Historically, ethics came first, in the canon of Western Philosophy. Plato set the tone for epistemology (and everything else) being subservient to ethics.
Ther is no first, no begining to everything, everything has always been…IDK
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…
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.
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”.
The pre-socratic philosophers were primarily interested in the problem of the one and the many which is ontological.
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…
I don;t consider the Presocratics as part of the canon, Felix. Feel free to do so, if you wish.
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.
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.
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”.
Ontology first
the “How’s” later
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.
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.
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.
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?”.
Even still – how do we know [what/how] we experience?