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 Nah » Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:50 pm

Faust wrote:I consider philosophy an eliminative practise.

That's on reason I put "awareness" first.
I mean, we can't "perceive", "think", or "study" without awareness.
And awareness of awareness (which gives a sot of "positive pattern matching" sensation/feeling) is the first evaluation, the first (presupposed) certainty, the first affirmation, the first "true"/"truth", and thus first "knowledge/knowing", so to say.
It's the starting point of logic and study of anything.
And it's the first attachment (a.k.a. love), in a way, too.

So, it seems that awareness (with the awareness of awareness) is the back born of "philo-sophy", and the first foundation to base other hypothesis and thoughts and studies.

Or, from the other way around, to examine the awareness, we only need the awareness of awareness. We can eliminate all other studies and thoughts and logic (and pre-logic) used for them.


Fent wrote:I'd have to agree with Nah and Moreno. First is "awareness" or the "awareness of being aware"; without awared consciousness "things" can't be posited. So phenomenology comes first.

Does "phenomenology" sufficiently deal with awareness?

To me, the awareness "itself" is required, first.
And it's like we need to open our eyes before to see things (=perception) and recognize objects (=cognition) and compare/evaluate them and study relations and more about the incoming information (=study of something, "somethingology").
So, "phenomenology" being one of "study", it may come later.

By observing how our awareness is, in the density, shape, focus, and so on, which isn't necessarily easy nor evident for many, we can start to have the foundation of logic (in broader sense) in the sense of comparison/evaluation of focus of awareness.
With logic, we can study anything we are interested, attracted, as we know how to compare, measure, and evaluate in many ways, adopting different perspectives (focuses of awareness) as needed/preferred.

The rest depends on the motivation, desire, fear, etc of each person, associated with one's preferences and beliefs, I'd say. It's more or less tribal.
And which "study" (other than the study of awareness by awareness) should be prioritized would be dictated by the desired goal of the given person.
Perspective Logic - (Unofficial) ILP Wiki
Please put me in your ignore list if you don't like what I write. I don't mind it at all
Since it's not my intention to increase the suffering of others, please don't read my posts if you don't like them.
I do think existence, awareness, material, beings, and humans including you and me to be insane and stupid for structural reasons and from observable behaviors.
I don't think most humans have the preference for logical honesty/integrity that would make us to think in reasonable manner.
I don't think most of us have enough emotional stability to face simple anxiety and fear including existential anxiety.
And I like to think and dig things many of us don't really want to see.
Combination of these may make some of you uncomfortable, irritated, and turn into emotional, irrational, and even fanatic mental state.
So, please ignore my posts if you don't like them or if they make you feel uneasy.

Thank you for your understanding. :)
Nah
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1964
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:31 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby anon » Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:13 pm

I was just thinking about this. If I had to choose from the list I'd choose ethics. You've got to act. You've been acting since you were born - even before. Once you start questioning your own and others' actions, you start getting into the other stuff. You don't dig a hole from the bottom up - you start at the top.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Which is First?

Postby Diekon » Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:51 pm

I agree with Anon, generally people seem to assume the possibility to know, and what is, even before they start to philosophize. It seems common sense more than philosophy.

A philosopher could of course backtrack these common sense assumptions, but possibly ends up again where he's started. I suppose there can be some value in that, but to me morality seems to be where the real questions are at.
Diekon
Thinker
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 am

Re: Which is First?

Postby fuse » Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:59 pm

Fent wrote:I'd have to agree with Nah and Moreno. First is "awareness" or the "awareness of being aware"; without awared consciousness "things" can't be posited. So phenomenology comes first.

Being aware, or being aware of being aware, is not sufficient for practicing/studying phenomenology...
(Nah wasn't talking about phenomenology when he said awareness is first.)

Just like knowing things doesn't make you a student/philosopher of epistemology...
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4539
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby statiktech » Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:09 pm

Faust wrote:It may, but the desire alone is not the study of ethics.


