"First Philosophy"

[Zealot]

First I need to introduce the topic somewhat more clearly. In ancient Greek philosophy, first philosophy, or where you start in examining and seeking to understand the basic principles of existance, was metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of being, ie. asking questions such as what is the nature of the soul? Does the world exist and what is it's nature? Do I exist? Do you exist? What makes me different from you? What makes me different from a cat?

 

 

 

Aristotle said that in order to know what a thing is you have to know four things about it. You have to know what it is made of (the material cause). You have to know where it came from (the efficient cause). You have to know what paterning or form the thing takes (the formal cause). And finally you have to know what the thing is for (the final cause). His four causes apply directly to the study of metaphysics, and were the basis for most knowledge and understanding up until the late middle ages. (well, once his works were returned to Europe by Islamic scholars anyway).

 

 

 

Then along came Descartes, who believed that epistomology was the real first philosophy. Epistomology is the study of the nature of knowledge. Specific questions that it seeks to understand include Is it possible to know anything? Are there different types of knowledge? What is the deffinition of knowledge?

 

 

 

With that in mind, the question that I want to ask is which do you believe is more basic, the study of existence, or the study of knowledge?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally I tend to side with Aristotle. Don't get me wrong, Descartes was a brilliant man, and quite a bit of our understanding of the world comes from him. But I believe that I have to know what I am before I can address the question can I know anything. Specifically I have to know that I am a real thing before I can trust that anything I might think is beliefworthy.

[zaquierming]

You need the study of knowledge to assess the study of existence, do you not?

[IGoddessI]

My first philosophy moment was my first time getting stoned around the age of 13 (it happened get over it just keep reading). I thought what if the brain was an illusion and everything we see, smell, touch, taste, hear etc wasn't real and our minds only created it to be real as the vibration frequencies spun at such high speeds that it perceived things the way it does and that the illusion of the mind was the universe, the god, the alpha and omega as everything we saw was an illusion and all that exists is energy... I hope that makes sense... Which meant that we were the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅGodÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Zonorhc]

You need the study of knowledge to assess the study of existence, do you not?

 

 

 

I would argue that this is not the case, as the study of existence does not logically require the examination of the nature of knowledge, rather, existence itself.

 

 

 

If existence was equated to knowledge, then yes, a study of the nature of knowledge would be required, but seeing as how it is not, then no.

[Kashi]

In a way, knowledge is a physical thing. It is created, and has life, in a way. Basically, knowledge

 

exists, and therefore the study of knowledge should be considered a sub-category of the study of

 

existence. The same doesn't work the other way around.

 

 

 

I tend to side with Aristotle, yeah.

[Zonorhc]

In a way, knowledge is a physical thing. It is created, and has life, in a way. Basically, knowledge

 

exists, and therefore the study of knowledge should be considered a sub-category of the study of

 

existence. The same doesn't work the other way around.

 

 

 

I tend to side with Aristotle, yeah.

 

 

 

But then, could you not say that knowledge develops, rather than being created? I would disagree that it is physical in any way. Yes, knowledge can be applied to, used to create, or transmitted through physical objects, but in no way does that make the knowledge itself physical. In this sense, knowledge is essentially metaphysical.

 

 

 

As existence can be loosely defined as a physical state as well as a metaphysical one - for example, the mind and Descartes' famous expression regarding it - then one could argue that the study of knowledge and existence itself are two separate fields that could be applied to one another, without either being required to understand the other.

 

 

 

I don't see how the study of existence is required to lead onto the study of knowledge, because both are subjective principles that are, in some ways, mutually exclusive. I refer of course, to the fact that one can discuss the nature of an animal's existence without necessarily discussing the nature of the knowledge pertaining to that animal. The inverse is also true, as in the case of theories regarding extraterrestrial life: one can discuss the nature of the knowledge pertaining to extraterrestrial life, largely as a derivative of knowledge regarding life already familiar to us, without actually discussing the existence of that life, only the potential of it.

 

 

 

Dialectic discourse is awesome.

[assassin_696]

I don't really think you can choose either way.

 

 

 

For instance you could argue that we need existence to talk about knowledge, which requires knowledge of our existence etc.

 

 

 

I don't really think you can give preference to either one.

