What are the First Principles of Philosophy?

Reply to TheGreatArcanum A first principle by its nature is supposed to be a necessary truth. So whatever a given philosophy takes to be first principles, it takes those to be necessary (and therefore eternal) truths.

I thought this thread was going to be about something much more interesting, and in case it actually is and I just don't see it in there, I'll say what I expected: what are the first principles assumed by philosophy as an activity, not by any particular philosophical systems? I.e. what are the principles held in common between people doing philosophy, violation of which means whatever you're doing is no longer philosophy?

I think those principles are:
- There are no unanswerable questions
- There are no unquestionable answers

Violating the first principle, we end up doing nothing, at least nothing even vaguely resembling philosophy. Violating the second principle, we end up doing religion (because we're appealing to faith), not philosophy (which by its nature appeals to reason).

I think that an entire philosophical system can be built out of just those two principles.

Quoting Pfhorrest

A first principle by its nature is supposed to be a necessary truth. So whatever a given philosophy takes to be first principles, it takes those to be necessary (and therefore eternal) truths.

It is supposed to be a necessary truth, but are there necessary truths that are not simply believed to be necessary, but necessarily necessary?Quoting Pfhorrest

thought this thread was going to be about something much more interesting, and in case it actually is and I just don't see it in there

It could be more interesting, because I've found the First Principles, and could have posted them. but I want to see what others think.

Quoting Pfhorrest

I think those principles are:
- There are no unanswerable questions
- There are no unquestionable answers

Sure, but these are statements concerning epistemology; what about statements concerning ontology? Is epistemology contingent upon ontology, or is ontology contingent upon epistemology? Which is prior to which? Further, I am looking for necessary truths here, or rather, truths that are eternal, the truths that you posted are presuppositional. How are we supposed to know if there are unanswerable questions or not? Doesn't the truthiness of both this statement and the other (i.e. "there are no unquestionable answers") necessitate other truths and other questions? If they do, they are not general enough to be used as the First Principles of a Perennial Philosophy of Being.

Quoting TheGreatArcanum

Sure, but these are statements concerning epistemology; what about statements concerning ontology? Is

Those aren't just statements concerning epistemology. The "no unanswerable questions" one is more ontological than epistemological: a full half of that principle is just equal to realism, and the other half is moral objectivism. The "no unquestionable answers" one is more epistemological, but it has direct implications that are again more ontological: if every answer must be questionable, then no appeals to things that can't be questioned are acceptable, ruling out the supernatural, i.e. the non-empirical. Between those two things you have a robust ontology of empirical realism. And on the moral side of things, the analogue of that, a kind of hedonic moral objectivism. Conversely, the "no unanswerable questions" principle has direct epistemological and deontological implications as well: justificationism would, through Agrippa's Trilemma, lead either to foundationalism or coherentism (which violate the "no unquestionable answers" principle), or else to rejecting all opinions out of hand, violating the "no unanswerable questions" principle, so contra justificationism we have to have a critical rationalist epistemology, and the moral equivalent of that, a liberal deontology (where you're allowed to do what you like until reason can be shown not to, rather than forbidden from doing anything until you can justify that there is a good reason to).

All of those things then have far-reaching implications on things from philosophy of language, art, and mathematics, mind, will, education, governance, and so on.

Reply to Pfhorrest the problem is that you’re trying to use a priori truths as the foundation for an a posteriori system of philosophy (empirical realism), that is, for a school of thought that denies the existence of non-empirical truths. the problem with empirical realism is that the notion that ‘all truths have empirical justifications,’ has no empirical justification. the implications of your philosophy stop right here; only a fool would build a philosophy on top of a contradiction and call himself rational.

Void = lacking of

Being = existence

Truth = the reality

Goodness = that which answers "Why"

Beauty = ?

An empiricist has to answer what an object is. That is a philosophical question. Is a forest an object?

Reply to TheGreatArcanum I never denied the existence of non-empirical truths, I said an implication of those first principles is that one’s ontology should be empirical realism, i.e. one should not make claims about what exists that are non-empirical or non-realist. We can talk about things besides just what exists or not, though, and those claims are not confined to empiricism or realism by those principles.

IMO one of two (or both) candidates for western philosophy's 'first principle' are

(A) the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or ~[x = ~x]

or

(B) the principle of insufficient reason (PIR), or random (i.e. acausal) events occur and are ineluctable (i.e. unbounded);

thus, by virtue of which, reflective criteria (for judgment) and adaptive methods (of decision-making) have been cultivated / are regulated.

Anyway, just my 2 drachmas.

:death: :flower:

Quoting 180 Proof

(A) the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or ~[x = ~x]

If you mention this one, why not also include the law of identity and the law of the excluded middle? If not, why not?

Quoting Benkei

If you mention this one, why not also include the law of identity and the law of the excluded middle? If not, why not?

I think each one presupposes (or, otherwise, supplements) the PNC. Also, 'contradiction' has modal ontological implications (re: 'impossibilty' e.g. impossible objects / worlds) which, to my mind, the others lack.

Hegel's whole philosophy was an expansion in Aquinas's themes that there is truth IN objects. That is.not an empirical question. Philosophy is not language games

PNC is either rejected or violated in the works of many philosophers, e.g. Heraclitus, Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein... There isn't much evidence to support the logical consistency of philosophy, especially in epistemology. If philosophy is considered to be primarily a normative activity, this doesn't matter. The loss of PNC isn't a great blow, it just means that philosophers are unstable hypocrites with alternating beliefs.

