Which is First?

[Dan~]

2017

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

Ethics is about how to live. Logic is about how to think.
But living comes before thinking.

[gib]

2017

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

Ethics is about how to live. Logic is about how to think.
But living comes before thinking.

But how does one know how to live?

[encode_decode]

But how does one know how to live?

By thinking.

[gib]

But how does one know how to live?

By thinking.

And what does thought require? (drum roll please )

[encode_decode]

And what does thought require? (drum roll please )

Living . . .

?

Possibly?

[Sauwelios]

But how does one know how to live?

By thinking.

:lol:

And what does thought require? (drum roll please :D )

Laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought

[encode_decode]

Laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought

Do the laws work when you are dead?

[gib]

People, people... I was going for logic.

Why don't we say this: the most important branch of philosophy is ethics (by definition). But the first philosophy is logic. It's like if you want to cure cancer. What do you study first: advanced medicine or grade school mathematics?

[encode_decode]

People, people... I was going for logic.

Why don't we say this: the most important branch of philosophy is ethics (by definition). But the first philosophy is logic. It's like if you want to cure cancer. What do you study first: advanced medicine or grade school mathematics?

I was getting confused . . .



Kidding . . . I knew what you were going for that is why I returned to living.

Teach you Yoda-speak. I will . . . OOYL . . . Only Once You Live . . . Logic first, must study you . . . OOYL . . .

[Sauwelios]

People, people... I was going for logic.

I was basically saying logic. The laws of thought are the axioms of logic.

Why don't we say this: the most important branch of philosophy is ethics (by definition). But the first philosophy is logic. It's like if you want to cure cancer. What do you study first: advanced medicine or grade school mathematics?

Medicine is more different from ethics than mathematics is from logic. And who's telling you you have to go to grade school? The Law. Ethics.

But ethics and Ethics are not the same. The study of ethics is not required to have ethics. Same for Logic and logic.

[gib]

Teach you Yoda-speak. I will . . . OOYL . . . Only Once You Live . . . Logic first, must study you . . . OOYL . . .

Yoda speak is awesome for writing poetry. Try writing any poem. Even if you think you suck, write a poem, and then switch it to Yoda speak... it will sound ten times better.

I was basically saying logic. The laws of thought are the axioms of logic.

Ah, I thought you meant legal laws--like we have to bring in the thought police. But yes, laws of logic is what I was getting at.

Why don't we say this: the most important branch of philosophy is ethics (by definition). But the first philosophy is logic. It's like if you want to cure cancer. What do you study first: advanced medicine or grade school mathematics?

Medicine is more different from ethics than mathematics is from logic. And who's telling you you have to go to grade school? The Law. Ethics.

But ethics and Ethics are not the same. The study of ethics is not required to have ethics. Same for Logic and logic.

I think you're focusing more on the analogy than the point. I'm just saying one has to learn to think properly before thinking of anything important.

I agree with your point about the difference between ethics vs. Ethics, and logic vs. Logic, but the question the OP is asking is: what is first philosophy?

[Sauwelios]

Why don't we say this: the most important branch of philosophy is ethics (by definition). But the first philosophy is logic. It's like if you want to cure cancer. What do you study first: advanced medicine or grade school mathematics?

Medicine is more different from ethics than mathematics is from logic. And who's telling you you have to go to grade school? The Law. Ethics.

But ethics and Ethics are not the same. The study of ethics is not required to have ethics. Same for Logic and logic.

I think you're focusing more on the analogy than the point. I'm just saying one has to learn to think properly before thinking of anything important.

But can one learn to think properly without thinking about anything important?

I agree with your point about the difference between ethics vs. Ethics, and logic vs. Logic, but the question the OP is asking is: what is first philosophy?

