Today philosophers and scientists are still the minority. If everyone performed the duty of the scholars, who would farm and build? — Yohan

:up: :100:

A minority group which is capable of controlling those farmers and builders. We still live like in the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece but with internet.

Which Tarot card features my portrait today ? Is it grizzly Scientism or spooky Mysticism ? — Pie

The ermit. This is the card which features your portrait today. Why? Because he carries his Lamp of Truth, used to guide the unknowing,

I am agree with you in some parts.

It is true that primitive group were not less developed. But for a lot of reasons they weren't part of the "progress" because some decided to got stuck in their primitive thoughts and ideas while other groups started to develop different ideas.

You put a good example: mythology. This area of knowledge was pretty important to Ancient Greece, indeed. But keep in mind that it was "primitive" according to Plato and Socratic philosophers.
Philosophy started because in Ionia some thinkers decided to critique mythology because they saw it as "backwards"

And what of today? Are not the masses cave men with smartphones? — Yohan

Completely agree. Good example of our modern era.

Yes, I see your point and I am agree with you.

Actually, I think God can be taken out of a religious context too. But it has a lot to do with linguistics. — Yohan

I think not. Here I disagree. "God" is an elementary religious subterfuge used by all the religions. It cannot be explained out of religious doctrines because otherwise, it would be secularism and faith.
Also, the belief in God depends on faith. This concept is so much related to shamanism, animism, Judaism, Christianity, etc...
I do not know if these "thoughts" can see God outside a religious context.

In indigenous times, there was no demarcation between spiritual and secular. — Yohan

Well, yes. But this is due to the fact that they didn't experience Enlightenment until the colonialism turned up. There was no demarcation because they didn't know what a secular system was about. I mean, they way of life was full of metaphors and shamanic rituals. Their citizens didn't have other choices.

If I don't make mistakes, how will you learn — Agent Smith

:up:

No, I don't think it is negative. But what I guess is that "hippies" don't understand animism or shamanism pretty much. They just follow it because it seems to be "cool" being connected with nature but I personally think such theory is far of this thought...
At least, you take it so seriously and I respect it. I mean, I see you can find some significance in the "root of universe" thanks to shamanism but at the same time, it is a primitive thought.
Conclusion: it is not bad believing in shamanism but is far away from being a philosophical trend.

The conflict or disharmony between heart and mind (Xin), how well/badly these two work (together), will decide, in my humble opinion, humanity's fate! — Agent Smith

That's true.

I think your thoughts can be related to Taoism, New-Daoism, Yin and Yang, Confucianism, etc...

Verse 39.
Being in harmony with the Tao way
The sky obtained clarity and the earth became stable.
In harmony things were gradually created.

Out of the Tao way the man is not in harmony with the sky
He is not stable on the earth.
Without this equilibrium, the man disappears.

The Wise Person sees everything in equilibrium,
He doesn't manifest his Ego, or intervene.
First he will monitor the Tao Way,
Uniting with the Tao Way, he is in equilibrium as well.

Kant vs Scientific Rationalism - Do we need the Ding an Sich? :
Science deals with what we can perceive (empiric knowledge = empiric truth), not with the Ding-an-Sich. We don't have access to it, and reaching it is not the goal of science, it is impossible. — Gnomon

:100: :up:

Thanks! Your thoughts and comments are so interesting, indeed! :up:

Yet, there's a paradox in my previous reply. Can you find what? (It's easy now that I have pointed it out,) — Alkis Piskas

Yes, I guess I found the paradox in your reply.

A truth, if it ever existed, needs to be objectively. But, paradoxically, the nature and sense of truths depend on humans's perspective and consensus.
So, a truth would need to be subjective to exist.

There are no Absolute Truths — Alkis Piskas

No? Are you really sure?
I think death is an absolute truth. Sooner or later it comes to us and is unstoppable. So, we can consider the act of born, live and die as absolute truths.

Shamanism has always been romanticised by hippies! :sweat:

If you check out information about Shamanism, all the papers written by specialists, agree with the fact that shamans are related to some kind of religion. Their principles are connected to animism (as @180 Proof pointed out previously).
This traditional thought is also related to Indigenous religion... the range of different belief systems across the Americas, Australasia, Asia, Africa, and Northern Europe, particularly to those practiced by communities living under the impact of colonialism.

Shamanism is a set of tools — Bret Bernhoft

What kind of tools?

Just like all actions are magick, so too is all consciousness shamanic; especially human consciousness. — Bret Bernhoft

But if I do not have the proper tools then my actions are not "magick" neither my consciousness is shamanic

There is no faith in shamanism. Shamanism is about evidence, showing the goods. — Bret Bernhoft

What? There couldn't be evidence about "showing the goods" because that's a very generic concept. Discern about what is good and bad depends on ethics, thus philosophy. We say there are "goods" when we make actions which cause them but not thanks to shamanism.

Look you are contradictory when you say shamanism is not about faith but at the same time you typed:

Just like all actions are magick, — Bret Bernhoft

What is "magick" nothing but a state of faith on something?

Are you religious yourself? — Bret Bernhoft

No

We can never know what is going on in the OP's mind because he always tends to not answer our thoughts and posts:cry:

I am referring to holism! The parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot be understood without reference to the whole.
But I am thinking right now that this theory could be so generic...
Trying to study each part specifically is important too. I do not want to be attached to any theory neither sound radical about it.
Probably, essence and substance can be better understood if we study it individually.

