is there or has there been any study to substantiate this claim? I would say it is as difficult to make such claim as it is to differentiate between objective and subjective propositions.
Thanks to the linguistics, we know the semantic field of the morpheme “lov”.
Pandora
.
I can understand that… from the mundane to the sublime. I think this might happen even more so when we’re kind of in a pensive open state of mind that’s not cluttered with constant thought or more so, when we’re able to pick up on certain signals from people. I’m rambling. 
I think these kind of “labels” are meant to make us feel more than we are and meant to discount the fact that they are not worth the money. If it sounds great, it has more value. Me, I get almost black, no sugar.
Maybe he was in a compromising kind of mood.
That’s true. It is easier to see in others. It’s not an easy thing to look into the mirror that is another and see ourselves and what is, in actuality, staring back at us.
Only if one adapts what they’ve learned to their behavior and life’s perspective ~~ that is, the positive side of philosophy as opposed to the negative, for instance, pessimism , a better more whittled down kind of nihilism is good and stoicm is good, et cetera.
d63
These aren’t my words nor my sense of what the hierarchy ought to be. They came from google. 
So, which one of the philosophers did influence you the most? And what were the words or the thoughts which made you realize that you were not ment to be a “rock star”? And how do you know you weren’t? 
But before I do, I want to cover another point you made:
I can understand what you’re saying here. I think that by reason of being those things above, you automatically become a philosopher because you would necessarily look on life in a particular way, you pay attention to life, you study it, et cetera. Or you’re the philospher in the first place…
Yes, I’ve actually been told that it’s a waste of my time, it means nothing and what does it bring me? But it’s impossible to explain to someone who can’t “get it” how it does enrich my life, how it makes me think and feel, how I’ve learned to think in a clearer way because of it (clearer for me, that is). I’m told that i used to believe in god - that I must not have believed in god in the first place and I don’t know what I’m doing. I tried to tell this particular person about the nature of belief and how philosophy has changed me - even though truth be told I always had a kind of philosophical mind, though as I said I was no scholar or academic. I’ve always wondered and been curious about things. Different things enrich different people.
I remember reading what James (JSS) said - that logic needs to go before metaphysics and i kind of go along with that. Then metaphysics but I would actually put ethics before metaphysics lol because to me ethics or What should I do is more important and more interesting. There is no black and white with ethics and it really does make you have to see things from different perspectives/ all situations and circumstances are different, before one can form an opinion or make a decision.
As far as - Politics - what actions are permissible - wouldn’t that be more a case for ethics?
or maybe another way of putting this is what does it reveal about life, if that made sense.
I don’t understand what metaphysics has to do with 'running society". Wouldn’t that be more ethics and politics or politics and ethics would be a better way to say it.
Metaphysics>Logic>Aesthetics>Ethics>Politics
Strictly speaking or perhaps loosely speaking, isn’t metaphysics more or less about reality or unreality of a goD?
Perhaps one of the reasons that I might just put metaphysics last is because I do not the reality of a god as having any bearing on how we conduct our lives (ethics) and how we use power. That might not make much sense to you but it’s the way I see it. It gets back to the stupid thought that an atheist cannot be ethical or loving or compassionate. I’m going off at a tangent here. These are just my musings, such as they are.
Another problem is that a lot has changed since Durant published his book in 1929, mainly the developments of Phenomenology, Existentialism, and post structuralism and post modernism and the terminology that has come with it. So now we can revise and write the formula (in its basic sense(as:
I’d still put logic before metaphysics
And much as we did with the old school formula, we must reverse this into the same kind of infinite back and forth without beginning or end.
That does make sense to me though I could have never put that in my own words but i do understand what you’re saying. Almost reminds me of the saying - God writes straight with crooked lines. lol
Maybe just a case of semantics here? Of course, whatever category of aesthetics or art, it does reveal what life is or was and it also conjures up in one’s imaginaton what more can be said of a particular work of art… I once wrote my musings from my imagination and thoughts/feelings that Van Gogh’s “Shoes” instilled in me. That’s also the beauty of art - how much further our minds and imagination can take us through it,
Is your relationship to philosophy substantially or even only determined by aesthetics?
Arc is just an aesthetic kind of gal. 
And she was right about this;
Rationality (aka “Ethics”) is a more primary concern than the metaphysics supporting it. Ethics or rationality dictates the purpose for any particular metaphysics (which btw, has no particular concern for there being a god or not). But I’m not sure that they can really be separated. What should be done is contingent upon what is. And what is, is contingent upon what is relevant to the purpose of organizing it into a truth model, “a metaphysics”.
Philosophy is alive and well. If you know where to look.
No. Philosophy is not alive. Philosophy may be good, anyway, I like it.