Right. But philosophy, or thinking, can exist before thinking about thinking (Logic). The latter is only of instrumental, albeit indispensable, importance. What will cause philosophy to arise is the mystery surrounding the most important things. And you've affirmed that Ethics is the most important branch of philosophy. Even Aristotle's (as distinct from Socrates' and Plato's) "first philosophy", Metaphysics, followed from that:

"Philosophy is the quest for the 'principles' of all things, and this means primarily the quest for the 'beginnings' of all things or for 'the first things.' [...] Prephilosophic life is characterized by the primeval identification of the good with the ancestral. Therefore, the right way [or custom: ethos] necessarily implies thoughts about the ancestors and hence about the first things simply." (Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History, pp. 82-83.)

[Fixed Cross]

I think you're focusing more on the analogy than the point. I'm just saying one has to learn to think properly before thinking of anything important.

But can one learn to think properly without thinking about anything important?

Absolutely not. Of course.
Its just like with any other skill. The more seriously you take it, the better you'll be able to get at it.

A lot of people think without weight, without putting themselves on the line.
But world-shaping thought is very risky for the thinker.

Lightweights like Gib (sorry man, you are the archetypical lightweight) do not know what it means to think. But very, very few people do. Perhaps on this site it is truly only we, the Pentad members, that understand what thinking is.

[gib]

But can one learn to think properly without thinking about anything important?

Yes. There's tons of logic puzzles and riddles on youtube. Like these:



These can be fun--my daughter and I went through a few of them like this the other day--but they're hardly important--technically, they're a waste of time. I mean, yes, they're important for exercising one's thinking skills, but that's my point. It isn't important for any other reason.

Right. But philosophy, or thinking, can exist before thinking about thinking (Logic). Yes. The latter is only of instrumental, albeit indispensable, importance. What will cause philosophy to arise is the mystery surrounding the most important things. And you've affirmed that Ethics is the most important branch of philosophy. Even Aristotle's (as distinct from Socrates' and Plato's) "first philosophy", Metaphysics, followed from that:

Well, now you're talking about "first" in the chronological sense. I mean "first" in terms of priorities.

"Philosophy is the quest for the 'principles' of all things, and this means primarily the quest for the 'beginnings' of all things or for 'the first things.' [...] Prephilosophic life is characterized by the primeval identification of the good with the ancestral. Therefore, the right way [or custom: ethos] necessarily implies thoughts about the ancestors and hence about the first things simply." (Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History, pp. 82-83.)

Strauss seems to be talking about the fundamental here--that which all other things rest on--which is another way of talking about "first" and subsequent principles. You're right that thinking philosophically probably comes before thinking about thinking (chronologically), but what's important is that we hone our thinking skills before drawing conclusions about anything of great importance. Of course, it can all be done at the same time--trying to be conscientious about thinking properly (rational) while thinking of deeply moral issues--but here you would have to put in a concerted effort to distinguish between which conclusions are truly rational and which are just preferable.

[Sauwelios]

gib, this last post of yours is a great example of why I value you. (I must admit I enjoyed Fixed Cross's characterization of you as "the archetypical lightweight", though. Then again, one can be a lightweight and still be a champion in that class--and thereby be stronger than most people who (would) fall in the heavyweight class.)

::

But can one learn to think properly without thinking about anything important?

Yes. There's tons of logic puzzles and riddles on youtube. Like these:



These can be fun--my daughter and I went through a few of them like this the other day--but they're hardly important--technically, they're a waste of time. I mean, yes, they're important for exercising one's thinking skills, but that's my point. It isn't important for any other reason.

I'll check the video later, but yes, logic puzzles and riddles and such constitute a great counterexample. Or at least they seem to do so. For I think this example is not incompatible with my argument. The thing is, I think of philosophy as itself essentially a form of play. Philosophers don't tend to think about things just because those things are "sooo important"; that reeks of moralism and taking oneself too seriously.

Right. But philosophy, or thinking, can exist before thinking about thinking (Logic). Yes. The latter is only of instrumental, albeit indispensable, importance. What will cause philosophy to arise is the mystery surrounding the most important things. And you've affirmed that Ethics is the most important branch of philosophy. Even Aristotle's (as distinct from Socrates' and Plato's) "first philosophy", Metaphysics, followed from that:

Well, now you're talking about "first" in the chronological sense. I mean "first" in terms of priorities.

