First-Science

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130637 wrote:

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!

@Scottydamion,

Scottydamion;130640 wrote:

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...)

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130652 wrote:

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).

@Scottydamion,

Scottydamion;130657 wrote:

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).

Like you said, you can make that joke after the ring is in place. (Really you should make it before, but not on the first date, right?) I used to quote Schopenhauer when arguing with my lady. His essay "On Women" is hilariously sexist. He's over the top, of course, but he does land with a punch here and there. And yet Sophia is a goddess, not a god. Perhaps because Woman represents the sub-rational/transrational. At least for men. Do you know Carl Jung? Don't view it as mystical. He treats of the mystical, but his method is post-Kantian. He systematizes his experience. It's as proven as it is persuasive. (And no more...)
The anima and animus in Carl Jung's school of analytical psychology, are the two primary anthropomorphic archetypes of the unconscious mind, as opposed to both the theriomorphic and 'inferior'-function of the shadow archetypes, as well as the abstract symbol sets that formulate the archetype of the Self. The anima and animus are described by Jung as elements of his theory of the collective unconscious, a domain of the unconscious that transcends the personal psyche. In the unconscious of the male, it finds expression as a feminine inner personality: anima; equivalently, in the unconscious of the female, it is expressed as a masculine inner personality: animus.
It can be identified as the totality of the unconscious feminine psychological qualities that a male possesses; or the masculine ones possessed by the female. The anima is an archetype of the collective unconscious and not an aggregate of a man's mother, sisters, aunts, and teachers though these aspects of the personal unconscious can 'contaminate' the archetypes.
The anima is one of the most significant autonomous complexes of all. It manifests itself by appearing as figures in dreams as well as by influencing a man's interactions with women and his attitudes toward them, and vice versa for females and the animus. Jung said that confronting one's shadow self is an "apprentice-piece," while confronting one's anima is the masterpiece. Jung viewed the anima process as being one of the sources of creative ability.

@Reconstructo,

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:

@topnotcht121,

topnotcht121;137658 wrote:

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:

Well, I should have used the term "first philosophy." But there seems to be a small glitch in your statement. You say that "first science should be empirical and verifiable", but how does one verify this very principle?

:sarcastic:

@Reconstructo,

It sounds like I am being ambiguous in the reply, but the "first principle" was the forms, meaning permenate perfection and actuality. 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.

@topnotcht121,

topnotcht121;138948 wrote:

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.

But how does one verify this verification principle itself? What criteria shall we use for our criteria? At some point of regress an axiom or a set of axioms is necessary. Not practically necessary, but necessary for an ideal and perhaps impossible rigor.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;127732 wrote:

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

@north,

north;149866 wrote:

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?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;167997 wrote:

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?

I suppose the first thing we must assume is that we exist, because if we do not exist there is no point in figuring out anything

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;127732 wrote:

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.

@de Silentio,

de Silentio;173990 wrote:

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.

Thanks! I actually started this thread quite awhile ago. Since then I have been at my own little brand of phenomenology. Husserl certainly interests me. I just haven't really got to him yet, as there are so many interesting thinkers out there. I think highly of Hegel (esp. thru Kojeve) and Wittgenstein (esp. TLP) and they have strongly influenced my own phen. reduction. 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.

Thanks for the information. Smile

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;173994 wrote:

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.

Good stuff.

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.

@de Silentio,

de Silentio;174005 wrote:

Good stuff.

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.

Yes, it is generally mediated. So maybe it's a matter of intensity/beauty. Why are we sometimes struck by a face or a flower and not so much at other times?

I'm not an idealist, either. I'm a monist of some sort. Did I say that already? Sorry! My avatar is my current phen. in a nutshell. Thought/speech is discrete while sensation and emotion are continuous. So we can't think sensation or emotion, even though thoughts can point at them, so to speak.....

In mathematics we see this problem in regards to arithmetic applied to space. Or in the concept of infinity. Can we conceive it? Or can we only conceive potential infinity? And what are we conceiving? An algorithm? All this deeply fascinates me. The intuition of number, etc. Smile

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo wrote:

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.

Kant wanted to make Metaphysics a Science (keep in mind, everyone and their mother back in the 18th century, and other centuries for that matter, wanted to make certain subjects a Science. It just sounds so good.). But in order to do this, he had to make it conform to Natural Science. So basically he blew David Hume out of the water and asserted causation a priori, along with blowing all the Scholastics out of the water by destroying the God, Soul, World, and Freedom arguments (the God one in particular was a pretty good bashing). Oh and he questioned the subject's perception of the world, and not the object (which was not done prior to Kant appearing on the scene).

Reconstructo, you need to read Kant's Prolegomena to understand this. It is all laid out in a very simplified version from the Critique.

Hope this helps.

@Ding an Sich,

Kant bluffed on some of Hume's objections, from what I can tell. Of course he's great, and I should read more of him perhaps, but he's also aged in some respects. The "subject" is a bit of a superstition, a bit of a con. I'm not sure that Kant went deep enough, although he most certainly moved in the right direction. To base philosophy and natural science is in my view the wrong way to go.

I have looked through the Prolegmena, but it's been awhile.

@Reconstructo,

Sadly I have not read any Hume except for bits and pieces. That might be my next reading assignment. Right now I have a class on Jewish history with a lot of reading which will take up a good deal of my time.

@Ding an Sich,

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!

@de Silentio,

de Silentio wrote:

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!

Kant actually did read Hume if Im not mistaken. How else would he have awoken from his "dogmatic slumber"?

And if he didnt, I will not make the same mistake. Ill actually read Hume. In fact Ill read him after I am done with Schopenhauer.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know