If you’re speaking to me here, no, it is not. One can say that I am more of an “everything” kind of woman lol. I have no “special” ~~ “special” interest ~~ I don’t think when it comes to philosophy. If you were to ask me to at least try to pinpoint the one, it would probably be ethics.
[b]esthetics, also spelled esthetics , the philosophical study of beauty and taste. It is closely related to the philosophy of art, which is concerned with the nature of art and the concepts in terms of which individual works of art are interpreted and evaluated.
I may be wrong here in my interpretation of that, but that seems to be more of a scholarly focus to me, an individual’s main interest. But maybe I’m wrong, Like I said, I am interested in all branches, not deeply because I am not brilliant but still interested in the way in which they can bring one to seek out truth, answer questions which lead to more questions, attain wisdom…not philosophy for its own sake but how it can enrich me, help me to re-discover myself, transform me… it can at times really turn me on I guess because thinking and wondering and trying to grasp at things, even having the mind boggled down, really is capable of bringing us into another world.
I might even say that if I had only one more day to live - like tomorrow - the one thing, well, of course, it would be to spend the time with my children, but if I couldn’t do that - I would probably spend that time in the park being with nature, harmonizing with it and reading a philosophy book or a psychology book or maybe one of Joseph Campbell’s books or Rumi.
Nature brings me to aesthetics, to wonder, to imagine, to create, for instance, to poetry.
But James, don’t you think that language DID come first. Didn’t it all start with a kind of grunt? lol
I daresay though that consciousness came first. Can you even imagine the great difficulty it took to express that consciousness, one’s thoughts and feelings with that grunt? I think logic came later, maybe much later considering what we have of it now.
In any case:
One has to have electric transmitter, for example: nerves.
Without logic consciousness makes no sense because there must be a construction of a logical relationship for the consciousness, even also when it is merely an imagination. Without logic language makes also no sense. But what about logic? Does logic make sense without consciousness? No. Does logic make sense without language? Probably yes. A very primitive bacterium somehow “knows” what to do in order to survive, but probably does not need a language (note: language does not necessarily always mean “human language”, but also “language for all beings”).
Another consideration:
Luxury.
If we consider the principle “luxury”, we come to other results: in that case namely the language came perhaps first because the sense behind it was simply the luxury from which other phenomena arose, e.g. logic. So the grunt (as an example) has only a meaning behind it because of the luxury of grunts.
Referring to the German scientist Paul Alsberg (cp. "Das Menschheitsrätsel, 1922) the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk once said (in: Geo -Wissen, September 1998, p. 43-47): “The human beings are descended from the throw” ( 
) and “human beings have no coat / fur / hide / pett anymore because they are luxury beings”, no beings of adaptation to their environment (cp. Darwin and Darwinism), but on the contrary: beings of alienation,of insulation (cp. isles and islands). Human language, human sexuality, human emotions … etc. are possibly caused by luxury. But what about language in general then?
Logic comes in four forms;
1) person reasoning, often “flawed logic”
2) the concept of logic; “A is A” or “what is, is what is”.
3) the language/thoughts of logic; “If A is B and B is C then …”
4) the reality of logic; the reality that what anything is, really is what it is.
That 4th form of logic “comes first” before anything and everything - “First Principle” (and has even been called “God”, even by Moses).
James,
Why did you say that I am an aesthetics kind of girl? Were you actually referring to aesthetics itself as is being discussed or something else? 
What do you think about the following classification?:
There are mathematics, logic (philosophy), linguistics, semiotics on the one side which is more spiritual than material, and there are physics, chemistry, biology, economy (incl. sociology and others) on the other side which is more material than spiritual. So we have:
|Mathematics||Logic (Philosophy)||Linguistics||Semiotics| “versus” |Physics||Chemistry||Biology||Economy (Sociology a.o.)|
This is not merely meant in the sense of scientific disciplines, but also and especially in the sense of existence at all.
There are two sides of existence: a more spiritual than material and a more material than spiritual which are different concentrations of the same thing, interconvertible, and that means that they are similar to energy and mass).
If you are in love with philosophy because of aesthetics, then please let me know.
I was referring to this;
"I remember reading what James (JSS) said - that logic needs to go before metaphysics and i kind of go along with that. "
Once again, Arturus, I agree that JSS makes a compelling point -that is since we tend to arrive at metaphysical conclusions via logic and lack the empirical means of confirming our metaphysical assertions. Still, I would argue (with some reservations and self questioning (that the import of Logic is propped up by metaphysical assumptions about how we must interact with reality.
That said, you make some compelling points yourself.Unfortunately, I am at the outre or coda phase of today’s process. I hope to get back to this.
But you can combine this with ethics and make it matter of value statements.
If you are in love with philosophy because of ethics, then please let me know.