I don't want to be accused of sexism, but I have yet to personally, in real life, meet a woman who read/talked/loved philosophy. Literature, yes, but philosophy not so much.
If I am a woman, I need to get this back hair removed....or do I? (A question for first philosophy.)
Oh yeah, happy birthday!
I think it may be women of a certain age. My mom has that nurture instinct always in the on position so she has more practical views of her beliefs and never really had a chance or reason to question them. Perhaps I should go out and show young women "the light" *wink wink*. If poetry is sexy to a woman, I'm sure quoting some philosophers would be even sexier!
Bon Scott of AC/DC liked to quote Nietzsche, but it may have been an accident. "I'm TNT! I'm dynamite!"
Don't get me wrong: I think the ladies like philosophers, but that doesn't mean (gleam in the eye) they like philosophy. They want smart babies? The social prestige associated with the intellect?
Screw that. I think they want comedians. And maybe this is why "truth is a woman." The comedian is a first-rate foolosopher?
Philosophy is poetry for the macho? (Let's say the sublimated macho...)
Bingo! lol. Although I don't think I'd ever say out loud to a woman that what they desire is a direct result of a selfish desire for their future children and themselves... unless I was already married to her! (I've had to resist saying this to past gfs, even though it applies just as much to me even if I'm more conscious of it).
First "science" was said to be mathematical. Since plato; philosophy studied what he call primary science, which he got from the pythagoreans, but in todays world, first science should be empirical and verifiable.:a-ok:
I think in order to verify something there has to be inquiry or hypothesis, then through use of observation(s) and experimentation, inquiry and/or hypothesis can be tested to "verify" truth or falsity.
First-science concerns itself with the most fundamental questions and answers. First-science functions by subverting itself. What are the fundamental questions and answers that other questions and answers are built on? This is a question for first-science. Psychology seems like a first-science, because the mind is the source of first-science in the first place. Linguistic philosophy (in the broadest sense) seems like a first-science, for both psychology, first-science, and linguistic philosophy are made of sentences. But all of these develop over time, in human history. Are history and/or historicism first-science? A question for first-science.
Is first-science a bottomless pit?
the first science is the question and answer of how to survive , which happened several million yrs ago in our begining
which was about awarness of the without , within the individual, then expressed to others
Chronologically, I agree. This is an old thread, but it's still an interesting theme. What is the foundation of science, of thought? What must we assume to even begin? What structure is inherent? How certain can we be of these implicit or explicit axioms?
First-science concerns itself with the most fundamental questions and answers. First-science functions by subverting itself... Psychology seems like a first-science, because the mind is the source of first-science in the first place... But all of these develop over time, in human history.
Husserl's phenomenology is a "first-science". Husserl set philosophy on firm grounds and have it be a "rigorous science" like the other sciences (e.g. math) were becoming.
Phenomenology can "subvert" itself but not undermine itself by initiating the epoche, or in other words by "bracketing" that which one is trying to investigate.
Investigations that come out of Husserl's phenomenology in a sense don't come out of a development in the time of human history, as the development of philosophy begins when the individual begins his investigation (this is made possible by the epoche)
Husserl also thought that psychology was ultimately founded on the philosophy of phenomenology, as any other science is.
All in all, you might enjoy what Husserl was getting at. I recommend approaching Husserl through secondary readings first, like Natanson's Philosophy of Infinite Tasks.
jgweed said: Yet, can any of these justify themselves from within their ways of understanding?
Phenomenology can. Don't ask me how, it has been a while, but the answer is relatively easy and fundamentally important for what Husserl was getting at.
At the moment, I'm quite fascinated by sensation/emotion which just are and cannot be reduced by concept/form/intelligibility. But I'm not an idealist. I think that mind/matter self/world distinctions exist within one unified system of conception. I think Witt and Hegel both acheived a certain monism which I strongly sympathize with.
I can't say that I'm not an idealist, as I sympathize with the transcendental ideals of both Kant and Husserl. However, I am still a realist. One of my favorite Kant "quotes" is that Transcendental Idealism leads to Emprical Realism.
I have a hard time with the sensation/emotion stuff. On the one hand I follow Kierkegaard and other existentialist about the immediacy of certain experiences. On the other hand, I don't really know what an immediate experience feels like, because I always mediate it when I think about/try to understand it.
Do you know much of Kant? He tried to limit what metaphysics could assert. He wanted to swat down the scientific pretensions of metaphysics. He showed the absurdity of the usual proofs of God's existence. I'm not saying I agree with everything he says. He has been well criticized. But he does seem like a centrally important philosopher to me.
Sadly I have not read any Hume except for bits and pieces.
Ding an Sich wrote:
Sadly I have not read any Hume except for bits and pieces.
You have that in common with Kant. And look what the did with it!