Right, good point. And yet I have a problem with it. If we begin with Logic, who's to say we'll ever go beyond it? Logic puzzles may suffice to keep us occupied, without any incentive to move on to more important riddles. And even if we see Logic as only instrumental, it may still be a study which requires at least a lifetime...

"Philosophy is the quest for the 'principles' of all things, and this means primarily the quest for the 'beginnings' of all things or for 'the first things.' [...] Prephilosophic life is characterized by the primeval identification of the good with the ancestral. Therefore, the right way [or custom: ethos] necessarily implies thoughts about the ancestors and hence about the first things simply." (Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History, pp. 82-83.)

Strauss seems to be talking about the fundamental here--that which all other things rest on--which is another way of talking about "first" and subsequent principles. You're right that thinking philosophically probably comes before thinking about thinking (chronologically), but what's important is that we hone our thinking skills before drawing conclusions about anything of great importance. Of course, it can all be done at the same time--trying to be conscientious about thinking properly (rational) while thinking of deeply moral issues--but here you would have to put in a concerted effort to distinguish between which conclusions are truly rational and which are just preferable.

Right. But I think it goes deeper than logic. For one thing, logic or reason can hardly establish values. (I've personally established the rational value of valuation (i.e., valuing) itself, but using that to establish the value of logic would be circular.) I think the first consideration in the study of logic--as distinct from just doing logic puzzles for fun--should be this:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=1987083#p1987083

Compare Will to Power 508-522, especially 516:

https://archive.org/stream/TheWillToPower-Nietzsche/will_to_power-nietzsche_djvu.txt

[gib]

gib, this last post of yours is a great example of why I value you. (I must admit I enjoyed Fixed Cross's characterization of you as "the archetypical lightweight", though. <-- Oh? I must have missed that. Then again, one can be a lightweight and still be a champion in that class--and thereby be stronger than most people who (would) fall in the heavyweight class.)

What's the challenge in this sport?

I'll check the video later, but yes, logic puzzles and riddles and such constitute a great counterexample. Or at least they seem to do so. For I think this example is not incompatible with my argument. The thing is, I think of philosophy as itself essentially a form of play. Philosophers don't tend to think about things just because those things are "sooo important"; that reeks of moralism and taking oneself too seriously.

So in other words, we think about that which we enjoy thinking about. All forms of thought provide an opportunity to exercise one's rational thinking skills, so the exercise of logic can be applied to pretty much all areas of thought. The question of what constitutes moral philosophy is answered easily enough by saying: it's when you aim to establish what one ought to do. <-- That too can be done out of the pure enjoyment of thinking. I agree that this is different from "moralizing"--not just in the sense of telling others how to live their lives, but in thinking of yourself as doing moral philosophy because of moral obligations--as if you didn't really enjoy it.

But that throws a bit of a wrench in the original question: what is first philosophy? It's almost asking: what ought we to study first? Any answer to this might be taken as "moralizing". But I don't think we have to take it as a moral question per se; it could just be a question of how to best achieve our goals: if we want to think clearly and intelligently about certain topics in philosophy, what ought we to put first? What will help us most in our goal. <-- No moral obligations, just practical considerations. This is why I opted for logic: because it has practical effects on all other areas of thought.

Right, good point. And yet I have a problem with it. If we begin with Logic, who's to say we'll ever go beyond it? Logic puzzles may suffice to keep us occupied, without any incentive to move on to more important riddles. And even if we see Logic as only instrumental, it may still be a study which requires at least a lifetime...

Well, I don't think the progression from one area of philosophy to another needs to be that linear. In fact, I don't think we can help but to think of all areas of philosophy as they occur to us. But I do think that the exercise of logic helps with later thoughts in other areas of philosophy. In other words, we go forward making mistakes in pretty much all areas of philosophy until we learn how not to make those mistakes.