Its not about logical atomistic consistency. Wittgenstein should not be in your list sime.

Hegel had a far richer intellectual life than poor Wittgenstein. That's what counts

Whether objects just have existence, or also goodness and maybe truth in them, is a logical question. What is beauty? That which pleases? But that is what it does, not what it is. If we keep the questions to the world instead of going outside like Socrates, we have valid questions

Quoting Gregory

Its not about logical atomistic consistency. Wittgenstein should not be in your list sime.

I wasn't specifically thinking of logical atomism, i was referring to his consciously self-refuting Tractatus, as well the latter Wittgenstein's philosophical investigations, that isn't logically consistent. For example, his apparent reliance on the imagination to refute the idea of private language. This isn't a criticism, it's just a general feature of philosophical arguments. For many other examples see Graham Priest's "Beyond the Limits of Thought".

Quoting sime

I wasn't specifically thinking of logical atomism, i was referring to his consciously self-refuting Tractatus, as well the latter Wittgenstein's philosophical investigations, that isn't logically consistent. For example, his apparent reliance on the imagination to refute the idea of private language. This isn't a criticism, it's just a general feature of philosophical arguments. For many other examples see Graham Priest's "Beyond the Limits of Thought".

The Tractatus is consistent, although maybe not with the Investigations. That would be Wittgenstein changing his mind (maybe from the limits he had put himself in). If he used imagination to find out that we can communicate as a species across cultures and languages, I don't see that inconsistent either

We know HOW is beauty (for it pleases us), but WHAT is beauty, and WHY is it? Those are valid concerns. No language games here

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

Philosophy is an engine powered by a usually unexplicated dynamic. The ground, then, of inquiry being unclear or entirely unseen, the inquiry itself is never complete.

The idea is that what something is depends on how it is perceived or taken. If that preliminary occurrence of perception/taking is not laid out and laid bare, then the entire process remains incomplete.

First activity, then, is the inquiry - the question, whatever it is. First principle should be a complete excavation of the ground of the question. In particular and especially not the furniture and immediate surroundings of the question, but instead its presuppositions and purposes. These latter, properly understood and examined, give the greatest chance for knowledge, and absent which, knowledge can only be accidental or incidental, or impossible.

Maybe a little too Cartesian. Don't underestimate the "movement of philosophy" (Hegel).

Here is a good start for ye guys:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=days+like+these+hegel+school+of+life&view=detail&mid=7206E3217DBBCB3809417206E3217DBBCB380941&FORM=VIRE

Quoting sime

PNC is either rejected or violated in the works of many philosophers, e.g. Heraclitus, Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein... There isn't much evidence to support the logical consistency of philosophy, especially in epistemology.

There's a difference between using words to denote objects or relationships between objects in the world, and the objects and relationships between objects in themselves that those words represent. The Law of Non Contradiction is thought to be violated only because it can be shown that a contradiction in terms of the relationships between the symbols (i.e. words) that point the objects, can be true. This results for the false equivalence that the symbols that represent objects and the objects themselves are the same, or rather, have the same logical form which they do not. In an actualized sense, nothing can ever exist and not exist at the same and in the same respect. However, in a state of potentiality, the actualized possibility of x and -x exist at the same time and in the same respect, according to my philosophy anyways.

Quoting tim wood

Philosophy is an engine powered by a usually unexplicated dynamic. The ground, then, of inquiry being unclear or entirely unseen, the inquiry itself is never complete.

The idea is that what something is depends on how it is perceived or taken. If that preliminary occurrence of perception/taking is not laid out and laid bare, then the entire process remains incomplete.

First activity, then, is the inquiry - the question, whatever it is. First principle should be a complete excavation of the ground of the question. In particular and especially not the furniture and immediate surroundings of the question, but instead its presuppositions and purposes. These latter, properly understood and examined, give the greatest chance for knowledge, and absent which, knowledge can only be accidental or incidental, or impossible

Take a truth, any truth, and then ask yourself, what must first be true for it to be true, and keep going and going until you find an undeniable truth. When you find it, ask yourself, can this truth change and how? You claim that it can be changing, why? Because the world is changing? But is there not some underlying unchanging aspect that grounds it all? Isn't change contingent upon the lack thereof? Isn't all change for the purpose of that which changes not? Can Existence and Non-Existence both Exist and Not Exist at the same time and in the same respect? Is not the truth that "Existence is" (in the absolute sense), eternal? If not, whence did it come into being?

Quoting 180 Proof

(B) the principle of insufficient reason (PIR), or random (i.e. acausal) events occur and are ineluctable (i.e. unbounded);

How is it that you think teleology and acausality can co-exist? Is not all chaos, controlled chaos, and thus bounded by order? Aren't all infinities bounded by some a priori set, or concept? In a world of infinite randomness, how is that things in the world never become anything other than what they have the a priori potential to become? A seed can become a tree, and out of the tree, a fruit, and out of a fruit, another seed, but none of these things, without the interference of a subjective will, can become anything other than that, like for example, a pumpkin, or a home, etc...How is that you reconcile the ap priori orderliness and limitedness of Nature with the notion that all events are "unbounded" and "random?"

Reply to TheGreatArcanum
What are the First Principles of Philosophy?

Implicit in this question is the assumption that philosophy has first principles.

I think that that assumption needs to be clearly identified so that a philosophy that has first principles is not conflated with general philosophy.

While it may be the case, empirically speaking, that most, if not all, clearly expressed philosophy requires foundations, these may not neccessarily be expressible as principles.

