Does it though?
It can be the subject of philosophy but the driver/motor of it?
You are trying to use a fork to eat soup with.
Emotions are not rooted in logic or rationality, so the notion of using them for philosophy… how exactly do you picture that?
I mean, in an intelligent world, you make a rational analysis and experince the feelings it produces.
That is not the world we live in.
With noteable exceptions. A certain 3d chess player.
I never claimed emotions are philosophy. I am re-telling a philosophy teacher I had.
I claimed emotions are a part of philosophy, not philosophy. Apparently you are not familar with philosophy of aesthetics nor the metaphors and symbolism of Neitzche.
You have a habit for strawmanning.
No. This is literally what i was referring to when i said that emotions can by all means be the subject of philosophy.
If by “Emotion has its place in philosophy” you meant the same thing, then thats fine. That was the question basically.
There was no strawman here.
“You are trying to use a fork to eat soup with.
Emotions are not rooted in logic or rationality, so the notion of using them for philosophy… how exactly do you picture that?”
You said this.
So what exactly am I “trying to use a fork to eat soup with” if what you contextualize by the question is not the case?
What exactly are you intending to assert?
That philosophy is rooted in rationality. In logic and reason.
You can rationalize about the emotions that drive aesthetics, metaphors and symbolism.
Turn that around and what will you get?
You gonna feel things about the logic of aesthetics, metaphors and symbolism?
Are they a part of philosophy? To a very questionable extent im sure they are.
Are they something you can use to engage with philosophy, tackle philosophy, do philosophy? No.
Emotions are a fork. And you have a bowl of soup in front of you.
But I never argued philosophy was or was not rooted in reason and logic. I asserted emotions are part of philosophy but not philosophy.
I see no reason/logic on your part for why philosophy is rooted in reason/logic, I see arguments against emotion but not for reason
, an absence of emotional tones does not necessitate reason/logic as primary…so the form of your argument contradicts what it asserts.
And if that is the case, that philosophy is rooted in reason and logic then that is a pure assertion that “philosophy is rooted in reason and logic” that contradicts itself as the act of assertion of “philosophy is rooted in reason and logic” is the root of philosophy not “philosophy is rooted in reason and logic”…
Simultaneously if philosophy is rooted in reason/logic then that reason/logic must be rooted in reason/logic which leads to a tautological infinite regress of r/l → r/l → r/l → …
and tautological infinite regress is the root of philosophy not reason/logic.
Your assertion does not hold at multiple levels simultaneously.
But I am assuming you will differ, as usual, so go ahead and differ if you must.
Because what else would it be rooted in? Thats a honest question.
You can process information either logically or emotionally. In very rare and unique exceptions both on equal terms such as when creating music.
So this:
makes no sense to me cause it absolutely does necessitate reason/logic.
What else is there?
Do remove both logic and emotions. What are you left with?
Your argument only makes sense if you can present a third option here.
If you dont have a third option then you do not have a point either cause for all intents and purposes emotion and logic are the only two cognitive tools your brain has to process information with.
If there is a third option then by all means enlighten me about it, cause i honestly and sincerely have no idea what you are getting at with the notion that removing emotions from the equation does not necessitates logic.
Of course it does.
When you have someone who has no or extremely restricted emotions (schizoid/psychopathic) will process the world through logical means. They will lack empathy and a moral compass, but will be freely able to employ and use logic.
So uhh… no?
I have absolutely no idea what your point is until you reveal to me what the third option here would be.
You failed to address the paradoxes of a purely logically foundation.
When you claim philosophy is rooted in logic,
and another claims philosophy is rooted in x,
What remains is the assertion of the boundaries of the root itself. Philosophy is merely assertion, assertion is the application of limits via language.
Philosophy is asserted limits via language, hence why it has so many branches and roots.
To argue otherwise is to nullify the counterargument itself as the structure of philosophy is used to counter the structure of philosophy…thus no counter-argument to this remains via logic, emotion, awareness or what not.
Philosophy is purely assertions.
I didnt fail to address the question. I asked you to expand on it and explain it BECAUSE your question absolutely makes jack f of literal no sense.
Philosophy having a logical foundation is an axiom. You cant do anything with it absence of logic.
Your entire response argues a position. That position is argued via logic.
You use words and concepts like “hence why”, “to argue otherwise”, “thus”.
You are literally using logic, to try and argue against logic. The very language itself you are using is based on logic.
You claim philosophy is merely assertions.
Great. First: Assertions themselves require logic to make claims. Second: Those assertions too need to make logical sense in a larger framework, otherwise they are just random gibberish tossed in the wind like how the moon is cheese.
So what is the point you are trying to make? If anything, you seem to be very confused about the position you yourself are trying to present. I will repeat what i said in my last post:
Makes no sense to me cause it absolutely does necessitate reason/logic. What else is there?
An axiom is an assumed assertion.
If philosophy is founded on the axiom of logic it is not founded on logic it is founded on an axiom. An axiom is not limited to logic or intuition or anything else by that matter as an axiom is a broad categorical assertion.
You fail to take into account that an axiom is not logical but is tautological at best thus what remains of philosophy is progressive tautologies…and the logic by design shares the same structure as any other axiom thus what remains philosophy is grounded on axioms of anything.
You claim my post makes no sense, and that is fine, but if that is the case then you do not know what you are arguing against by your own admission thus by default, if you see what I present as non-sense, you are arguing against what you do not know…and by your own logic you are strawmanning…as usual.
