Which is First?

To me it seems we must begin with ontology - for the rest lack any real footing or intelligible foundation without being as such, without something, some existential medium in and through which the rest can take place.

The rest (phenomenology, epistemology, logic. ethics) are the many facets, states, and faces of a single fact of being.

The real is simply that which is, apart from our individual or collective interpretations of it.

OH what an interesting thread. Here is my order of what is used first and explanation of that order;

Logic
Ontology - we can’t state ‘what is’ without adding something extra in my eyes. There needs to be a proof. A fundamental method of concluding why there is. It doesn’t make sense to me to conclude that something ‘is’ without applyign a logic to it. The cogito, for example.
Epistemology - Ontology’s best friend. The method of ontology, I guess.
Ethics - Human made, a function of society (and a construct of all of the above)

Phenomonology kind of incorperates all of the above imo.

Logic is the only one which is wholly a priori I think, that’s why I put it first.

yeah, I think what’s interesting is that everyone has their own answer (or reasons for their answer). Again, my view is that there is no correct one - but it tells you something about how you philosophise, I think.

Why do you think there’s no right answer? What do you base that on?

Maybe because one is very skeptic and doesn’t necessarily thinks that there are truths

for instance, Berkeley, i guess, said that there is table until i can see it in the room. She ceases to exist when i pass the door because I cannot see it anymore.

Let’s take one of the big primary questions that a philosopher takes up: Is there a god or is there not? Does it really matter if the foundational method you use to answer this question is epistemology or morality? Or something that’s not on the list? These are pathways, and not the destination.

Exactly. It’s an epistemologically based opinion, arrived at through logic from some assumption about the relationship between the knower and known.

No, God’s there to see everything, so they don’t poof out of existence when you’re not looking.

I think it’s the wrong approach to prioritize these areas as if any of them could stand independently of the others. Work in any one of the areas almost necessarily involves beliefs/claims in other areas as well.

Does anyone honestly think they could do work in any of the areas without also using some system of logic?
Does anyone think they could do work in logic without relying on epistemic, phenomenological, ontological, beliefs and ideas?

Faust,

What if happens if two (or more) pathways conflict? Do you think there’s any way to resolve it other than resorting to personal preference?

Faust, the way I see it, you need a map of the world - just a basic layout - before you can start adding legends, scales, titles, North, and arguing about whether you’re reading the map right, or if the person who drew the map did it right, or if you should travel to some location, and how to get there, and whether you can get there, etc.

Ontology seeks to know beings and their being—what is.
Epistemology seeks to know knowledge—how we know.
Logic seeks to know valid reasoning—how to reason.
Ethics seeks to know right and wrong—how we should act.
Phenomenology seeks to know our experience—how we experience.

All these fields, therefore, presuppose that epistemology’s basic question has been answered. But the goal of epistemology, knowledge of knowledge, presupposes itself. Therefore, epistemology is absurd. And this is completely in order, since it is prior to logic!

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.

Yeah, there’s a lot of holes in Nietzsche’s philosophy. I am now of the position he’s a noble liar or myth-maker.
He can’t berate Kant and like-minded philosophers for claiming to know “things in-themselves” then go on making truth statements.

Probably, but I don’t know what it is. I think you could philosopise for your entire life without ever once even think about this issue.

Saully -

Agreed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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

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.

Now this I would love to know more about…

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.