Which is First?

@ Sauwelios.

We already had the discussion about valid and sound arguments. We do not need to repeat it. James and I also discussed that subject.

And I doubt that a bacterium does not need to behave according to logic. We (the humans) are the interpreters - in any case, thus also in the case that you mentioned (that a bacterium does not need to behave according to logic). But you have not given any proof or evidence for your statement.

We (the humans) can only do what we can - not more.

Basically, we are talking about language, especially about words and very especially about lexemes, log(ic)emes. This may also be called "interpretation“. Even non-linguistic experiences or non-linguistic observations - summed up as non-linguistic empirism - have to be interpreted.

Nietzsche said: „Das vernünftige Denken ist ein Interpretieren nach einem Schema, welches wir nicht abwerfen können.“ (Translated into English: "Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme that we cannot throw off.“) Wir können dieses Interpretieren nicht abwerfen! We cannot throw off this interpretation! We are the interpreters - in any case (see above).

When it comes to the "first-field-of-philosophy“-issue, I am arguing more historically or, more generally said, in a developmental way.

A young child can already argue logically before knowing anything about ethics or morality. This must have been the same during the early human evolution.

And during that early human evolution, there were no human "herds“ but merely human small groups, at least smaller than herds are per definitionem. Human herds occured a bit later.

That is just a statement. There are no proofs or evidence for it.

So I repeat and will always repeat my statement: Language and logic preceded the concept "herd morality“.