My opinion on Free will is that some have it some do not. I attest the ability to exorcise free will in combination with what is referred to as the inner voice. Studies have shown that a large portion of humans do not have this inner voice and can not have an internal monolog.
This is a key factor in free will, because it is required to internalize and diagnose the self and contemplate something. While those without it can function and use their brain in complex manners, they are operating essentially without a navigator.
The term used to describe these people vary, from NPCs to Peasants, to Ants, and many others. But when I say those terms immediately… every single person reading this thought of someone they know or have met or seen in public who is by their definition such.
This ability to differentiate, is also key, because someone with an inner voice as it were, can clearly tell and know someone who doesn’t have one in very short order. There are vast behavioral differences also. Body cues and languages, etc etc which differentiate and make them easily identifiable to anyone who actually looks and thinks about it.
Those with no inner voice, generally can not tell the difference all they see is another human like them. Because they have no ability to inwardly assess their surrounding’s on the intimate level required to observe such things.
The real question is when this becomes well known and practiced science, will humans begin to reclassify certain humans as animals, even though they look the same technically. But in reality are nothing alike.
And assumed assertions too require logic to function.
It eliminates all of them. Even Trump and Putin can’t “enforce their decisions”. And they have certainly tried to.
If that is the case then you making another assertion as there is no logic you produced to prove your point.
Given all logic relies upon axioms what logic becomes is layered tautological assertions as logic becomes the axiom(s) at different scales.
Regardless of the application of logic or not what remains is the constant layering of tautological assertions thus to argue logic is primary or not is a trivial assertion as the base structure remains invariant.
… too. I said too. Assumed assertions TOO require logic to function, just like everything else at every layer and every step of this conversation.
You use logic even to write. The very language you are using is bound by syntax, structure and meaning. Just saying something already enforces the law of identity with A = A
Without logic no form of interaction would be possible, whether its linguistic, physical or biological.
The mere fact of distinguishing between yourself and someone else is logic.
So without logic, not being able to do philosophy would be the least of your issues.
“Requires logic to function” is an axiom thus subject to a tautological assertion as this grounding claim is not logical by definition of logic…which leads to the real point:
So…you repeatedly use “logic”, the term, in your assertions. But it is not defined, and this definition cannot be logical but rather can only be an axiom and we discussed axioms plenty already.
The definition of logic does not require the function or form of logic, it only requires distinction. Logic is thus not fundamental as its grounding is not logic, it is the distinction of the assertion.
But if the grounding of logic is logic then you end up with a tautology within other tautologies as logic becomes its own self-grounding loop by design…and if that is the case then anything that is tautological can be fundamental as logic proves itself empty on its own terms.
Either way logic is not fundamental.
The only thing fundamental to philosophy is distinctions by assertion. That is all. Distinctions are fundamental, and yet not even subject to being fundamental, as “fundamental” is both a distinction and subject to distinction.
The root of philosophy is distinction…not logic, not emotion, not anything else as all these things are subject to being distinct.
You are trying to separate distinction from logic, but distinction itself is the bedrock of logic. It is logic.
You cant argue axioms without employing logic in the process. That in and of itself proves what comes first.
You are trying to separate distinction from logic, but distinction itself is the bedrock of logic. It is logic.
You cant argue axioms without employing logic in the process. That in and of itself proves what comes first.
The event of distinction is distinct from logic and yet contains logic as logic is a distinction composed of distinctions. A simple example is emotion and logic. Emotion is distinct and is composed of distinctions, logic is distinct and is composed of distinctions. They are distinct from eachother and yet are subject to the event of distinction.
The axiom A=A can be argued without logic reality simply “=” in “A=A” is asserted. “A” in A=A is recursion, a cycle…the same recursion which gives identity to all phenomena by degree of allowing a distinction to repeat to give identity and symmetry.
If you are going to argue recursion is logical, then by default you are going to have to argue a tautology is logical, as both share the same structure, and is a tautology is logical the logic is logical because it is logic…and what remains is a simple assertion.
The simple truth is the logic cancels itself at the meta level when its axioms are applied to themselves.
The only thing that remains is distinction as pre, mediative, and post logical.
Real simple example: ●● is a distinction.
“●● is a distinction” is not logic but a distinction.
But you’ve ignored the most pivotal question. You keep asserting “logic” but you do not define it.
Define logic. But if you do then you are not using logic but applying a distinction that allows for logic to occur.
Shifting the discussion a little…
When feminists have often used the term “Agency,” it is often in reference to women depicted in the media somewhere. Given a woman was “More traditional,” she had no agency to a Feminist. A woman displaying characteristics more often associated with men, she may have had “Agency” to a feminist.
What exactly is a woman traditionally?
Man is the head, he is a decision maker. A woman is the neck, she turns the head. She influences decisions.
A woman who knew how to utilize her gender may have been either a treasure, very valuable, someone who betters quality of life, or an absolute horror, leading men into destruction and death.
An example of an evil woman may have been the Opera “Carmen,” by Bizet. Bizet was a Bohemian, a particular movement coming out of Paris, France, and Bizet worshiped the prostitute. “Carmen” goes well with God’s Warnings about Evil Women in Proverbs 5.
A more Godly woman may have been Proverbs 31. She was a helper who betters quality of life. Wisdom is often referenced as feminine. A woman may have feared becoming a widow, or fear of her man doing something foolish. A woman had a Fear of God. In this fear…wisdom. A husband, after a long day, he may have come home and talked to his wife. She counseled him.