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 felix dakat » Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:46 pm

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.

User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8102
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Which is First?

Postby statiktech » Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:38 pm

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".
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5405
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Which is First?

Postby joekoba » Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:41 am

Ontology first
the "How's" later
User avatar
joekoba
Thinker
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:54 am
Location: San Diego, California

Re: Which is First?

Postby Xunzian » Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:53 am

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.
User avatar
Xunzian
Drunken Master
 
Posts: 10437
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:14 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Moreno » Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:19 am

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.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Xunzian » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:12 am

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.
User avatar
Xunzian
Drunken Master
 
Posts: 10437
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:14 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby statiktech » Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:09 pm

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?".
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5405
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Which is First?

Postby statiktech » Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:15 pm

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?
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5405
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Which is First?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Jun 18, 2011 8:16 pm

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.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14918
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: Which is First?

Postby Moreno » Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:43 am

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.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Xunzian » Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:02 pm

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?
User avatar
Xunzian
Drunken Master
 
Posts: 10437
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:14 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby joekoba » Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:57 am

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?
User avatar
joekoba
Thinker
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:54 am
Location: San Diego, California

Re: Which is First?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:36 pm

Epistemology gets my vote.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 24691
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Which is First?

Postby without-music » Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:01 pm

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.
...how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature.
User avatar
without-music
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:11 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Which is First?

Postby Faust » Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:05 pm

Based on my experience, i know that is cheating.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby without-music » Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:29 pm

Faust wrote:Based on my experience, i know that is cheating.

You're right. Of course, my ethic does not prohibit cheating.
...how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature.
User avatar
without-music
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:11 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:05 pm

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.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Which is First?

Postby Silhouette » Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:35 pm

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.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3023
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Which is First?

Postby Moreno » Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:13 pm

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.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Aug 03, 2017 7:09 pm

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.
Thunderbolt steers all things.

Image

I've been guided somewhat by William Blake's quote: "I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create". Just change 'system' for 'style'. - Bill

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: Thrudheim

Re: Which is First?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Aug 03, 2017 11:51 pm

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.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3553
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Which is First?

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:24 am

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.)
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Which is First?

Postby Gloominary » Sat Aug 05, 2017 4:04 pm

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.
Consumerism is sin.
User avatar
Gloominary
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Which is First?

Postby encode_decode » Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:51 am

    2017

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

    =D>
    It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
    (Anomaly654 - 2017)

    But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
    - which is to say there is always meaning.

    (gib - 2017)

    Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
    (Myself - 2017)
    User avatar
    encode_decode
    Thinker
     
    Posts: 981
    Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
    Location: Metaspace

    Re: Which is First?

    Postby gib » Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:27 am

    I go for logic myself. Logic is the very skill of thinking. With that, all other branches of philosophy become a breeze.
    My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

    It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
    Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
    - surreptitious75

    The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
    - encode_decode

    Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
    - Rick Sanchez
    User avatar
    gib
    resident exorcist
     
    Posts: 8487
    Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
    Location: lost (don't try to find me)

    PreviousNext

    Return to Philosophy



    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot]