I bet you think you’ve got some real philosophy laying around somewhere, maybe something you read or even wrote yourself. So post it in this thread and we shall see its merit.
All are free to weigh in of course, especially me since it’s my topic.
I guess I’ll go first.
Actually no, I won’t, I just realized that would take control of the conversation and I want someone else to do that.
Ok here, I’ll propose some basic rules:
1- a poster first posts a piece of philosophy he/she wrote or admires, then we have several commentary posts on its merit.
2- after those several posts of commentary then the next person to post content will have that content judged and commented upon.
Don’t flood 1000 words, but I would say anything we can read in 5 minutes or less is good for this topic.
I have not wrote this down in full detail, but:
The idea i have, mainly, and simply, is that we are of natures.
And to understand a being in reality, you must understand the reality the being is in, not the being falsely separated from reality.
This answers the question of all teleology, as a thing in nature, made of various natures.
It is good to be good, do good, and perform well.
Real philosophy would be real wisdom, but wisdom is not alone.
Wisdom is an understanding of some things, application of mostly positive mental natures.
Yes, the being itself is a concentration and materialization of those conditions which caused its existence. To separate the being from the being’s environment is an abstraction, and somewhat arbitrary. Not only that, but as you say we need to understand the reality in which beings exist, if we want to better understand those beings.
Well, “in nature” and “made of various natures” is pretty vague. What are these various natures, can you spell them out in a little more detail? There is also the argument to be made that human being to a certain extent breaks with the rest of nature, by virtue of our sentience, our logical-symbolic language, our reason and recorded history, our aesthetics and morality, etc. So I wouldn’t go do far as to say that your idea answers the question of all teleology. But again, it’s a good idea you have going.
Yes, ethics is somewhat tautological in this sense. Good is self-referential and, while it can be rationally laid out in greater detail and derivation, which philosophy must do, the good is simply a “pure category” and includes such things as health, wellbeing, achievement, happiness, creation, expanding one’s sphere of valuation, increasing compassion and understanding, increasing empathy and self-humility, increasing one’s range of thought and emotion, etc. I like your emphasis on “and perform well”, I think this aspect of action is often missed.
Yes, wisdom is a kind of conversion process of all things into better versions of those things, increasing integration and all of those “good” categories I just listed above, and surely more that I didn’t even mention. But of course wisdom must also deal with a lot of unpleasant, painful, “evil” sort of things and mental natures as well, not only because understanding is required where we least want to understand, for the sake of our honesty, but also because we must delimit evil with our philosophy. Ethically-speaking it is only a well developed philosophy that sufficiently understands evil that can entirely reject and accurately, precisely posit contents and substances against evil. But it’s a sad business having to understand evil like this, and we should never blame anyone who eschews that route.
So we can note too, therefore, that there are different kinds of wisdom, at least in terms of the objects on which wisdom focuses, ethically-speaking. Wisdom is always guided by the good, which as Socrates noted is simply knowledge, truth itself.
Thanks for reminding us that philosophy should equate with or at least include wisdom.
Natures, are natural qualities, things that happen and exist in the natural world.
Sometimes one nature destroys another.
Sometimes one nature helps the rest.
The human desire to seek answers to big questions may make some think such answers can be known. I base my world view on evidence or
failing that probability. But it could be wrong. Accepting that and being open to other positions is both philosophically and psychologically
satisfying and far more preferable to blind dogmatism. It works for me but whether it does for you is another matter. As it is not my place
to tell you what or how to think for that is only something you can do
Sur, best advice I have for you publically is to read while expecting new ideas. These references to dogmatism seem automatisms, rather than resulting from lack of intelligence; still they are void. Wyld, nor I profess dogmatism - we rather question even those assumpions you think of as your skepticism.
When you ponder the physical universe without pondering the format of your pondering, you are still in elementary school, so to speak.
Of course there is a physical universe. That is not the question
The question is what “is” means when we say it.
That, at least, is ontology, the basis of all philosophy. That is why ontology and epistemology can not be separated.
Episteme is ontos. Ontos is episteme. Your professed skepsis is a detailed set of professed knowledge.
“Meaning” is what subjects attribute. They can not avoid it. A thought of a piece of food is meaningful to a hungry man. So there is meaning.
To ask if “the universe” has meaning “of itself” is an illogical question. I could as well ask if bread has gunpowder when it flies.
Philosophy requires understanding our own questions. It requires that ask them in a sensible context. We are dealing with language when we ask question
Language is thus the first object of scrutiny.
The term “the universe” has no scientific meaning. We do not know how it coheres and if it is limited, in what way it might be limited, how it came to be (big bang is obviously not a valid point of origin, it just means “god created the world out of nothing” and as James said the event that still reverberates was likely a collision of massive black holes) so statements about its nature as a whole are simply irrational.
What we investigate is being. This is a local phenomenon. I consider “the universe” as an unstable function of such localities.
Essentially I disagree with Einsteins notion that Relativity and QM should be formulated under a shared denominator. They describe fundamentally different qualities.
Ok this is a lot of good stuff. I’ll start with the last and easiest point to address: yes, ontology examines existence from the vantage of logic, and we understand that “the universe” (whatever that means) is chiefly a logical thing and must be explained logically in addition to any other way. Why must “the universe” be logical? Simply because if it were not, then it would not exist.
Logic is simply the requirement of “existing”. These terms all together form a tautological ouroboros, like a circle; when enough concepts like this come together to inform a mental picture, the circle is closed and necessity appears. For example, things like gravity must be explained firstly in terms of pure logic, and not simply described in terms of mathematical equations. A description is not an explanation. No amount of equations or empirical measurements are going to tell you WHY something like gravity is the case. But every “how” always contains buried invisibly in itself some “why”, which it is the task of philosophy (in this case, ontologically AND epistemologically) to extract and make a proper object out of.
To the point about ontology and epistemology being related, this is a deeper area and we will need to explore further. I’m opening up this one to other users to weigh in their perspectives and ideas. Generally I agree with the claim; which means simply that we can affirm that the claim is to some degree on the right track. But let’s aim for details.
To the broad point about skepticism that surreptitious makes, yes dogmatism is uninteresting, but we must also remember that skepticism requires its reasons too just as do positive or closed-certain claims; to doubt is not immune to the logical requirement of having reasons behind that doubt, just as certainties too need their reasons.
Logic is merely the proper (rational) use of language; being consistent with what the words mean and avoiding ambiguity. “The universe is logical” means that there are consistent concepts concerning the universe. If there was nothing consistent about the universe, total randomness, the universe could not exist. The same is true if the universe was totally homogeneous, because truly 100% randomness is also 100% homogeneity. Distinction is required (specifically distinction in affect).
Well that is certainly not true.
It is simple enough (perhaps too simple). Ontology is a set of concepts, categories, and relationships intended to describe the universe. Epistemology is the study of how we know that our ontology is accurate.
One can build an ontology purely on speculation (aka “superstition”) and ignore whether it is very accurate … until he actually needs to be truly accurate. If he needs to know if his ontology is accurate (such as Relativity Theory), there are two epistemological means to find out: Logic and Empiricism - Philosophy and Science.
I took the meaning to be that logic precedes existence. To me philosophy and science falls apart within the structure that is logic. Logic limits the nature of reality being discoverable.
A common mistake. Most people do the same with “God”. It is one of many language issues.
Logic is merely language. When someone doesn’t know how to describe something logically (consistent, unambiguous use of the language), it often suffices to use more poetic, vague, or metaphoric usage. Since Man has never been particularly good at precise conceptualization, his languages reflect a great deal of slop and his attempt at logical use of that language suffers.
The problem is not the logic, but the presumptuous and sloppy attempt to express it (usually for sociopolitical reasons, utilizing deception via rhetoric).
What we call “the universe” is simply the same thing we call “logic”. Logic is simply expressions of necessity, what MUST be. Logic is the “must” itself, this is purely categorical and absolute. Existence is an arrangement of facts, which are higher order confirmations of what is; what is, exists in such a way that not only that “what is” but also the fact of it both act categorically as existential markers, meaning that as existents subtilizing and grow more complex and derivative-historical they move from responding (being caused by) only to immediate undeniable conditions to responding to states of affairs, possible conditions, future conditions, impossible conditions… This means that beings grow to become caused by facts directly. Humans do this all the time.
‘Logic’ is an abstract idea meant to express a mostly hidden truth, the tautological nature of every necessity which is causal-for. Go ahead and try to define what logic is, see what you come up with. Logic is pure necessity, which is the same thing as saying: existence as such. Or said in the reverse, the ‘could not have been otherwise’.
A particle is a logical existent, driven by necessities and causes. Same for everything else too. What we call an existing thing is an expression of underlying necessities and causes, namely, what we call logic.
Humans discovered logic (just like we discover facts, not invent them), we did not invent or create logic. Logic created us.
Logic itself only requires that one maintain consistency in thought/language (“log” = immutable). Being “rational” means that you remain logical as steps toward a goal are rationed into a plan. Rationality is logical pursuit toward a chosen goal.
During the late 70’s and ever since, Logic has been attacked and disreputed so as to allow for more deception and manipulation throughout society. So today, you find very many people confused about what logic actual is.
Additionally, logic itself does not require any association with reality. A fairy tale can be a very logical story. It is the premises of a chain of thought that tie logic to reality or not. If the premises match reality and the continuing logic related to those premises is proper, then the conclusions will also match reality. Logic merely keeps thought aligned with the integrity of the base assumptions, the premises. Of course if the premises do not match reality, any logical conclusions will usually not match reality either.
A statement is “true” when it exactly matches reality. Logic helps to form true conclusions and helps to discover if your premises were true. Logic is like a ruler (the measuring stick). Logic doesn’t care what you are talking about, only that you talk about it coherently.
On what grounds are you basing what facts? Originally, that’s what I was questioning; does essence exist before logic?
I would argue that a particle is a non-existent; particles are not fact-based but theory-based.
JSS,
The definitions of logic I found are rooted in the “correct” reasoning described by the “perfect” word choices.
“A statement is “true” when it exactly matches reality. Logic helps to form true conclusions and helps to discover if your premises were true. Logic is like a ruler (the measuring stick). Logic doesn’t care what you are talking about, only that you talk with coherency about it.”-JSS
How is logic applicable (how can it measure anything when 95% of the universe is not observable?) when reality remains unknown? Where’s the coherency? Pulled like a rabbit out of a hat?
Logic is NOT about the universe. Logic is about the language being used to describe it (or anything else). Logic is what allows one to say “that makes sense”. Logic cannot tell you that something is actually true to reality without the knowledge that the base assumption, the premises, were true to reality. Logic (aka “Dialectics”) is what keeps your language, and thus your thoughts, straight.
• The Logic Law of Identity (from Aristotle) is that one must maintain consistency in the meaning of his words = “A is A”.
• The Logic Law of Contradiction is that a thought/statement is either true or not true. It can’t really be both (although it should be noted that a statement can be neither true or false merely by being incoherent, such as “this statement is false”).
• The Logic Law of Excluded Middle is that a thought/statement cannot be half true and half false, even though parts of the statement might be either. If any one part of a single statement is false, then the entire statement is false. There is no middle ground.
• The Logic Law of Association is that if two or more concepts are identical to another, then they are all equal to each other; “If A is B and B is C, then A is C”.
• There is also a “If A is B, then B is A” in there somewhere.
It is all about keeping your thoughts, and thus your ontology concerning existence coherent, lacking ambiguity and inconsistencies.
And you might note that mathematics is merely logic applied to quantities.
“Logic cannot tell you that something is actually true to reality without the knowledge that the base assumption, the premises, were true to reality.”-JSS
If reality is a mystery how can any logic be premised from it?
I’m not sure that I understand your question; “premised against it”???
When seeking to know reality (aka “to know God”) assumptions are usually made concerning a variety of things. Those assumptions often turn out to be untrue to reality. Alternatively one can simply declare the meaning of his words concerning reality, his ontology (rather than seek what someone else might have meant) and proceed logically with certainty that his conclusion are true to reality.
My RM:Affectance Ontology project declares specific concepts as definitional and proceeds to build a logical modal of reality that cannot be disputed other than to say that the declared concepts are not true to reality (good luck maintaining that argument with me). RM:AO makes no assumptions concerning reality at all and thus as long as there are no logic errors, all conclusions from RM:AO are necessarily true to reality.
