Page 4 of 18

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:46 pm
by felix dakat
statiktech wrote:
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?


To the best of my knowledge and in general, yes. Before that, philosophy was usually not distinct from religion.

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:38 pm
by statiktech
Why are religion and philosophical speculation necessarily distinct?

Also, there were quite a few pre-socratics and ancient Eastern philosophers who concerned themselves with things like ethics, epistemology, politics, phenomenology, natural sciences, and even mathematics. I'm not saying ontology wasn't a significant part, just that we have no real grounds to assert which came first, on the whole.

Chronologically, it makes sense that we would start with "what is", but that might also suggest that primacy was given to "how we know".

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:41 am
by joekoba
Ontology first
the "How's" later

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:53 am
by Xunzian
I'll go with ethics. The other ones are all fraught with the problem of intellectual masturbation. What do I perceive, what do I know, how can I know? All those questions can quickly be turned into anti-intellectual weapons, to stupid nihilism. Absent some conception of the good, those other questions become pretty meaningless pretty quickly. Let's start with "how should I live?" Once we've got a rough idea as to how that question goes, then we can proceed to the others. That doesn't mean that information we gain along the way oughtn't inform us and lead us to revise that initial perspective. That always needs to happen. Let the next level inform those below it.

So:

How should I live? (ethics) --> Do the various aspects of how I feel I ought live actually make sense? (logic) --> What am I basing this whole system off of? (epistemology) --> am I reliable in doing this? (phenomenology) --> Synthesizing these elements: what is actually going on? (ontology).

That's how I'd order it. Think of it like the Greater Learning. It isn't a strict chain-logic, you don't do them in a strict sequential manner. You need to be working at all elements at the same time. But it is a kind of chain-logic: your progress is limited in order of how well you answer those questions. A really good ontological philosophy is meaningless without a good ethical philosophy (see: Heidigger). Heck, a great logical system devoid of ethics is worthless (see: Industrial Revolution era rationalism). Naturally, ethics also requires the other elements to grow, that is the point of the Perelandra parable. But it is the foundation from which the others are built.

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:19 am
by Moreno
Xunzian wrote:How should I live? (ethics) --> Do the various aspects of how I feel I ought live actually make sense? (logic) --> What am I basing this whole system off of? (epistemology) --> am I reliable in doing this? (phenomenology) --> Synthesizing these elements: what is actually going on? (ontology).
How does one know how one should live? iow epistemology before ethics in any process. Can one truly decide how one should live without knowing what is going on? iow ontology before ethics in process. (and also what is? before how should I live). And heck, I put phenomenology before the whole bunch because if you don't know your own process of experiencing you just got words.

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:12 am
by Xunzian
I don't actually think it matters that much where you start. Given practice as well as the other elements, ethical systems will necessarily develop and refine themselves. Absent ethics, though, I'm not terribly sure how the others advance.

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:09 pm
by statiktech
See, I agree with you, Xun, insofar as all philosophy ultimately speaks to a morality. However, actually understanding that morality, in a detailed philosophic sense, seems to come much later for most [...if ever].

I don't think we can really examine an ethical proposition without first asking "how do we know?".

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:15 pm
by statiktech
And heck, I put phenomenology before the whole bunch because if you don't know your own process of experiencing you just got words.


Even still -- how do we know [what/how] we experience?

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 8:16 pm
by Arcturus Descending
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?

'Being' that ontology's definition is.......

Ontology (from the Greek ὄν, genitive ὄντος: "of that which is", and -λογία, -logia: science, study, theory) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality as such, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

that says and includes all of the others in a nutshell...ontology goes first.
Aside from which, without "Being" itself...nothing comes after.

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:43 am
by Moreno
statiktech wrote:
And heck, I put phenomenology before the whole bunch because if you don't know your own process of experiencing you just got words.


Even still -- how do we know [what/how] we experience?
By most accounts of 'knowing' we don't know. We rise up in our culture and also with the gestalts our senses make. We have a kind of realism and then we either start examining that, noticing exceptions, noticing contradictions, exploring, etc., and this base changes.

We find ourselves with some given philosophy or really philosophies - some partially contradictory set of beliefs and move from there.

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:02 pm
by Xunzian
statiktech wrote:See, I agree with you, Xun, insofar as all philosophy ultimately speaks to a morality. However, actually understanding that morality, in a detailed philosophic sense, seems to come much later for most [...if ever].

I don't think we can really examine an ethical proposition without first asking "how do we know?".


I still think the question: why should we know? comes before that one. I had a discussion with Ucci a while back and his basic position was that it all comes back down to values. We could count all the grains of sand in the Sahara, but what does such an approach accomplish?

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:57 am
by joekoba
Xunzian wrote:
statiktech wrote:See, I agree with you, Xun, insofar as all philosophy ultimately speaks to a morality. However, actually understanding that morality, in a detailed philosophic sense, seems to come much later for most [...if ever].

I don't think we can really examine an ethical proposition without first asking "how do we know?".


I still think the question: why should we know? comes before that one. I had a discussion with Ucci a while back and his basic position was that it all comes back down to values. We could count all the grains of sand in the Sahara, but what does such an approach accomplish?

But doesn't what is it to know come prior to why? Defining what it is to question come before the question? If we ask why should we value questioning, this would lead to what does it mean to value questioning, no?

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:36 pm
by Mr Reasonable
Epistemology gets my vote.

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:01 pm
by without-music
Ethics, for almost the same reasons Xunzian has already enumerated. I'm not so much concerned with notions of the Good, as I am with how one ought to live -- that is, why one ought to pursue knowledge, if one is to pursue it at all. However, my ideal First would be an encompassing of most of the approaches: an onto-ethico-phenomenological epistemology. Ideally.

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:05 pm
by Faust
Based on my experience, i know that is cheating.

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:29 pm
by without-music
Faust wrote:Based on my experience, i know that is cheating.

You're right. Of course, my ethic does not prohibit cheating.

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:05 pm
by Fixed Cross
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?

Of these five, logic seems to be the one enabling the most general statements.

I do not really understand the difference between epistemology, ontology and phenomenology. Knowledge is knowledge of what is; What is said to be is what is known; Both are dependent on our conception of phenomena as reality. There seems to be no real difference between the three.

Ethics is the only one on the list with a clearly outlined purpose, it aims to improve life. But I happen to think that a good ethics relies on logic, or at least that any "god-given" realizations or spontaneously arising values have to be justified by a logical drawing of consequences in order to be an ethics in the philosophical sense.

For me then ethics is the most important, but it relies on logic, so logic would be the first philosophy. This unfortunately places me in the same corner as Bertrand Russell.

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:35 pm
by Silhouette
Fixed Cross wrote:Of these five, logic seems to be the one enabling the most general statements.

But of course there has always been room for illogical philosophies, or pre-logical philosophies that describe phenomena without logical analysis and/or without any strict logic to tie together any subject matter.

Fixed Cross wrote:I do not really understand the difference between epistemology, ontology and phenomenology. Knowledge is knowledge of what is; What is said to be is what is known; Both are dependent on our conception of phenomena as reality. There seems to be no real difference between the three.

Unfortunately the problem of induction plagues philosophy, assuming realms of ontology that aren't yet part of our knowledge - and this has been taken a step further on the introduction of areas of existence that can never be subject to epistemology. Herein lies the birth of faith in the unworldly etc.

Logic and phenomenology can save us from this - but only if one has ears for it.

Fixed Cross wrote:Ethics is the only one on the list with a clearly outlined purpose, it aims to improve life. But I happen to think that a good ethics relies on logic, or at least that any "god-given" realizations or spontaneously arising values have to be justified by a logical drawing of consequences in order to be an ethics in the philosophical sense.

I would regard it as perverse to cover any or all of these 5 areas of philosophy for the sake of refining logic for logic's sake as an end point, or for the sake of studying being, knowing or how we experience as one's end point. I think ethics is quite clearly the "last" of the 5 - and one would be remissed to neglect any of the other 4 in arriving at ethical conclusions. As such, solid, consistent ethics would rely on logic - though also the study of what the "raw materials" were that logic must be applied to, how you can go about experiencing these things, and how that translates into knowledge.

_________________


But then it might be questions of ethics that lead you through all these areas to finally arrive at a more complete ethics.
Logic needs application, requiring the other areas to precede it, but then one can only do the other areas justice by using logic.
Ontology is dependent on phenomenology, but phenomenology can only apply to "what is".
And to say anything at all about anything, one has to have knowledge of it.

Basically this thread is a wild goose chase.

It posits a false question that presupposes there is an order at all.
Quite clearly they are all interlinked and interdependent.

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:13 pm
by Moreno
Xunzian wrote:
statiktech wrote:See, I agree with you, Xun, insofar as all philosophy ultimately speaks to a morality. However, actually understanding that morality, in a detailed philosophic sense, seems to come much later for most [...if ever].

I don't think we can really examine an ethical proposition without first asking "how do we know?".


I still think the question: why should we know? comes before that one. I had a discussion with Ucci a while back and his basic position was that it all comes back down to values. We could count all the grains of sand in the Sahara, but what does such an approach accomplish?
Wouldn't we however have no way of answering the question 'why should we know' if we do not know 'how do we know'? How do we know what we should know? It seems like most people came up with an implicit epistemology - often 'the gods tell some people and knowledge comes from listening to them' - before the why should we know which these experts answered. Though some it seems said that we shouldn't know a lot of stuff.

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 7:09 pm
by Fixed Cross
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.

Thats pretty much valid except that logic needed to be put first beforehand so as to be able to speak about Ethics. Socrates never advocated poetry or free association, he seems, with Pato, to have abhorred all mytserion.

This is essentially what he did, Plato - take away the occult politics of Athens and replace it with universalism - a focus on logic that would be exacerbated under Aristotle, who caused the axiomatization of metaphysical identities.