[RayOxide]

My first philosophy moment was my first time getting stoned around the age of 13

 

 

 

:o :o :o That's awesome, it's not different then... :wink:

[Zonorhc]

For instance you could argue that we need existence to talk about knowledge, which requires knowledge of our existence etc.

 

 

 

Yes, but that's not the point of the question. It was the study of knowledge vis the study of existence. As a corollary, not knowledge of existence, but the study of its nature. Further, not knowledge about knowledge, but about its nature.

 

 

 

It's slightly confusing semantic ground at first.

[assassin_696]

For instance you could argue that we need existence to talk about knowledge, which requires knowledge of our existence etc.

 

 

 

Yes, but that's not the point of the question. It was the study of knowledge vis the study of existence. As a corollary, not knowledge of existence, but the study of its nature. Further, not knowledge about knowledge, but about its nature.

 

 

 

It's slightly confusing semantic ground at first.

 

 

 

Indeed it is. I suppose you're right, my way of saying it didn't quite make sense but I still can't see how any is more fundamental than the other, although if I had to pick sides, i'd say the study of existence.

[Zealot]

I don't really think you can choose either way.

 

 

 

For instance you could argue that we need existence to talk about knowledge, which requires knowledge of our existence etc.

 

 

 

I don't really think you can give preference to either one.

 

 

 

Obviously to some extent you have to understand both in order to really understand either. In Metaphysics, Aristotle wrote about "the firmest principle of all". that principle is that it is not possible for a thing to possess both a quality and it's logical negation at the same time and in the same way. If it is the case that this principle, which is a principle of metaphysics is not correct then knowledge as Descartes defines it can not be possessed because there is not any reason to assume that a thing known will continue to work in the same way as it has been observed to in the past.

 

 

 

It is important to recognize that Aristotle didn't define knowledge in exactly the same way that Descartes did. Aristotle believed that there was one layer of knowing that was deeper. There are principles that are just... true. Among them was the principle of noncontradiction (which I mentioned earlier). I forget the other two at the moment. Maybe this evening if I have time I will talk more about that. But the point that he was trying to make is that we must have a basic understanding of the nature of the world and of existance. In a sence we know that this understanding is true without possessing knowledge about it. And it is only precisely because these principles are true that it is possible to know anything else.

 

 

 

The firmest principle of all is one about which it is impossible to be mistaken. For this sort of principle must be known best (for what we make mistakes about is invariably what we do not know), and it can not be an assumption; and what we must know in order to know anything at all is a principle we must already possess.

--Metaphysics IV, ch.3 14-15

 

 

 

I suppose that another way to look at it is that Aristotle recognized that he isn't the only smart guy ever to live and so he wanted to build on the work of others. If epistomology is the true first philosophy, the answers to it must be gained personally, because I must know that I can know in order to accept what others have said before me, so in that sence it is not possible to build on the knowledge of those who have gone before us. If I just make the assumption, (Aristotle would glare at me for calling it that) I can go from there and if it later looks to be a bad assumption (leads to a logical contradiction, does not reflect reality, etc.) I can go back and figure out what is wrong and change that. There's no sence throwing out everything because it isn't a perfect fit. To do so is, in my mind, a highly arrogant thing to do and equivilent with saying that one is smart enough to understand and know everything by oneself.

[assassin_696]

Yeah, which is why I said I think existence is probably slightly more fundamental thinking about it, although i'd still find it hard to say it was a significant gap. Obviously knowledge is ultimately very important.

 

 

 

I think if you were to build up philosophy from the ground up and start again, i'd probably start with existence, although it would be hard to keep knowledge out of there.

[Zonorhc]

Personally, I believe that philosophy shouldn't develop with an overarching principle already in mind. Rather, you should collect thoughts from relevant fields and analyse them to create an idea of what existence could be. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to formulate an idea of existence without some sort of solid basis on established thought. A notable characteristic of Presocratic philosophy is that those who contributed to it did so in amazingly disparate ways, rather than aiming for a particular goal.

[bbalking]

I'd agree with Aristotle, mainly 'cos I've found myself thinking of similar questions and wonderings whilst dazing in one of my classes.

 

 

 

But mehh, I'm sure we could all come up with our own philosophy for life and what not.