Right. But I think it goes deeper than logic. For one thing, logic or reason can hardly establish values. (I've personally established the rational value of valuation (i.e., valuing) itself, but using that to establish the value of logic would be circular.) I think the first consideration in the study of logic--as distinct from just doing logic puzzles for fun--should be this:

viewtopic.php?p=1987083#p1987083

You mean what statements we take to be true of the world? Unless such statements are deduced through a logic analysis, you are talking about assumptions. I agree with Faust that these are prelogical. We hold onto the assumptions we've experienced to be true in the real world, or which we've been told by a trusted authority, or which we intuite emotionally. <-- The key to choosing our assumptions is to be aware of what grounds are the most reliable. Or, if your goal is just to persuade, which assumptions are shared by those you're trying to persuade. But you do have to bring logic to the table when you try to draw out other truths from those assumptions.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

I'm not a philosopher ... yet ... I agree with Moreno ... phenomenology first.

Anyone here familiar with Edith Stein's contribution to phenomenology?

I've known the name Edith Stein for about 15 years ... known of her interest in phenomenology for most of that time ... yet ... until today had no understanding of phenomenology.

Let me share a metaphor to illustrate my current understanding ... be it right or wrong.

A train ... at birth we are like the engine of a train ... the "I" ... the "self" ... the "ego" is the engine.

As we travel through life we add "cars" to our train ... these "cars" are units/clusters of our personal experiences.

As we age our "train" grows to be quite long ... many of the units of personal experiences are long forgotten ... yet ... we continue to pull them along.

From time to time something happens in our external world that triggers a "synthesis" ... a homogeneous grouping of selective units/clusters of experiences and we become more conscious of our life's purpose/meaning.

[gib]

Pilgrim,

Do you think we can say that the study of logic is a very narrow focus of the study of phenomenology? I've always thought of phenomenology as the focus on our experiences and the attempt to draw out descriptions of how they feel, turning that into philosophy. Could the study of logic be that specifically applied to rational thought?

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

Gib

Seems to me Edith Stein ... in her thoughts concerning phenomenology ... would consider logic necessary for making sense of experience(s) yet independent of experience ... residing in the sphere ... realm ... of essence(s).

[Fixed Cross]

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.

Always possible. Can you give a summary of Russel fundamentals?
I agree with the statement that the future determines the present as much as the past does. In fact I've made that statement now and then myself, without having read Russell beyond his commentary on Wittgenstein, where I do think he is wrong.

Russell seems to miss a beat with the shift from logic to semantics. But this does not invalidate his logic. Its just the case that we had to go through postmodernism to grasp the arbitrariness of semantics and the absence of logical consistency in conceptual language. That is what Wittgenstein figured out after which he had to dismiss his Tractatus which had impressed Russel and the English other analytics.

There is probably still a lot to find in the disagreement of Wittgenstein with Russell and his former self.

[gib]

Gib

Seems to me Edith Stein ... in her thoughts concerning phenomenology ... would consider logic necessary for making sense of experience(s) yet independent of experience ... residing in the sphere ... realm ... of essence(s).

Ah, I guess that's where Edith Stein and I differ. To me, the feeling of thought is just another quality of phenomena--it is a subjective experience being had by a brain. "Abstraction" is just its quality.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

Gib ... that's kool ... I subscribe to the "and/both" school

[Arcturus Descending]

gib,

But how does one know how to live?

Do we KNOW HOW to live or do we learn how to live moment by moment? I think that it is an ongoing journey learned by following both contiguous and non-contiguous paths.
We learn by our experiences, both the negative and the positive ones.
The negative ones, if paid attention to, can teach us more I think than even our positive ones.
Our mistakes are scattered all over to learn from.

A baby may also be able to teach you if you pay attention to one. First you at times must learn to live by crawling, then by taking baby steps...putting one slow wobbly foot in front of the other.

[Faust]

Logic is first. Philosopher should do more than just opine. They should make arguments for their positions. Good ones, preferably. Ethics is the disguise for the real work of academic philosophy outside of logic - which is politics.

[Otto_West]

Philosophy is that of discussing values and existence in a way that science alone is inefficient or not up to task for.