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 11:51 pm
by Magnus Anderson
Logic/epistemology, which is the study of reasoning, is the most fundamental philosophy.
Betrand Russell sounds like a really cool guy.
I think that these Anglo-Saxon philosophers are underrated by their continental friends.

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:24 am
by Sauwelios
Fixed Cross 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.

Thats pretty much valid except that logic needed to be put first beforehand so as to be able to speak about Ethics. Socrates never advocated poetry or free association, he seems, with Pato, to have abhorred all mytserion.

This is essentially what he did, Plato - take away the occult politics of Athens and replace it with universalism - a focus on logic that would be exacerbated under Aristotle, who caused the axiomatization of metaphysical identities.


Thanks for recycling this thread, I'm really pleased with my original reply. However, I don't think I could understand the implications thereof as well as I can now. Before philosophy arises, epistemology's basic question has already been answered, though not necessarily with the right, correct, true answer. There is already a kind of knowledge, something that is considered knowledge: common sense. Logic (the study) is really the analysis and purification of common sense. It seeks to establish the principles of what makes sense to us: to us, plural, because the logos is the word, and the word is common, communal.

As for phenomenology:

"When I was still almost a boy, Husserl explained to me who was at that time a doubting and dubious adherent of the Marlburg school of neo-Kantianism, the characteristic of his own work in about these terms: 'the Marburg school begins with the roof, while I begin with the foundation.' This meant that for the school of Marburg the sole task of the fundamental part of philosophy was the theory of scientific experience, the analysis of scientific thought. Husserl however had realized more profoundly than anybody else that the scientific understanding of the world, far from being the perfection of our natural understanding, is derivative from the latter in such as way as to make us oblivious of the very foundations of the scientific understanding: all philosophic understanding must start from our common understanding of the world, from our understanding of the world as sensibly perceived prior to all theorizing." (Strauss, "Philosophy as Rigorous Science and Political Philosophy".)

Note that the theory of relativity renders the notion that the sun turns around the earth equally valid to the notion that the earth turns around the sun.

There is much, much more here, but I'll leave it at this, for now. I think our projected debate on whether Value Ontology is a mystification should probably start from these considerations. Heidegger said something like, those who disregard the Nothing thereby annihilate Being (as they do not contrast Being with the Nothing). Strauss said:

"[Kojève and I] both apparently turned away from Being to Tyranny because we have seen that those who lacked the courage to face the issue of Tyranny, who therefore et humiliter serviebant et superbe dominabantur ["themselves obsequiously subservient while arrogantly lording it over others"] were forced to evade the issue of Being as well, precisely because they did nothing but talk of Being." ("Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero", restored final sentence.)

Compare:

"I think Strauss's preoccupation with the problem of Socrates [who preceded the codification of scientific language by Aristotle] in his later years reflects the conviction that the reconstruction of classical political philosophy requires a reliance upon the moral distinctions as the key to the metaphysical distinctions. Political philosophy--meaning thereby first of all moral philosophy--must become the key to philosophy itself. We have access to theoretical wisdom only by taking the moral distinctions with full seriousness. This is very clear in Strauss' marvelous eulogy of Churchill:
'We have no higher duty, and no more pressing duty than to remind ourselves and our students, of political greatness, human greatness, of the peaks of human excellence. For we are supposed to train ourselves and others in seeing things as they are, and this means above all in seeing their greatness and their misery, their excellence and their vileness...'
'Seeing things as they are' refers to the being of things, their metaphysical reality. Yet that being is seen as goodness ('The Primacy of the Good'). The spectacle of political greatness, human greatness becomes then the ground of philosophy itself, because the philosopher himself looks to this spectacle to contemplate the being of things which become manifest in the spectacle. The great statesman thus brings to light the distinctions which are the ground of theoretical as well as practical philosophy. In Strauss, the moral distinctions become the heart of philosophy. And statesmanship thus itself becomes part of philosophic activity, seen in its wholeness. This is Strauss's answer to Heidegger as well (as Churchill was the answer to Hitler)--in whom political philosophy finally disappears. If then we see in Heidegger the death of political philosophy (and the death of God, for they are one and the same), in Strauss we may see their resurrection!" (Harry Jaffa, Letter to Professor S.B. Drury, Political Theory, 15 (August, 1987) p. 324, as quoted in Harry Neumann, Liberalism, Introduction.)

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2017 4:04 pm
by Gloominary
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?

I would put ethics first, it is philosophy after all, love of wisdom, wisdom = ethics/axiology.
I guess the other fields got lumped in with ethics/axiology because they're equally abstract, as opposed to the natural and to a lesser extent social sciences, which're more concrete, with the exception of psychology perhaps, which's equally abstract.
Values, and how to attain what we value, is really the most important question, by definition.
What we should be studying is what has value and value itself, everything else is secondary, or instrumental.

Re: Which is First?

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:51 am
by encode_decode
    2017

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

    =D>

    Re: Which is First?

    PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:27 am
    by gib
    I go for logic myself. Logic is the very skill of thinking. With that, all other branches of philosophy become a breeze.