Quoting A Seagull

licit in this question is the assumption that philosophy has first principles.

each truth is contingent upon a higher truth, this is pretty much self-evident, for if there were not hydrogen atoms, nor oxygen atoms, there could not be H20, and thus neither water, nor ice, nor, nor water vapor, and of course, if there were no protons and electrons, there could be no atoms as such...the question is whether or not this chain of contingency is infinite or not. To say that there are no first principles is to say that the chain is infinite, and to say that there are first principles is to say that it is not. But of course, the number of truths that are necessary for each descendent truth in the hierarchy of contingency becomes less and less a we ascend upwards in the hierarchy of contingency, and since we dealing with wholes (i.e. all truths are wholes and not irrational numbers), the chain must end.

Quoting sime

PNC is either rejected or violated in the works of many philosophers, e.g. Heraclitus, Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein.

If PNC is rejected, that can be shown to be wrong by PNC. If it is violated, the perpetrators should be punished.

I don't believe Heraclitus, Kant, Hegel and/or Wittgenstein rejected or violated PNC. You'd have to show this in more detail, Sime, than just stating it as a claim.

Quoting TheGreatArcanum

There's a difference between using words to denote objects or relationships between objects in the world, and the objects and relationships between objects in themselves that those words represent. The Law of Non Contradiction is thought to be violated only because it can be shown that a contradiction in terms of the relationships between the symbols (i.e. words) that point the objects, can be true. This results for the false equivalence that the symbols that represent objects and the objects themselves are the same, or rather, have the same logical form which they do not. In an actualized sense, nothing can ever exist and not exist at the same and in the same respect. However, in a state of potentiality, the actualized possibility of x and -x exist at the same time and in the same respect, according to my philosophy anyways.

I agree that contradictions are properties of sentences rather than of matters-of-fact, for I cannot understand what could be meant by contradictory matters of fact. I would also say the same about truth, for I cannot fathom a false matter-of-fact. The principle of non-contradiction is certainly critical to the practice of science, but I see neither justification nor practice of non-contradiction when it comes to philosophy.

Quoting A Seagull

What are the First Principles of Philosophy?

Implicit in this question is the assumption that philosophy has first principles.

The first principle of philosophy is that philosophy has a first principle.

(That ought to be right.)

Reply to TheGreatArcanum

"all truths are wholes and not irrational numbers"

Who says?

"Take a truth, any truth, and then ask yourself, what must first be true for it to be true, and keep going and going until you find an undeniable truth. When you find it, ask yourself, can this truth change and how? You claim that it can be changing, why? Because the world is changing? But is there not some underlying unchanging aspect that grounds it all?"

Order is in the eye of the beholder

"Isn't change contingent upon the lack thereof?"

Contingent upon contingency? Maybe

"Isn't all change for the purpose of that which changes not?"

But existentialism!

"Can Existence and Non-Existence both Exist and Not Exist at the same time and in the same respect?"

That's a word game

"Is not the truth that "Existence is" (in the absolute sense), eternal? If not, whence did it come into being?"

From nothing

Quoting Gregory

Who says?

if there is a partial truth, it is still whole. all parts are wholes, this whole distinguishes them from other wholes, and also from the whole in which it is a part.

Quoting Gregory

Order is in the eye of the beholder

order is prior to the brain and thus the eye, and if this were not, it would be impossible for parts to become synthesized into wholes for a purpose. purpose implies reason, reason implies order.

Quoting Gregory

Contingent upon contingency? Maybe

no, the hierarchy of contingency is pyramidal shaped, not cylindrical.

Quoting Gregory

But existentialism!

is nonsensical. Quoting Gregory

That's a word game

I'm talking about the ground of being, the non-spatial substratum in which all things exist, persist, originate from, and return to upon their apparent death. That's what the word "Existence," spelled with a capital 'E' denotes. It has nothing to do with semantics.

Quoting Gregory

From nothing

quite simply the difference between nothing and something is that something possesses the potential to become and nothing does not.

Quoting TheGreatArcanum

order is prior to the brain and thus the eye, and if this were not, it would be impossible for parts to become synthesized into wholes for a purpose. purpose implies reason, reason implies order

This is convoluted. You deny the reality of irrational numbers, and thus don't believe in imaginary time as Hawking called it? "The spiritual" is nothingness because truth is nowhere. How much truth have you touched?

Quoting Gregory

This is convoluted. You deny the reality of irrational numbers, and thus don't believe in imaginary time as Hawking called it? "The spiritual" is nothingness because truth is nowhere. How much truth have you touched?

I deny the existence of numbers in themselves that do not denote either a qualitative or essential aspect of being. in my philosophy, logic denotes being, math necessitates logic, and thus both being and logic precede mathematics. They have a contingent reality in the sense that they are mental abstractions, or rather, objects of memory and present awareness.

I don't know what imaginary time is. but I conceive of time as both relative and absolute.

The spiritual is not "nothingness," but identical to the unchanging structure of absolute being. The absolute makes its presence known at all times within me; never would I say something so blasphemous and ignorant experiencing the truth directly by means of the mystical union.

Quoting god must be atheist

The first principle of philosophy is that philosophy has a first principle.

(That ought to be right.)

Why 'ought' it to be right?

You can claim it as an assumption if you want.

Quoting TheGreatArcanum

each truth is contingent upon a higher truth

Why are you starting with truth? What is meant by 'truth'?

You are making more implicit assumptions here.

Reply to A Seagull

You have never heard of anyone bigger than life?

A person greater, smarter, and more beautiful than himself?

Then you haven't met me yet.