Agreed, it's conjecture, but I figure the natural progression from desire to curiosity to study isn't an outlandish notion.

Which is why I put it last. I consider philosophy an eliminative practise. This may mean that we actually agree. To me, primacy goes to epistemology, because it is in epistemology that there is the most to eliminate.


I think we are on the same page, actually. Similar approach, but from different starting points. Epistemology just seems like a rough starting point to me because it seems like the most speculative. Hume alone really did a number on me, personally.

In my case, it was both the demon and the god.


Now this I would love to know more about...
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5412
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Which is First?

Postby eyesinthedark » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:45 pm

i think the philosophy of philosophy is first, kind of like what we're doing here, you have to know what it is you're doing before you do it, lol.
Formerly known as Lucis Trust.

Necessity is the mother of invention, luxury is the whore of abominations.
User avatar
eyesinthedark
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3000
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:04 am

Re: Which is First?

Postby Silhouette » Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:53 pm

anon wrote:You don't dig a hole from the bottom up - you start at the top.

This raises a point about what is meant by "first".

Chronologically in one's lifetime, questions of ethics are going to come first. After that, it's whatever you think is most relevant to such questions.

And once you've waded through them all, you can then decide which are more "fundamental" than the others, which leads to this:

Faust wrote:I think the choice you make about this list describes your philosophy more than it describes philosophy.

I gave my version just as everyone else has, and we're still no closer to any objective truth lol.

Maybe we could group together same-answers from different people and call that "their truth".
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3204
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Which is First?

Postby statiktech » Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:15 pm

Silhouette wrote:Chronologically in one's lifetime, questions of ethics are going to come first. After that, it's whatever you think is most relevant to such questions.


This is why I found Faust's response to my initial post interesting. I became interested in philosophy because of ethics, but immediately took to epistemology first in my own studies. I'm not exactly sure why that was the case, but it seems this approach isn't all too uncommon.

From that perspective, it isn't so much like digging a hole. The hole has been dug -- that is what prompts our desire to understand it. So, perhaps it is more like examining a hole to see how it was dug before concentrating on why it was dug or what to do with it. In the same sense, I felt compelled to look at how we know in order to refine my understanding of what we claim to "know" and why.

Makes sense.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5412
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Which is First?

Postby anon » Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:20 pm

To be clear, what I meant by the hole analogy is that all you can do is start where you are. For me, that was ethics - and I bet it's ethics for many, or even most. It's the least abstract, and the most relevant to daily life (for most, I think). Therefore, it's also what gets returned to again and again. It can even provide a litmus test of sorts for the quality of one's views on epistemology, ontology, etc.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Which is First?

Postby Nah » Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:33 pm

fuse wrote:
Fent wrote:I'd have to agree with Nah and Moreno. First is "awareness" or the "awareness of being aware"; without awared consciousness "things" can't be posited. So phenomenology comes first.

Being aware, or being aware of being aware, is not sufficient for practicing/studying phenomenology...
(Nah wasn't talking about phenomenology when he said awareness is first.)

Just like knowing things doesn't make you a student/philosopher of epistemology...

Maybe I can try to compare phenomenology perceived/interpreted by me and my preferences/attitudes.

Phenomenology <== vs
==> Awareness based study (I sometime call it "Perspective logic")

P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenol ... losophy%29 <== vs
==> A: Focusing awareness phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=168136
"Perspective Logic" phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=169433

Phenomenology, in Husserl's conception, is primarily concerned with the systematic reflection on and analysis of the structures of consciousness, and the phenomena which appear in acts of consciousness. <== vs
==> Awareness based study is mostly done with the perspective of information processing, and underlying geometry of focuses of awareness.

P: intentionality (often described as "aboutness"), the notion that consciousness is always consciousness of something. <== vs
==> A: Awareness can be focusless. It may focus on some area, direction, thing, etc.