 

 

 

 

 

~Bbalking

[Zealot]

Yeah, which is why I said I think existence is probably slightly more fundamental thinking about it, although i'd still find it hard to say it was a significant gap. Obviously knowledge is ultimately very important.

 

 

 

I think if you were to build up philosophy from the ground up and start again, i'd probably start with existence, although it would be hard to keep knowledge out of there.

 

 

 

Yeah. (sorry about the long post which doesn't really reflect all that you said. I was writing it while you were discussing and didn't see your response) I think that I would have to look at knowledge in a metaphysical manner. Ie. I would have to study it's being before I could get very far in metaphysics.

 

 

 

Interestingly enough that would probably lead almost immediately to semiotics (the study of signs, where sign is defined as absolutely anything that suggests, reminds of, points to, etc. another thing.) Then again that is what really interests me most in the discipline of philosophy so I would want to go that way.

[Zealot]

Personally, I believe that philosophy shouldn't develop with an overarching principle already in mind. Rather, you should collect thoughts from relevant fields and analyse them to create an idea of what existence could be. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to formulate an idea of existence without some sort of solid basis on established thought. A notable characteristic of Presocratic philosophy is that those who contributed to it did so in amazingly disparate ways, rather than aiming for a particular goal.

 

 

 

I have to disagree but only slightly. I think that it is necessary that some things must just be true. A thing can not possess both a quality and it's logical negation. If you have only two choices, you can not pick a middle choice (ie. a coin, when flipped is only really heads or tails, it can not be both or neither. Also, a statement of truth can only be true or false, it can not be both or neither.) In preforming logic a person makes the basic assumption that doing so will lead to truth and understanding and it is based on this sort of principle, or knowledge that is gained by:

 

 

 

1: unpacking what precisely these principles mean in relation to the given case.

 

 

 

2: applying these principles to the observation of the world we live in.

[Zonorhc]

I have to disagree but only slightly. I think that it is necessary that some things must just be true. A thing can not possess both a quality and it's logical negation. If you have only two choices, you can not pick a middle choice (ie. a coin, when flipped is only really heads or tails, it can not be both or neither. Also, a statement of truth can only be true or false, it can not be both or neither.) In preforming logic a person makes the basic assumption that doing so will lead to truth and understanding and it is based on this sort of principle, or knowledge that is gained by:

 

 

 

1: unpacking what precisely these principles mean in relation to the given case.

 

 

 

2: applying these principles to the observation of the world we live in.

 

 

 

The examples you gave aren't really the best. The coin doesn't have to land as heads or tails - there is the slight chance that it lands on edge, however small. Also, while a statement can either be true or false, it doesn't necessarily have to be wholly true or false. Shades of grey come into play here.

[assassin_696]

Yeah, which is why I said I think existence is probably slightly more fundamental thinking about it, although i'd still find it hard to say it was a significant gap. Obviously knowledge is ultimately very important.

 

 

 

I think if you were to build up philosophy from the ground up and start again, i'd probably start with existence, although it would be hard to keep knowledge out of there.

 

 

 

Yeah. (sorry about the long post which doesn't really reflect all that you said. I was writing it while you were discussing and didn't see your response) I think that I would have to look at knowledge in a metaphysical manner. Ie. I would have to study it's being before I could get very far in metaphysics.

 

 

 

Interestingly enough that would probably lead almost immediately to semiotics (the study of signs, where sign is defined as absolutely anything that suggests, reminds of, points to, etc. another thing.) Then again that is what really interests me most in the discipline of philosophy so I would want to go that way.

 

 

 

Don't worry, it was an interesting read :)

 

 

 

I suppose I agree with Zonorch, that philosophy nowadays is a cumulations of hundreds if not thousands of years of progressive thought. Plato, Socrates and Aristotle were the first true philosophers I suppose, and you need to understand them to be able to understand philosophy that stems from it. In this way, I suppose you could consider the philosophy of Aristotle et al. to be fundamental and the starting point, but nowadays it's harder to envisage this kind of fundamentality with the collected thoughts of thousands.

 

 

 

I think Umberto Eco is a fairly renowned semiotician, some of his novels bring it in in an interesting way. All interesting stuff though, this.