But to be serious:
A principle is not a truth... it is a principle. a truth is inherent in a statement, a principle is a guide. Guides are imperatives, not statements. Statements have truth values; principles can't.

So... "each truth is contingent upon a higher truth" is (as much as it is not up for debate) does not contradict having a first principle.

The first principle as stated by me was not an assumption. It was dead on. It may have been circular, but it was spot on. "A rose is a rose is a rose by any other name is a rose." if something has a principle, it has to have the principle to be in possession of principles. so why not make the principle into an ability to have principles.
There is no assumption needed here. I think this was brilliant. And I don't mind saying so myself.

Good points on all sides. I say substance is being in a certain shape and so can only be about the world. Truth is a different question. To say Spirit has substance is to be a pantheist

Hegel never said the world doesn't exist. He simply pointed out a paradox about thought and matter. Descartes didn't understand it, or wouldn't have

Quoting god must be atheist

Statements have truth values

Statements don't have truth values, but some have truth labels.

Quoting Gregory

Descartes didn't understand it

Aha.

Quoting A Seagull

Statements don't have truth values, but some have truth labels.

Stop right there. This is misinformation on your part.

A giraffe has a long neck.

A giraffe has a short neck.

Would you call the corresondence to truth a value, or a label? Why? This is not a rhetorical question. I don't know why you would call them labels instead of values. So please explain.

Maybe giraffes should have short necks and once did. Reason is more of a stage than a faculty. Hegel wanted to see himself in objects and the objects as Forms, and thus himself as the forms. But that's not the last note of the song

Quoting Gregory

Hegel wanted to see himself in objects and the objects as Forms, and thus himself as the forms.

Gregory, you just proved that Hegel was God. The Pancosmic god.

I imagine (in imaginary time, which I ruled by an imaginary number) Hegel looking as his snuff box thinking "I am snuffboxness".

I recommend people skip his Preface and Introduction in phenomenology of spirit. It gets right to the meat quickly in the first chapter

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting A Seagull

Why are you starting with truth? What is meant by 'truth'?

I am not starting with truth, but with the undeniable fact that I am self-aware, which is simultaneously an object of awareness and a truth. This is because truth and being are identical. Truth does not necessitate language, otherwise, the necessary truth "mind is necessary for language," is false.

Quoting Gregory

To say Spirit has substance is to be a pantheist

this is not true, substance need not be spatial. to say that spirit is a substance is not to say that spirit is spatial, but this is what pantheism implies.

Quoting god must be atheist

A giraffe has a long neck.

A giraffe has a short neck.

Would you call the corresondence to truth a value, or a label? Why? This is not a rhetorical question. I don't know why you would call them labels instead of values. So please explain.

It is to do with the process by which one chooses which statements, if any, merit the label of 'true'

It is a somewhat haphazard and mystical process and so one cannot claim that a statement has the 'property' of truth, only a label, which is typically allocated on a subjective basis.

Quoting TheGreatArcanum

Why are you starting with truth? What is meant by 'truth'? — A Seagull
I am not starting with truth, but with the undeniable fact that I am self-aware, which is simultaneously an object of awareness and a truth. This is because truth and being are identical. Truth does not necessitate language, otherwise, the necessary truth "mind is necessary for language," is false.

Well there are lots of assumptions implicit in your assertion, and that is fine.

Quoting A Seagull

It is to do with the process by which one chooses which statements, if any, merit the label of 'true'

I guess the labels are for applying reality to logic.

Peter is John.
John is Paul.
Therefore Peter is Paul

The conclusion is right in logic. The last sentence has a truth value of "true" if the first two statements are also true.

In reality, assuming everyone only has one first name, and these are first names in the example, Peter can't be Paul.

So the truht label is "false".
The logic is not violated, because the first two statements or sentences are also "false".

-------------------------
A Seagull, is this the difference between truth values and truth labels? A value of "true" can be assigned only to a logical statement, and it assumes that the logic is right and the premises are true. The truth label is an application of reality, inasmuch as truth, as an approximation of reality, is questionable; so the "true" statement earns only a label of truth, not a value of truth, to say that we believe it's true, but we would not swear on our mother's grave that it is actually true.

This is what I got out of your explanation and objections. Am I anywhere close to how your system would view it?

Does your system have a special name to it? If I guessed your system correctly, and it has a specific name, would you please give it here? If I am off the mark,then I'm off the market, for names, too. Thanks.

Quoting god must be atheist

Peter is John.
John is Paul.
Therefore Peter is Paul

The conclusion is right in logic.

Well there is 'logic' and then there is other logic.

I prefer the logic whereby logic is the manipulation of symbols according to specific rules. So in logic for your example 'is' would have to be defined perhaps something along the lines of 'can be substituted for'
and the names eg 'peter' would be treated as alphanumeric strings. But the whole of it would be treated as an abstract deduction, with no particular relevance to the real world.


If a person accepts that the first two premises are an accurate representation of their model of the world then they would be likely to accept the conclusion as also being a representation of their model of the world and hence label it as 'true'.

Quoting god must be atheist

Does your system have a special name to it? If I guessed your system correctly, and it has a specific name, would you please give it here?

Yes, it is called 'The Pattern Paradigm'; you might find it interesting.

Reply to A Seagull Thanks. And I agree with your analysis of how logic works. I would call the two types you described as analytical logic and applied logic. But only becasue I am old skool. I like descriptive names that mean what they say. User-friendly naming conventions.

If being IS truth, then crude pantheism is true. A cup is just a cup until consciousness comes into play

As we have two cranial hemispheres, so we have a materialist and a mystical side. You are computerness as you read this, and you are humanness when you fear.