P: though they have different structures and different ways of being "about" the object, an object is still constituted as the same identical object; <== vs
==> A: To the awareness, everything is considered as information. I don't care so much IF there is real object or not. It appears as if there are physical (and possibly other) objects, but I simply treat/process information. Maybe it can be called infomationalism.

P: Husserl’s method entails the suspension of judgment while relying on the intuitive grasp of knowledge, free of presuppositions and intellectualizing. <== vs
==> A: For the awareness, everything is temporary/impermanent. All evaluation is conditional/limited/temporary and useful/practical only within the specific conditional perspective. There is no presupposition of permanent/absolute judgment.

P: The phenomenological method serves to momentarily erase the world of speculation by returning the subject to his or her primordial experience of the matter, whether the object of inquiry is a feeling, an idea, or a perception. <== vs
==> A: Awareness based approach goes even further, erasing all permanent/absolute flavored speculation/presumption (as much as possible) by seeing things in simple (in basic principle) yet complex (in structures and combination) information processing model.

P: According to Husserl the suspension of belief in what we ordinarily take for granted or infer by conjecture diminishes the power of what we customarily embrace as objective reality. <== vs
==> A: According to me, taking things for granted and embracing objective reality is s#%@# and i%$#@% (auto-censored to respect the taste of sensitive members).

P: According to Safranski (1998, 72), “[Husserl and his followers’] great ambition was to disregard anything that had until then been thought or said about consciousness or the world [while] on the lookout for a new way of letting the things [they investigated] approach them, without covering them up with what they already knew.” <== vs
==> A: I don't have much ambition in this. I just have the personal and highly selfish desire to think and see things in the way I want. I do think it can be used by some other people, but I'm very sure that it cannot be used by very many people, at the same time.
Perspective Logic - (Unofficial) ILP Wiki
Please put me in your ignore list if you don't like what I write. I don't mind it at all
Since it's not my intention to increase the suffering of others, please don't read my posts if you don't like them.
I do think existence, awareness, material, beings, and humans including you and me to be insane and stupid for structural reasons and from observable behaviors.
I don't think most humans have the preference for logical honesty/integrity that would make us to think in reasonable manner.
I don't think most of us have enough emotional stability to face simple anxiety and fear including existential anxiety.
And I like to think and dig things many of us don't really want to see.
Combination of these may make some of you uncomfortable, irritated, and turn into emotional, irrational, and even fanatic mental state.
So, please ignore my posts if you don't like them or if they make you feel uneasy.

Thank you for your understanding. :)
Nah
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1964
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:31 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Faust » Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:01 pm

The sense of first used in the list is "of primacy" - not chronologically first.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16748
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby anon » Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:12 pm

Faust wrote:The sense of first used in the list is "of primacy" - not chronologically first.

For me it's both. In case it wasn't clear.

Though that's just my thoughts at the moment. I've never really considered the question before.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Which is First?

Postby felix dakat » Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:14 pm

Historically ontology came first. That it has been overtaken by epistemology is a symptom of the modernity.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8103
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Which is First?

Postby Faust » Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:20 pm

Historically, ethics came first, in the canon of Western Philosophy. Plato set the tone for epistemology (and everything else) being subservient to ethics.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16748
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Valley » Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:37 am

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.

Which one would you put first?


Ther is no first, no begining to everything, everything has always been...IDK
What do I know?
Valley
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:45 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby statiktech » Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:55 am

Faust wrote:The sense of first used in the list is "of primacy" - not chronologically first.


Yeah, this is exactly were I think I was confused in my original response. Ethics came first chronologically. That is [largely] what peaked my interest in philosophy, but not really where I began in terms of study. In fact, my views have evolved so drastically over the years that I don't feel I ever really understood the concepts, let alone moral/ethical theory, to begin with. I think I've just begun to grasp the ideas with some confidence -- and I still don't feel like I know shit...
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5412
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fent » Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:51 am

fuse wrote:
Fent wrote:I'd have to agree with Nah and Moreno. First is "awareness" or the "awareness of being aware"; without awared consciousness "things" can't be posited. So phenomenology comes first.

