Do you really love philosophy?

In any case:

One has to have electric transmitter, for example: nerves.

Without logic consciousness makes no sense because there must be a construction of a logical relationship for the consciousness, even also when it is merely an imagination. Without logic language makes also no sense. But what about logic? Does logic make sense without consciousness? No. Does logic make sense without language? Probably yes. A very primitive bacterium somehow “knows” what to do in order to survive, but probably does not need a language (note: language does not necessarily always mean “human language”, but also “language for all beings”).

Another consideration:

Luxury.

If we consider the principle “luxury”, we come to other results: in that case namely the language came perhaps first because the sense behind it was simply the luxury from which other phenomena arose, e.g. logic. So the grunt (as an example) has only a meaning behind it because of the luxury of grunts.

Referring to the German scientist Paul Alsberg (cp. "Das Menschheitsrätsel, 1922) the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk once said (in: Geo -Wissen, September 1998, p. 43-47): “The human beings are descended from the throw” ( :astonished: ) and “human beings have no coat / fur / hide / pett anymore because they are luxury beings”, no beings of adaptation to their environment (cp. Darwin and Darwinism), but on the contrary: beings of alienation,of insulation (cp. isles and islands). Human language, human sexuality, human emotions … etc. are possibly caused by luxury. But what about language in general then?

Logic comes in four forms;
1) person reasoning, often “flawed logic”
2) the concept of logic; “A is A” or “what is, is what is”.
3) the language/thoughts of logic; “If A is B and B is C then …”
4) the reality of logic; the reality that what anything is, really is what it is.

That 4th form of logic “comes first” before anything and everything - “First Principle” (and has even been called “God”, even by Moses).

James,

Why did you say that I am an aesthetics kind of girl? Were you actually referring to aesthetics itself as is being discussed or something else? :mrgreen:

What do you think about the following classification?:

There are mathematics, logic (philosophy), linguistics, semiotics on the one side which is more spiritual than material, and there are physics, chemistry, biology, economy (incl. sociology and others) on the other side which is more material than spiritual. So we have:

|Mathematics||Logic (Philosophy)||Linguistics||Semiotics| “versus” |Physics||Chemistry||Biology||Economy (Sociology a.o.)|
This is not merely meant in the sense of scientific disciplines, but also and especially in the sense of existence at all.

There are two sides of existence: a more spiritual than material and a more material than spiritual which are different concentrations of the same thing, interconvertible, and that means that they are similar to energy and mass).

If you are in love with philosophy because of aesthetics, then please let me know.

I was referring to this;

"I remember reading what James (JSS) said - that logic needs to go before metaphysics and i kind of go along with that. "

Once again, Arturus, I agree that JSS makes a compelling point -that is since we tend to arrive at metaphysical conclusions via logic and lack the empirical means of confirming our metaphysical assertions. Still, I would argue (with some reservations and self questioning (that the import of Logic is propped up by metaphysical assumptions about how we must interact with reality.

That said, you make some compelling points yourself.Unfortunately, I am at the outre or coda phase of today’s process. I hope to get back to this.

But you can combine this with ethics and make it matter of value statements.

If you are in love with philosophy because of ethics, then please let me know.

Thank you for that, Jimmy. You ARE so astute. :mrgreen:

You really need to stop drinking that rum, you know. :stuck_out_tongue:
You might want to define “powerful” here for me, but only if you choose to.

i tend to agree that logic must come first in seeking these ultimate answers. But then again, being the skeptic, lol maybe not always first. What about the use of one’s imagination and senses? Well of course the senses do play a part in the formation of logic. Or does logic take these into consideration in the first place? Perhaps they’re all harmonized. (rambling).

Heh??? :-k

Can you explain what you mean by this - give me an example? When you return that is.

Provided that one can be “in love with philosophy”, I would like to know something about the reasons(s) or even cause(s) for that “love” and wether it is becasue of merely one area, or more areas of the philsophy, or the philosophy itself as a whole.

Is “loving philosophy” similar to i.e. “loving god(s)”, “loving logic”, “loving mathematics”, …?

For me the ‘love’ can be a kind of joy [sometimes despair] in the mind, it feels warm and it rewards us when we resolve something. Not thinking like a philosopher is a dullness in the mind [to me anyhow] just like not being in love with a person is.

Probably just that we are an instrument with those kinds of responses and rewards. Then however we express that gives us said rewards and responses, possibly the same thing in religion when people love god, or in children when they love a teddy bear.

Ok, but if I were to characterize modern philosophy post Hume as it relates to his doubting, I would say it connects well to one strand of early philosophy, scepticism. The fact is there is the effect of the uncertainty which undermined not only a complete and lasting resolution, but that of love of God, ergo Man, and Love of anything is seen nowedays as a very precarious and recurrent phenomena having little stability or even meaning. The fuzzy feeling one gets in the inside, is basically a good feeling for one’s self, we are never too sure what others are feeling. we can only try to ascertain that by expression of others by what they say they feel. often, these types of measures are again open to interpretation.

That “sounds” good, but it could be something between loving a teddy baer, the parents, the sisters, or God on the one side and loving in the sense of liking (interestingly this can not be used as a verb with the ing-form) philosophy on the other side.

In a world of a society that lives in a “foam” (Peter Sloterdijk), everything has merely “little stability or even meaning”.

Orb

Although scepticism is a negative way of thinking, its positively negative. I think society needs more, i don’t get why so many classics are classics, when they are boring shit. Everything is a bit too ‘yay’ for me these days, salesmen saying ‘sell sell sell’ as if a positive instruction, when its actually just moronic. Not to mention that our governments and societies have devious intent or worse, a knowing ignorance in some of their politics/attitude [e.g. the unemployed, mentally ill, the old], which again is just unintelligent.

true. but that is the old apology for the faustian transgression.apologists and sceptics are aimicable bedfellows