"Reason is the certainty of being all reality. This it's inherent nature, this reality, is still, however, through and through a universal, the pure abstract of reality. It is the first positive character which selfconsciousness per se is aware of being, and ego is, fherefore, merely the pure, inner essence of existence, in other words, is the Category." Hegel

Quoting god must be atheist

The first principle of philosophy is that philosophy has a first principle.

(That ought to be right.)

:up: :smirk:

Quoting TheGreatArcanum

(B) the principle of insufficient reason (PIR), or random (i.e. acausal) events occur and are ineluctable (i.e. unbounded);
— 180 Proof

How is it that you think teleology and acausality can co-exist?

I don't.

"Teleology" is an artifact of antiquated folk epistemology (pace Aristotle) refuted handily by the advent of Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian mathematical physics, etc.

Is not all chaos, controlled chaos, and thus bounded by order?

"Chaos" =|= randomness; the quote above refers to the latter not the former.

Aren't all infinities bounded by some a priori set, or concept?

Non sequitur.

In a world of infinite randomness, how is that things in the world never become anything other than what they have the a priori potential to become? A seed can become a tree ...

I don't know what "infinite randomness" pertains to; my point is that there are random events and, as such, they are not bounded with respect to - encompassed by - reasoning (i.e. causal explanations (e.g. scientific modeling)), and therefore reason is, while indispensable, nonetheless insufficient (pace Leibniz, Hegel).

How is [it] that you reconcile the [a p]riori orderliness and limitedness of Nature with the notion that all events are "unbounded" and "random?"

I don't.

I've neither claimed nor implied anything about "all events". Again, my point is that there are a class of events - random - that are unbounded with respect to reason (i.e. ineluctable).

Quoting 180 Proof

"Teleology" is an artifact of antiquated folk epistemology (pace Aristotle) refuted handily by the advent of Galilean-Cartesian-Newtonian mathematical physics, etc.

I don't believe that they had the technology by in Galileo and Newton's day to prove that the will is contingent upon the Laws of Nature. Even still, it has not be shown empirically that the will is nothing but a mere effect of mechanical causes inside the brain.

Quoting 180 Proof

Is not all chaos, controlled chaos, and thus bounded by order?

"Chaos" =|= randomness; the quote above refers to the latter not the former.

What is randomness but controlled chaos? that is, chaos that possesses, not infinite possibilities, but finite possibilities only, that is to say that it is defined by some abstract a priori limited context.Quoting 180 Proof

Aren't all infinities bounded by some a priori set, or concept?
[quote="180 Proof;394470"]eluctab

Quoting 180 Proof

Non sequitur.

your non-sequitur is a non-sequitur

Quoting 180 Proof

In a world of infinite randomness, how is that things in the world never become anything other than what they have the a priori potential to become? A seed can become a tree ...

I don't know what "infinite randomness" pertains to; my point is that there are random events and, as such, they are not bounded with respect to - encompassed by - reasoning (i.e. causal explanations (e.g. scientific modeling)), and therefore reason is, while indispensable, nonetheless insufficient (pace Leibniz, Hegel).

How do you distinguish, logically, between that which is bounded by reason and that which is not?

Quoting 180 Proof

Again, my point is that there are a class of events - random - that are unbounded with respect to reason (i.e. ineluctable).

Can you show that this random class of events has infinite possibilities as opposed to only a finite number? That which is truly random cannot be limited in its randomness, otherwise it would then be presupposed by limitation, and since each entity is limited in a different way, that which limits on behalf of reason, right? Or are we operating under the presupposition here that randomness is eternal and existing necessarily? Do you have empirical proof for this assertion?

Order, patterns, and chaos have mostly to do with consciousness, instead of with the cosmos. Cosmology is expressed by the saying "that which was not may be what it was".

Quoting Gregory

"that which was not may be what it was"

That which comes into existence, comes into existence by means of a bridge between potentiality and actuality. The question is whether the bridge between potential and actuality in our minds has the same essence as the bridge between potential and actuality in the world.

Reply to TheGreatArcanum Apparently, try as you might, you're not engaging with what I've actually written or my speculations (re: OP), so I'll leave it to you to sort out what you can or to not do so.

:death: :flower:

Quoting 180 Proof

?TheGreatArcanum
Apparently, try as you might, you're not engaging with what I've actually written or my speculations (re: OP), so I'll leave it to you to sort out what you can or to not do so.

Sorry, I'm not well versed in philosophical propaganda (i.e. postmodern philosophy). We're speaking different languages here.

There is no great mystery or secret about potentiality

Potentiality is too like actuality to be its source. Sorry Plotinus. Buddha knew only being's opposite can be the source of being. Hegel and Schopenhauer got it

Quoting Gregory

There is no great mystery or secret about potentiality

I know, all actuality is born of willing, and potentiality is identical to the essence of subjectivity itself. It's common sense.

Just edit one post, and quote the comment that you're referring too. stop spamming and talking to nobody.

Quoting Gregory

Buddha knew only being's opposite can be the source of being.

there is no opposite to being, in the present. the past and future are identical to non-being, that is to say, they do not exist, just the same as non-being.

Reply to TheGreatArcanum If you think what I am (you can't get much more anti-p0m0 than me) saying here is "postmodern", then you're not "versed" at all.

Quoting TheGreatArcanum

there is no opposite to being, in the present. the past and future are identical to non-being, that is to say, they do not exist, just the same as non-being.

Wouldn't the past then be the opposite of being? Which way does it go? Aren't we talking about source within a cyclic system? You don't know the first thing about philosophy. You're probably a Thomist or Aristotelian

Quoting Gregory

Wouldn't the past then be the opposite of being? Which way does it go? Aren't we talking about source within a cyclic system? You don't know the first thing about philosophy. You're probably a Thomist or Aristotelian

The past existed, the present exists, and the future will exist. The ground of being which contains and precedes all contingent beings (i.e. beings having a finite duration), persists in existing, and in doing so, makes time conceivable, through memory, awareness, understanding, and willing, of course. Time is not cyclic in this sense, but it is cyclic in another sense, that is, in terms of the relationship between the perceived object and the perceiving subject, in which case, there is necessarily a time dialation between them because the object as perceived is the object, as it was, and not as it is, meaning, that all objects of perception are of the past, in relation to awareness which exists in the absolute present, and both perception and causation flows from the present to the past, that is, from the Primary Present to the Secondary Present moment in time, and from the Absolute to the Relative.

I can't be classified as a follower of any philosopher. I've created my own system of philosophy.

Quoting TheGreatArcanum

The past existed, the present exists, and the future will exist. The ground of being which contains and precedes all contingent beings (i.e. beings having a finite duration), persists in existing, and in doing so, makes time conceivable, through memory, awareness, understanding, and willing, of course. Time is not cyclic in this sense, but it is cyclic in another sense, that is, in terms of the relationship between the perceived object and the perceiving subject, in which case, there is necessarily a time dialation between them because the object as perceived is the object, as it was, and not as it is, meaning, that all objects of perception are of the past, in relation to awareness which exists in the absolute present, and both perception and causation flows from the present to the past, that is, from the Primary Present to the Secondary Present moment in time, and from the Absolute to the Relative.

This is just Einstein's philosophy. The source of the universe is and must be incomprehensible. Only nothingness therefore qualifies. There is no unfathomable being or substance out there. All can be known. Aquinas's error was thinking such a substance existed, and this ultimately let him down. He was a good theologian and a poor philosopher. As well, Aristotle was a fine logician and a poor philosopher. Really good philosophy didn't start untill Descartes

Reply to TheGreatArcanum

You've created an idol for yourself. Nothingness can never be an idol. It is both eminently comprehensible (we know what it means) and incomprehensible (all we know is being phenomenologically). It's like a figure of 8

Quoting Gregory

This is just Einstein's philosophy.

No. My philosophy and Einsteins philosophy are not the same. He thinks that time is solely relative, I think that time is both relative and absolute and that relative time is contingent upon absolute time.

Quoting Gregory

This is just Einstein's philosophy. The source of the universe is and must be incomprehensible.

ironically, to say that the source of the universe is in incomprehensible is to make an epistemological claim about the source of the universe.

Quoting Gregory

Only nothingness therefore qualifies.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, nothingness doesn't possess any potentiality at all and thus cannot contain, nor be the reason for the existence or source of anything because it can become and contain nothing other than nothing, but there is something, there is awareness,and thus there cannot be absolutely nothing. these are the basics of philosophy.

Quoting Gregory

There is no unfathomable being or substance out there.

the ground of being is fathomable because you can fathom yourself, and knowing isn't limited to what is immediately present, and the laws of logic extend their reach backwards in time into eternity.

Quoting Gregory

All can be known.

One cannot know the qualitative state of all entities in existence at the same time. Absolute knowledge is not possible.

Quoting TheGreatArcanum

hese are the basics of philosophy

Of a two year old

Quoting TheGreatArcanum

ironically, to say that the source of the universe is in incomprehensible is to make an epistemological claim about the source of the universe.

So?

Quoting god must be atheist

?A Seagull Thanks. And I agree with your analysis of how logic works. I would call the two types you described as analytical logic and applied logic. But only becasue I am old skool. I like descriptive names that mean what they say. User-friendly naming conventions

Yes, analytical and applied logic are good ways of distinguishing the two types. Too often the two are conflated and this can cause problems.

1. Define concepts rigorously.
2. Do no conceptual harm.
:chin:

Quoting TheGreatArcanum

Of course, all philosophical systems have first principles, but the difference between one system of philosophy and another is that they have differing first principles. What I am asking is, however, is if it is the case that all first principles are presuppositional in the sense that they may or may not be true at this present moment in time, or may or may not be true in some future or past moment of time, or may or may not be true from one perspective and not another; or, if there are eternally true propositions (i.e. eternal truths) that are not presuppositional, but absolutely necessary (i.e. First Principles?) If not, why not? And if so, why, and what are they?

[quote=William Kingdon Clifford]It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.[/quote]

[quote=Hamlet]There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy[/quote]

The first quote is true to the extent the second quote is false and vice versa. If one is in search of truth or, what philosophers love, wisdom, then one mustn't be so narrow-minded to think only reason will lead us to it and if one is, again, in search of truth, one mustn't make the silly mistake of ignoring reason.

I think the first principle of philosophy is that Platonism comes first in the process. Hegel said matter is a "non-sensuous element of sense", which is paradoxical. "Matter is not a thing that exists. it is being in the sense of universal being, or being in the way thouhhts are being... an incorporeal yet objective existence. " Plato started philosophy among us

Hegel said that the world can always be broken "asunder" more so a countable infinity rules over the world. The Eleatics led Hegel in the "heaven of the forms", much like "Cantor's paradise" perhaps. Those are the first questions I think

The first principle could be dialectic debate (Socratic dialogues) aiming at unity of the subjects, Arithmetic, Geometry, Solid geometry, Astronomy and Harmony, with the objective of freeing oneself from unrecognized errors. Plato - Republic (Book VII). All with the intention of turning inwards using reason to ascend to pure intelligence (in the only place it can be found).

Reply to TheGreatArcanum
As far as I have read, in metaphysics one should not speak of first principles, but rather of first objects. That is, the world, the soul and God.

Quoting Borraz

As far as I have read, in metaphysics one should not speak of first principles, but rather of first objects. That is, the world, the soul and God.

The goal of metaphysics is to ascertain the a priori unchanging structures of the eternal aspect of existence, represent them using words and language, and then use them to build a system of philosophy that is true for all intelligent beings anywhere throughout all of time (i.e. a Perennial Philosophy); but of course, many philosophers today disagree, and this is why most today do not deserve the title.

Reply to TheGreatArcanum

"The a priori unchanging structures of the eternal aspect of existence"... The heaviest syntagm I've ever read.
You assume that there are structures, that they are immutable (Plato lives) and "a priori" (Kant lives), and that they belong to a quality (which, moreover, is eternal) of what exists (Plato lives your thought, intensely). But when we look at experience, we observe that we must appeal to tradition (because in metaphysics, all we probably have is tradition) and we notice that we must deal with the world, the soul and God, but not for any reason, but necessarily, although by convention.Otherwise, perhaps we should not even speak (Aristotle lives in me).

Quoting Borraz

As far as I have read, in metaphysics one should not speak of first principles, but rather of first objects. That is, the world, the soul and God.

Well, "world" (object), "the soul" (fiction) and "God" (fiction) can be abductively inferred by differentiating objects from fictions.

Quoting Borraz

"The a priori unchanging structures of the eternal aspect of existence"... The heaviest syntagm I've ever read.

I don't assume them, I've developed my own philosophical system and method, and that method is rooted in self-evident truths that cannot be denied without contradiction. I am not a follower of Plato, or Kant, I am my own philosopher, and right now I am writing the book that will perhaps change philosophy forever, and this is because it is so far beyond all prior philosophy books that it professional philosophers will have to acknowledge its existence and comment on its ideas.

Quoting 180 Proof

Well, "world" (object), "the soul" (fiction) and "God" (fiction) abductively inferred from differentiating objects from fictions.

The notion that the world is an object (presupposition), the notion that there is no soul (because you do not yet experience it) (presupposition), and the notion that there is no God (presupposition). Can you provide logical reasoning for your opinions? If not, they are no better than piles of shit.

Reply to TheGreatArcanum Contemplate the shitpiles :eyes:

Quoting 180 Proof

Contemplate the shitpiles :eyes:

some of us are living in heaven on earth, others are swimming in shit. Just because you're dead inside doesn't mean that others are.

I love how you think yourself to be a wise philosopher, but are the first and most likely to presume (i.e. make claims to truth that you cannot even begin to support).

Reply to TheGreatArcanum
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. [Santayana]

Reply to 180 Proof
Ok. If I were Saint Thomas (or simply, F. Copleston) I would tell you that the only non-fictional object is God. And your abduction, in that case, would be a Martian abduction.

Quoting Pfhorrest

I think those principles are:
- There are no unanswerable questions
- There are no unquestionable answers

I reckon these to be the derivatives of the first principle, which in turn presupposes a third derivative: the goal. The goal in itself might be and optimally is a first principle to any branch of philosophy. In conclusion; the first principle of all philosophy is its common denominator. It can be anything, but it's common denominator is that it is its common denominator.

The higher our regard, the clearer our answers, all the while more difficult to ground in the denominator. To be that ground is God's purpose - the denominator of the denominator of the denominator. Although God is not the purpose, the purpose is reasonably confused as God. The philosophy goes above that, because the purpose is real. We have philosophy because it is real; in contrast to science which can only address that which is fleeting to some degree. This though is where science and philosophy meets. They have a common common denominator. Although philosophy can reach a little further. It touches religion where science can not.

Their common denominator is magic - my favourite philosophical topic. I believe it does better philosophically than religiously. I appreciate it from either direction though, but I don't talk about it religiously. Religion has unrefutable answers about it, but it is philosophy that ultimately makes it pristine. Either way - any first principle: common denominator.

Quoting Borraz

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. [Santayana]

Whats even worse is those who are ignorant of history altogether.The problem is that the greedy capitalists have developed an interest in philosophy in order to control the perception of the masses. This is the only way in which the few can control the many. Capitalism is only rational if idealism is false and materialism is true. But of course, idealism is true, and this, I think, is the reason for the widespread popularity and institutional acceptance of postmodernism, which is shoved down the throats of academics from power structures above them.

Reply to TheGreatArcanum
Capitalism, as the dominant economic system, is not responsible for all the problems that one has with one’s partner...

Quoting Borraz

Capitalism, as the dominant economic system, is not responsible for all the problems that one has with one’s partner...

I'm saying that the problem lies in greed, not in capitalism, for greed is prior to capitalism in the sense that capitalism is an effect of greed and not the other way around. I have no partner, nor any problems with a partner. Not everything is reducible to sex.

Quoting Eleonora

I reckon these to be the derivatives of the first principle, which in turn presupposes a third derivative: the goal. The goal in itself might be and optimally is a first principle to any branch of philosophy.

The rest of your post makes me think that you maybe don't mean what this first part sounds like to me, but this first part sounds like something I would agree with. Those two "first principles" I gave derive immediately from the goal of philosophy:

Quoting The Codex Quaerentis: The Metaphilosophy of Analytic Pragmatism

The characteristic activity of philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, not the possession or exercise thereof. Wisdom, in turn, is not merely some set of correct opinions, but rather the ability to discern the true from the false, the good from the bad; or at least the more true from the less true, the better from the worse; the ability, in short, to discern superior answers from inferior answers to any given question.

Quoting The Codex Quaerentis: The Philosophy of Commensurablism

My general philosophy could be most succinctly summed up as the rejection of both unquestionable answers, and unanswerable questions. By this I mean the commitment to questioning everything, and rejecting anything that's beyond questioning, but also to trusting that there are answers to be had, and entertaining the possibility of anything that might be an answer:

I say to hold that there is some opinion or another that is actually correct in a sense beyond merely someone subjectively agreeing with it, a position that I call "objectivism"; in contrast to its negation that I call "nihilism", by which I mean the view that holds there are no genuinely correct answers.

I say also to hold every opinion open to questioning, a position that I call "criticism"; in contrast to its negation that I call "fideism", by which I mean the view that holds there are some things that are beyond question.

I say to freely hold some tentatively opinion or another on what the answer might be even if you don't have conclusive justification to say that it definitely is that, a position that I call "liberalism"; in contrast to its negation that I call "cynicism", by which I mean the view that holds that no opinion should be held until it can be conclusively justified from the ground up.

And I say to reject any opinion that is not amenable to questioning because it is beyond any possible experience that could test it one way or another, a position that I call "phenomenalism"; in contrast to its negation that I call "transcendentalism", by which I mean the view that holds that there are some things that are utterly beyond the ability to discern from our experiences.

[...]

The underlying reason I hold this general philosophical view, or rather my reason for rejecting the views opposite of it, is my metaphilosophy of analytic pragmatism, taking a practical approach to philosophy and how best to accomplish the task it is aiming to do. As explained above: this view, commensurablism, is just the conjunction of criticism and objectivism, which are in turn just the negations of fideism and nihilism, respectively. If you accept fideism rather than criticism, then if your opinions should happen to be the wrong ones, you will never find out, and you will remain wrong forever; and if you accept nihilism rather than objectivism, then if there is such a thing as the right opinion after all, you will never find it, and you will remain wrong forever. There might not be such a thing as a correct opinion, and if there is, we might not be able to find it. But if we're starting from such a place of complete ignorance that we're not even sure about that — where we don't know what there is to know, or how to know it, or if we can know it at all, or if there is even anything at all to be known — and we want to figure out what the correct opinions are in case such a thing should turn out to be possible, then the safest bet, pragmatically speaking, is to proceed under the assumption that there are such things, and that we can find them, and then try. Maybe ultimately in vain, but that's better than failing just because we never tried in the first place.

[...]

As Henri Poincaré rightly said, "To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." (La Science et l'Hypothèse, 1901). Or as Alfred Korzybski similarly said, "There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything; both ways save us from thinking." I would argue that to do otherwise than to try (even if ultimately in vain) to find answers to our questions, to fall prey to either nihilism or fideism, to deny that there are such things as right or wrong opinions about either reality or morality, or to deny that we are able to figure out which is which, is actually not even philosophy at all. The Greek root of the word "philosophy" means "the love of wisdom", but I would argue that any approach substantially different from what I have laid out here as commensurablism would be better called "phobosophy", meaning "the fear of wisdom", for rather than seeking after wisdom, seeking after the ability to discern true from false or good from bad, it avoids it, by saying either that it is unobtainable, as the nihilist does, or that it is unneeded, as the fideist does. Commensurablism could thus be said to be necessitated merely by being practical about the very task that defines philosophy itself. If you're trying to do philosophy at all, to pursue wisdom, the ability to sort out the true from the false and the good from the bad, you end up having to adopt commensurablism, or else just give up on the attempt completely.

Reply to Pfhorrest :clap:

Reply to TheGreatArcanum
Saint Thomas would say that all human conduct is explained in terms of three capital sins: greed, lust, and anger. The police work alike. All crime is due to greed, lust or anger. In both cases, they restrict the human to the most negative in our species, don’t they?

Quoting Pfhorrest

maybe don't mean what this first part sounds like

Alright - let me clarify my sense of the goal. The goal across branches of philosophy runs perpendicular to its first principle. As the question is about the universal first principle, it cannot be the goal in itself. Thereby there are derivatives of the goal which in turn are what you described. Since it runs perpendicular to the goal, the universality of the first principle must therefore embrace the potentiality for the dimensionality of all those branches. That is what a principle to seek common ground first does.

Philosophy is about knowing of what we speak. Therefore the ground is the most important. Thus it must be the first principle to seek it.

Not every way of reasoning works this way, but to find those ways is what each individual goal is about. Philosophy itself is about understanding each individual goal. This is the philosophy of the goal.

Quoting Borraz

In both cases, they restrict the human to the most negative in our species, don’t they?

The greatest challenge we face with regards to it is finding their place in agreement. Positivity is about embracing negativity. Only together in all right places can we move beyond and into where optimism might take us.

"The goal" (task, function, purpose), as far as I discern it, is ...

Quoting 180 Proof

... the struggle against stupidity (i.e. FOOLERY, or 'denial of contingency' (e.g. Rosset's "doubling", Becker's "symbolic self", Zapffe/Camus' "absurd", Spinoza's "bondage"), THAT MALADAPTIVELY SELF HARMS AND/OR HARMS OTHERS) - an infinite, yet reflective, task which I propose uniquely belongs to philosophy ...