the problem posed by historicism?

If you had the tiniest idea of what history is could be, then you would know that history has not much to do with solutions, unless they themselves are historical objects (but this is not the case here).

Sauwelios wrote:"[T]he full phenomenon of a cow is for a Hindu constituted much more by the sacredness of the cow than by any other quality or aspect. This implies that one can no longer speak of our 'natural' understanding of the world; every understanding of the world is 'historical.' Correspondingly, one must go back behind the one human reason to the multiplicity of historical, 'grown' not 'made,' languages. Accordingly there arises the philosophic task of understanding the universal structure common to all historical worlds. Yet if the insight into the historicity of all thought is to be preserved, the understanding of the universal or essential structure of all historical worlds must be accompanied and in a way guided by that insight. This means that the understanding of the essential structure of all historical worlds must be understood as essentially belonging to a specific historical context, to a specific historical period. The character of the historicist insight must correspond to the character of the period to which it belongs. The historicist insight is the final insight in the sense that it reveals all earlier thought as radically defective in the decisive respect and that there is no possibility of another legitimate change in the future which would render obsolete or as it were mediatise the historicist insight. As the absolute insight it must belong to the absolute moment in history." (Straussthus: Nietzsche,"Philosophy as Rigorous Science and Political Philosophy", with my emphasis.)

Nietzsche [duh!] solved the difficulty indicated here, by his philosophy of the eternal recurrence of the world as will to power.

Sauwelios, I have nothing against Nietzsche. I have something against the fact that it is not you who is talking when you are "talking". Nietzsche was a human being that lived in the 19th century. He has done many great things and some silly things. He is important for the history of philosophy, of literature, but he is certainly not that god that you obviously see in him.
Last edited by Arminius on Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Which is First?

Postby James S Saint » Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:19 am

Sauwelios wrote:A need is something one "should do or else".

To the mature, "need" has nearly nothing to do with "should".
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: 25078
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arminius » Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:10 am

Sauwelios is in a dilemma. If he admits that logic is before ethics, then he also admits that Nietzsche was partly wrong, but he does not want to admit that Nietzsche was partly wrong.

The modernity of philosophy is a philosophy of ethics. Okay. But this does not prove that ethics comes before logic - the reverse is true, because it gives evidence for the developmental fact that logic comes before ethics.

So if Sauwelios admitted this, then he would have to give up his idol (false god) Nietzsche who was justifiably a famous philosopher of the modern times of philosophy. I know that this is an imposition for Sauwelios. But maybe - someday - he will learn just from Nietzsche at last, because Nietzsche at least seemed to give up his idol at last.

The historical development of the philosophical question of our current subject - "logic comes before ethics" - can be called "modern war of philosophy" and has a parallel in science: "modern war of science". On the one "war front" ("left") are fighting ethical philosophers and social scientists, and on the other "war front" ("right") are fighting logical philosophers and natural scientists and spiritual (especially logical, mathematical) scientists. (Note: There are also "spies", "renegates", "defectors", "deserters" in that said "war".) - If the ethical-social side will "win" that "war", then the science as we have known it and will have known it till then will be finally "dead".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:12 pm

Arminius you are such aan amateur man.

Think a bit deeper.

How does one teach logic? Through logic?
You really are capable of thinking that... illogically?

No, logic is obviously informed by the desire to work according to method.
Which is ethics.

(Having a standard)

Back to Sauwelios, who, thankfully, can handle this.
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 Arcturus Descending » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:23 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Arminius you are such aan amateur man.

Think a bit deeper.

How does one teach logic? Through logic?
You really are capable of thinking that... illogically?

No, logic is obviously informed by the desire to work according to method.
Which is ethics.

(Having a standard)

Back to Sauwelios, who, thankfully, can handle this.


One learns logic through ethics?
I would think that it was the other way around, Jakob, but perhaps I am not grasping your meaning.
Isn't right reason and cognitive thinking involved in the study of ethics?

If you could have used a different word, rather than ethics and standard, what would it be?
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 Arminius » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:31 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Arminius you are such aan amateur man.

Think a bit deeper.

How does one teach logic? Through logic?
You really are capable of thinking that... illogically?

No, logic is obviously informed by the desire to work according to method.
Which is ethics.

(Having a standard)

Back to Sauwelios, who, thankfully, can handle this.

Said by the one who is not even capable of reaching the lowest amateur-league.

Do you (including all your suck puppets) and Sauwelios even know what logic means?

You sillily think believe that you can teach logic through ethics. How silly you are!

Try to think, you ignorant dreamer!
Last edited by Arminius on Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arminius » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:36 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:One learns logic through ethics?
I would think that it was the other way around, Jakob ....

According to those stupid dreamers, everything must be taught through ethics, even mathematics. :lol:
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:43 pm

Ill make it more simple: logic is an ethics.
A standard of operating.

If one didn't have the ethical standard that compels one to use a method, as well as the ethical standard that compels one to remain consistent with it, one could not very wel practice a method at all.

None of this relates to consciousness.
James is right about this - logic is not something that requires consciousness. Rather, consciousness requires logic.
But logic, and this is where VO and Nietzsche come in, demands standard.

Which is ethics.



We see this in the modern left. The entire intellectual academic class has lost its capacity for the most basic logical deduction. This is not because they're not technically capable of it, but because they have no standard of being. They have no power to refer anything to a consistent standard, they can not operate their consciousness methodically anymore - they are insane, have lost logical powers, are no longer Homo sapiens - simply because they are too liberal, have been too loose on standards and values for too long.

Their lack of ethics directly translates into an impotence before logic. This is not an exaggeration or a metaphor - it is literally the case. Logic does no longer occur in liberal discourse.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 encode_decode » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:49 pm

    Indeed!

    Fixed Cross wrote:Ill make it more simple: logic is an ethics.
    A standard of operating.

    If one didn't have the ethical standard that compels one to use a method, as well as the ethical standard that compels one to remain consistent with it, one could not very wel practice a method at all.

    None of this relates to consciousness.
    James is right about this - logic is not something that requires consciousness. Rather, consciousness requires logic.
    But logic, and this is where VO and Nietzsche come in, demands standard.

    Which is ethics.

    I second this - except I don't know what VO is and I do not know a great deal about Nietzsche otherwise I agree.
    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 Fixed Cross » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:53 pm

    encode_decode wrote:
      Indeed!

      Fixed Cross wrote:Ill make it more simple: logic is an ethics.
      A standard of operating.

      If one didn't have the ethical standard that compels one to use a method, as well as the ethical standard that compels one to remain consistent with it, one could not very wel practice a method at all.

      None of this relates to consciousness.
      James is right about this - logic is not something that requires consciousness. Rather, consciousness requires logic.
      But logic, and this is where VO and Nietzsche come in, demands standard.

      Which is ethics.

      I second this - except I don't know what VO is and I do not know a great deal about Nietzsche otherwise I agree.

      Proud to hear it!

      You will have relatively little trouble understanding VO then, if you'd wish to.
      http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1 ... e-ontology

      And you may enjoy our Nietzsche board.
      http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/f7 ... e-campfire
      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

      PreviousNext

      Return to Philosophy



      Who is online

      Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot]