Which is First?

[Faust]

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?

[Moreno]

Which one would you put first?

I would say phenomenology is first.
If you are not already working with that and have some fluency with it, well...there is no hope.

Then you are in Plato's cave only there are no shadows and no you.

[Faust]

Wow. Bold, italic and underline. That's pretty first.

Myself, i think it barely qualifies as philosophy at all. It's the kind of thing that moderns leave to science.

[Flannel Jesus]

Which one would you put first?

I would say phenomenology is first.
If you are not already working with that and have some fluency with it, well...there is no hope.

i agree.

[Lucis Trust]

It's philosophy, love of wisdom (morals, values, ethics), not love of experience.

[Lucis Trust]

Secretly though, it's about love of self.. like all human endeavor.

[Moreno]

Wow. Bold, italic and underline. That's pretty first.

My passion was almost overwhelming. If we'd been discussing occam's razor, I would have used a wild font, like comic sans.

Myself, i think it barely qualifies as philosophy at all. It's the kind of thing that moderns leave to science.

And postmoderns consider utterly naive and culture determined, but

without the fruits of phenomenology - even if you are not calling it that - you cannot have empiricism. You have nothing to work with to start positing entities - ontology - your logic is just math, and epistemology would be like trying to do calculus without algebra or even stuff like addistion, etc.

It is kind of a petty point but without studying experience (and having it) well.......

[Lucis Trust]

I know you're watching moreno, i can feel your watch.

[Moreno]

You don't need extroverted experience to do philosophy, you can do philosophy with introverted inperience.

Besides, you don't need to experience well, you just need to wisdom well.

All these things you mention, are secondary philosophical characteristics, the meat and potatos is ethics.

Introverted experience still falls under phenomenology. Even the qualia 'ooh, that thought I just had was wise' is noticed phenomenologically. (redundant)

Ethics needs entities - like other people. So I would put it after ontology which I put after phenomenology.

[Moreno]

I know you're watching moreno, i can feel your watch.

But I don't wear one or I become obsessed with time.

[Faust]

LT and FJ each earn a warning. LT gets a month off. Most of the crap has been moved to Rant House.

[Faust]

Moreno - I happen to think that ontology and epistemology, being metaphysics, no longer have much use, so your concerns do not trouble me. And you certainly can have empiricism - it's no coincidence that the golden age of empiricism coincided with the rise of the scientific method.

[Silhouette]

1. Phenomenology is the study of our experience — how we experience.
2. Ontology is the study of beings or their being — what is.
3. Epistemology is the study of knowledge — how we know.
4. Logic is the study of valid reasoning — how to reason.
5. Ethics is the study of right and wrong — how we should act.

Experience determines what "is", which determines what we know, with which we may thereafter make logical patterns, and then we can propose ethics about such things.

[Faust]

Yeah, but that fact alone doesn't give phenomenology precedence. It matters how phenomenology approaches experience, an in the event, it hasn't done a very good job of it.

[Flannel Jesus]

you didn't ask which approach of which field is most fundamental, faust, you asked which field is most fundamental.

also, to boil down phenomenology to a single "it" and to talk about the job that "it" has done...come on, that's not reasonable. there are numerous approaches to phenomenology and you certainly aren't well-versed in them all.

[Faust]

Phenomenology is an approach to experience. My view is that it is ineffective. But I'm not trying to determine this for all time. Posters are giving their opinions, and I am giving mine.

also, to boil down phenomenology to a single "it" and to talk about the job that "it" has done...come on, that's not reasonable. there are numerous approaches to phenomenology and you certainly aren't well-versed in them all.

How would you know that? I have made the same blanket statement about epistemology and ontology. I think all three are pretty much useless, because I think the motive behind all of them is not useful to good philosophy.

[Flannel Jesus]

what's important is not how i would know that, what's important is that you can't know that you're aware of all the approaches. i DO know that, because i can just make a new approach right now and you wouldn't be aware of it.

[Faust]

Please start another thread with your new approach to phenomenology. I'll overlook the fact that since you haven't yet devised this approach, it's impossible that it is one that I am not aware of - y'know, because it doesn't exist yet.

[Flannel Jesus]

guess ya missed the point.

well, you probably are just pretending to have missed the point out of some misguided sense of pride. you probably get it and fundamentally agree, but it's too late to admit that now, huh?

[Faust]

Please stick to the topic. I am not the topic.

[Flannel Jesus]

what you said is, though.

[Diekon]

Which one would you put first?

To answer the question I allready have to make a valuejudgement, so Ethics it is.

I think i could do without all the rest, if i'd only know how to act.

Or maybe not without logic, as i'd be difficult to study anything without logic.

Yeah, i dunno,maybe logic is first. Can i chose two disciplines to be first?

[Trevor]

LT and FJ each earn a warning. LT gets a month off. Most of the crap has been moved to Rant House.

Off-topic here but having seen the posts moved to the Rant house, and assuming nothing has been completely removed, a one-month ban seems excessive, to say the least.

[anon]

Maybe this is cheap, but... pyschology. The integration of all these fields. Generalists are underrated. Specialists are typically too political.

Faust, that you denigrate ontology, epistemology, and phenomenology to the degree you do suggests to me that you think it's important to first know exactly what the best approach is to those subjects, and then you can grapple with the open questions. No?

[anon]

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.

earth, fire, water, air, aether

I wonder if there's a connection.