[Zealot]

Don't worry, it was an interesting read :)

 

 

 

I suppose I agree with Zonorch, that philosophy nowadays is a cumulations of hundreds if not thousands of years of progressive thought. Plato, Socrates and Aristotle were the first true philosophers I suppose, and you need to understand them to be able to understand philosophy that stems from it. In this way, I suppose you could consider the philosophy of Aristotle et al. to be fundamental and the starting point, but nowadays it's harder to envisage this kind of fundamentality with the collected thoughts of thousands.

 

 

 

I think Umberto Eco is a fairly renowned semiotician, some of his novels bring it in in an interesting way. All interesting stuff though, this.

 

 

 

Eh? The big three weren't the first. They just are the best known. ;-) There were a lot of pre-socratic philosophers. It just is the case that we don't possess anything but fragments of their work, and things which were credited to them.

 

 

 

I have never heard of Umberto Eco. I might have to look into that, so thanks. :-)

 

 

 

My favorite Semiotician is an American philosopher by the name of Charles Sanders Pirce. He was Aristotillian in his beliefs and very, very prolific of ideas. Among them, he invented the computer several decades before it was invented (though the person he gave the idea to did nothing with it, prefering to build a mechanical computer rather then an electrical one) He talked about how it is possible in logical language to get all the operators from only one. (another guy, again later, came up with the same thing independently) But my favorite thing about Peirce is his discourse on the human brain and attempting to define it semiotically.

 

 

 

I'm rather enjoying this conversation. Thanks everybody who has posted so far. Unfortunately I have to go so hopefully I will catch up with you all this evening.

[assassin_696]

Sorry, I didn't mean the actual first, I just meant the first three to have a definite and traceable influence on modern day philosophy.

[Rebdragon]

It is useless to study knowledge, as the fact that we can't know everything can't be studied. It's obvious we can't totally "know" anything; there's no point even thinking about it.

 

 

 

Existence, on the other hand, can be studied.

[Zonorhc]

It is useless to study knowledge, as the fact that we can't know everything can't be studied. It's obvious we can't totally "know" anything; there's no point even thinking about it.

 

 

 

Existence, on the other hand, can be studied.

 

 

 

You need to read the entire thread.

 

 

 

What is being discussed is the study of the nature of knowledge, rather than the study of knowledge itself.

[highlanders]

Sorry didn't understand a thing, I didn't really try anyway.

 

 

 

I try to understand our world, in order to know what it is I should do, what part I should hold in it. The more I gain knowledge, the more I gain insight, and understand where it is I should fit in that grand scheme.

[Zealot]

Sorry didn't understand a thing, I didn't really try anyway.

 

 

 

I try to understand our world, in order to know what it is I should do, what part I should hold in it. The more I gain knowledge, the more I gain insight, and understand where it is I should fit in that grand scheme.

 

 

 

Funny, because I find myself a lot of times thinking exactly the opposite. The more I know the more I recognize that I don't know. Though I suppose that I can agree that the more I know the more I know myself and what it is that I belong doing in the world...

 

 

 

What that means at the moment is that I am realizing that something else that Aristotle wrote that I first adamently disagreed with appears to in fact reflect reality. In the first book of Metaphysics, he wrote that "All human beings by nature desire to know." From there he unpacked what he meant, that being that after all our needs and recreational desires are met, people tend to gravitate toward philosophical discourse. I didn't think that really fit reality at first, but as the idea has marinated in my brain it has become more apparent that it does at least in respect to me. At first, I was only a little interested in philosophy, mostly because I wanted to be able to talk circles around people and that seemed to be a good means to accomplish it. Over time, as I have developed a craft (that being cooking) and gained a lot of recreational knowledge, I find myself thinking more on the matters of the nature of existance, knowledge, language, thought, and so on. The more I learn about these subjects and subsets thereof, the more I realize just how much I do not know. And not knowing breeds in me a desire to know. It's a vicious cycle of sorts.

 

 

 

That said, I wouldn't give it up for the world. I long to know and understand... everything. I'll never get there, but one thing you can be assured of is that I'm going to die trying, and hopefully I will move a little farther in some direction then anybody else has yet gone, and that knowledge will be passed on and made use of by future generations.