Fixed Cross wrote:When I opened this thread ...
Leyla wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:When I opened this thread ...
So "Faust" is another account of yours?
That makes five now, as far as I know. Well, if one can't get any real supporters ...
Leyla wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:When I opened this thread ...
So "Faust" is another account of yours?
That makes five now, as far as I know. Well, if one can't get any real supporters ...
Arc wrote:
I really think that most of the problem between you guys besides ego is a question of semantics
Arcturus Descending wrote:How does one go about being able to study and grasp hold of certain concepts of ethical moral behavior and distinguish that from unethical moral behavior or any concept except by way of using one's right reason, one's logical functions, which include clear cognitive thinking and following all the facts made available and investigating them.
Then there is the work ethic of say self-discipline, hard work, stick-to-it-iveness, focus, et cetera that it takes to achieve one's desires and goals.
I really think that most of the problem between you guys besides ego is a question of semantics.
Sauwelios wrote:Arcturus, I pointed out well before all this chaos began that there's a difference between ethics and Ethics, or between ethics and the study of ethics, respectively. Same for logic and Logic. And yeah, one needs (a) logic--though not necessarily Logic!--to study ethics well. But this "chaos" is more about whether ethics or logic comes first than about whether Ethics or Logic comes first.
Arminius wrote:When I joined ILP I had sympathy for Nietzsche. Merely after three days, having had contact with Nietzscheanists on ILP, this sympathy for Nietzsche was elminated by Nietzscheanists (!). Later I started to get some sympathy for Nietzsche again, but each time when I talked to a Nietzscheanist the just gotten sympathy was blowing away again.
Faust wrote: 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.
Which one would you put first?
Arcturus Descending wrote:http://www.eurozine.com/what-does-nietzsche-mean-to-philosophers-today/
Very good read.
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:When I joined ILP I had sympathy for Nietzsche. Merely after three days, having had contact with Nietzscheanists on ILP, this sympathy for Nietzsche was elminated by Nietzscheanists (!). Later I started to get some sympathy for Nietzsche again, but each time when I talked to a Nietzscheanist the just gotten sympathy was blowing away again.
Actually I had that same stance with Einstein. I had/have nothing against the actual Einstein papers and theories, although the Relativity ontology isn't entirely coherent. But the worship of it all drives me to be "anti-Einsteinean" and "anti-Relativist". The good sense within gets lost by the subsequent exaggerated nonsense.
Arminius wrote:And all these worshippers are one (not the only, but nevertheless one) of the main reasons why science has become almost unable to make progress.
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:And all these worshippers are one (not the only, but nevertheless one) of the main reasons why science has become almost unable to make progress.
And I have to wonder how much of that non-progress is intentional.
James S Saint wrote:Until the supreme elite authority of all life is fully irreproachable, progress must be governed and in the long run, perhaps entirely reversed.
surreptitious57 wrote:Logic is a system that can be taught because its rules are universal and objective. That is to say they are true for everyone
Ethics is not a system that can be taught because its rules are arbitrary and subjective. That is to say the ethics of one will
not be the same as the ethics of everyone. This is the basic difference between them and so logic cannot come from ethics
Sauwelios wrote:In ancient Greek, ethos and nomos are (near-)synonyms. Nomos means, in developmental order, "way, habit, custom; convention, principle; law". In its sense of "convention, principle", it was a if not the standing antonym of physis, "nature". So a "natural law" is a paradoxical concept in the classical view.
Sauwelios wrote:One should compare "positive law" or "positive right" on the one hand, and "natural law" or "natural right" on the other. Natural is what is not posited (by persons).
Sauwelios wrote:A similar discrepancy can be found between law and reason (logos). Consider astronomy and astrology. In Presocratic times, astrologia still meant "astronomy" (for example in Heraclitus).
Serendipper wrote:Hey guys, I'm just going to jump in here with both feet because I think this topic is neat.Faust wrote: 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.
Which one would you put first?
Well, we need some sensible rationale:
- what is
- processing what is (is it good?)
- prediction based on processing of what is (how can I find more?)
- develop codes of conduct based on predictions from the processing of what is (should I share?)
- question what is (what is it really?)
Starting from the top, a progressively higher manner of organism is required to execute the task.
A simple organism can perceive (what is). Even an atom can perceive the presence of charge and react without neural processing. So, perception is most fundamental followed by discernment through a rudimentary network of specialized cells for memory and recognition. Prediction requires a more complex network for statistical processing and ethics is yet more refinement. The pinnacle and full-circle achievement is to develop to the point that reality itself is questioned and we, possibly, start over on another plane of consciousness where ideas are observable objects to be judged, predicted, etc.
How one decides to pigeon-hole arbitrary fields of study into each category is subjective to the semantic interpretation of labels as there seems quite a bit of overlap in some, but I'm thinking:
- Ontology (what is)
- Logic (is it good? yes/no, simple binary)
- Epistemology (how can I find more?)
- Ethics (should I share?)
- I'd put metaphysics here because it should encompass phenomenology (is it real?)
Thoughts?
James S Saint wrote:Sauwelios wrote:In ancient Greek, ethos and nomos are (near-)synonyms. Nomos means, in developmental order, "way, habit, custom; convention, principle; law". In its sense of "convention, principle", it was a if not the standing antonym of physis, "nature". So a "natural law" is a paradoxical concept in the classical view.
Wow, what kind of total BS is that?
Sauwelios wrote:One should compare "positive law" or "positive right" on the one hand, and "natural law" or "natural right" on the other. Natural is what is not posited (by persons).
Again, BS. What is posited by people (proposed) is not the antithesis of natural. What is constructed by people is the antithesis of natural phenomenon (by common usage of the language).
Quite the reverse is true concerning what is proposed by people as "natural law" or even as "dialectics". There is no black or white between natural and conceptual. And that includes the entire issue of "God".
Serendipper wrote:A simple organism can perceive (what is).
Serendipper wrote:Even an atom can perceive the presence of charge and react without neural processing.
Sauwelios wrote:It's common knowledge that nomos and physis were standing antonyms. See for example here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physis#Classical_usage
nomos would refer to "nurture", and physis would correlate to "nature".
James S Saint wrote:Serendipper wrote:A simple organism can perceive (what is).
Perception requires innate, non-lingual logic ("what I see is what is there").Serendipper wrote:Even an atom can perceive the presence of charge and react without neural processing.
Perception requires a degree of consciousness (and vsvrsa). Natural law reactions are not perceptions.
Sauwelios wrote:Is this a bad time to ask how you know atoms have no degree of consciousness?
Sauwelios wrote:And would you say even the beings with the lowest degree of consciousness reason that "what I see is what is there"?
Frege was already famous before Bertrand Russel was born. Back then, everyone of those Europeans who were interested in mathematics, logic, philosophy read Frege; even certain Americans (especially those who had studied in Germany) read Frege at that time.
Users browsing this forum: Ecmandu