Being aware, or being aware of being aware, is not sufficient for practicing/studying phenomenology...
(Nah wasn't talking about phenomenology when he said awareness is first.)

Just like knowing things doesn't make you a student/philosopher of epistemology...



Experiencing occurs from birth whether we are conscious of it or not. Children unconsciously departmentalisation their experiences, and adults moreso because they are more "aware"; philosophers especially are experts at this. As soon as any departmentalisation occurs "things" are posited. Therefore, the study of experience is the preconception upon which all other studies lie. Studies needs "things" to study, and experience is the prerequisite for "things" to come into being.
Fent
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1447
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:03 am
Location: Australia

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fent » Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:56 am

How does ethics come first? Ethics means nothing until experience has been studied and the conclusion has been made that "this particular phenomenon I see here is ethics".
Fent
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1447
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:03 am
Location: Australia

Re: Which is First?

Postby felix dakat » Thu Jun 09, 2011 3:51 pm

Faust wrote:Historically, ethics came first, in the canon of Western Philosophy. Plato set the tone for epistemology (and everything else) being subservient to ethics.


The pre-socratic philosophers were primarily interested in the problem of the one and the many which is ontological.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8103
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Which is First?

Postby Faust » Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:04 pm

Yeah, I know, Felix. Some of them were, sure. But we don't know that we have a representative sample of most of them.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16748
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby felix dakat » Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:17 pm

Faust wrote:Yeah, I know, Felix. Some of them were, sure. But we don't know that we have a representative sample of most of them.


We may not have a representative sample of ethicists or epistemologists either, but based on the historical record we do have, ontology came first when men departed from religion and began philosophical speculation.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8103
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Which is First?

Postby Valley » Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:24 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Faust wrote:Yeah, I know, Felix. Some of them were, sure. But we don't know that we have a representative sample of most of them.


We may not have a representative sample of ethicists or epistemologists either, but based on the historical record we do have, ontology came first when men departed from religion and began philosophical speculation.


Well you could say that religion was a sort of result of philosophical thinking, not exactly the best, not exactly called, but i think it resulted as a result of the same brain functioning...
What do I know?
Valley
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:45 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Faust » Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:38 pm

I don;t consider the Presocratics as part of the canon, Felix. Feel free to do so, if you wish.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16748
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Nah » Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:38 pm

Valley wrote:Well you could say that religion was a sort of result of philosophical thinking, not exactly the best, not exactly called, but i think it resulted as a result of the same brain functioning...

I think the basic desire is similar.
The aversion toward uncertainty/ambiguity pushed some to have seemingly "right" explanation/theory/narrative so that they can have the sense of certainty/stability(in the sense of permanence).

Some of us are more difficult/picky about the standard/precision/consistency of the storyline, while others can be happy with (nearly) anything told.
Perspective Logic - (Unofficial) ILP Wiki
Please put me in your ignore list if you don't like what I write. I don't mind it at all
Since it's not my intention to increase the suffering of others, please don't read my posts if you don't like them.
I do think existence, awareness, material, beings, and humans including you and me to be insane and stupid for structural reasons and from observable behaviors.
I don't think most humans have the preference for logical honesty/integrity that would make us to think in reasonable manner.
I don't think most of us have enough emotional stability to face simple anxiety and fear including existential anxiety.
And I like to think and dig things many of us don't really want to see.
Combination of these may make some of you uncomfortable, irritated, and turn into emotional, irrational, and even fanatic mental state.
So, please ignore my posts if you don't like them or if they make you feel uneasy.

Thank you for your understanding. :)
Nah
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1964
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:31 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby statiktech » Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:54 pm

felix dakat wrote:We may not have a representative sample of ethicists or epistemologists either, but based on the historical record we do have, ontology came first when men departed from religion and began philosophical speculation.


Is this supposed to pertain to the whole of humanity as well as the whole of philosophical thought?
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5412
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]