Yes. Another example of "principle of sufficient reason" could be: "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" by Aristotle.
When you connect more objects in a way, there will be a system emerge. That system somehow hold new properties that does not exist in those object that form the system.

Or Cogito Ergo Sum by Descartes. At least, we can consider it as a "principle of sufficient reason" of my awareness of existence. :chin:

It would seem that death is a far greater mystery than time — Gregory

Fully agree. Both concepts are even connected. We die due to the pass of time unless you decide to end your life for your own actions. Thus, suicide

Sensations can only be felt in time. So wouldn't animals feel time as well? — Gregory

They do not feel "time" because they do not know neither understand what is the meaning of time. This is only a human concept. We both can be agree with the fact that a dog (for example) feels or knows when he is older but he is not aware of his age. We are, as humans, the ones who say that the dog is 10 or 11 years old. But the dog, himself, is not aware of that. His reasoning is not so complete to get such complex thoughts. They even are not aware about the existence of themselves...

Nobody was more aware of time flowing then him among older philosophers — Gregory

That's true, indeed. Because time is a weakness of humans. We feel nostalgia and despair when the person and things around us disappear due to the pass of time. I guess it gives us anxiety because it is an aspect the humans cannot control. The next year I will be 26 years old and that's a fact that I cannot prevent. It will occur.
Time is unstoppable and it kills us. That's why philosophers are always so concern about it.

It depends in on minds, indeed but as an illusion. Time is a complex concept that does not live outside human's awareness. Most of the rest of living being are not aware of the pass of time.
Kant said: "Time doesn't exist empirically outside the men's minds"

Given the choice truth or survival, we've been programmed to opt for the latter. A delusion/illusion can make the difference between life and death and hence the abundance of cognitive biases which, though leads us away from the truth, keeps us safe and sound — Agent Smith

So interesting point of view, indeed. :100:
But I do not understand why truth and survival are connected and why do you think an illusion can make the difference between life and death?
Probably I am wrong, but I guess they both complement each other.

Syllogism: Thanks to the act of survive, I can find the truth. Thus, If I found out the truth, it does mean that I have survived.

The Case Against Reality : — Gnomon

@Agent Smith Ok, I just read it. Sorry for the comment, I understand it better now!

Yes, animism seems to be a real precursor of shamanism or even some religions such as Shinto in Asia. The quick read I did give me the feeling that it fits what the OP is looking for: "roots" which expand other types of thoughts.
Nevertheless, I still think that philosophy is apart from these "beliefs"

Our human (and non-human) ancestors have practiced Shamanism as far back as 100,000 years, all around the planet; — Bret Bernhoft

Put some examples of "non-human" ancestors, please.

Is Shamanism useful for discerning the truth? — Bret Bernhoft

No. Shamanism is not a "root" of religion but it is a religion itself. Look, I will put some examples and you will see how Shamanism is so connected with another type of religion:

1. Shamanism depends on the predicate of a prophet, called "Shaman". As much as the other religions: Christianity (Jesus as a prophet) Judaism (Abraham) etc...

2. There are not doctrines or theories of rationalism. You only have to accept what the Shaman adopts. You would not see inside shamanism different "theories" or "opposition parts" because that's only up to philosophy.

3. Shamanism depends on faith as religion. The only difference is that in shamanism you believe in the "power" of the spirits of nature instead of God.

I cannot see where you can introduce philosophy in those points...

"In a life or death crisis, simply settle it by choosing immediate death. There is nothing complicated about it. Just brace yourself and proceed. . . . One who chooses to go on living having railed in one's mission will be despised as a coward and a bungler. ... In order to be a perfect samurai, it is necessary to prepare oneself for death morning and evening, day in and day out."
:flower:
- Yukio Mishima on "The way of Samurai"

Which are your thoughts about that quote?

bona fides my friend! You are welcomed!

At some point you just choose an ending, if not, then you would never conclude anything. — Sam26

Completely agree! :up:

"Inference or proof is parasitic; it requires knowledge by other means which it can then use to extend what is known." — Sam26

It is interesting how your friend, Dr. Bitar correlates inference and proof with “parasitic”. I see his metaphor. Exactly as it is, inference, proof, knowledge, etc... extend themselves as parasites to what is known.
I guess we can see the parasitic example in a positive side! Faraway from pandemics or illnesses!

If you haven't already, read the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus with Aristotle's "first principles" in mind — 180 Proof

No, I haven’t read this book yet. Thanks for the recommendation! I going to write it on my agenda of “next books” :up:

I like to think of a community trying to rationally settle what they ought to believe. — Pie

Well yes, it is a good way to watch this topic. I think most of the philosophers since Aristotle era tried to debate or explain the big problem of logic. Because we the humans, as rational beings, tend to go further than simplistic emotions. But There can be a problem: the infinite doubt of our possibilities. This is why I personally think Aristotle was a very clever thinker because he proposed that there are, at least, basic patterns that are true just for basic rationalism. I have tried (wrongly) search what these principia primae are about because I was so lost when I published the OP yesterday.
Nevertheless, the answers from the other mates are pretty drafted and they help me to get a more clear interpretation.

They'll just generally establish more complex and doubtful claims by working from those that are less so, — Pie

Interesting because I have felt the same thought too. But I think this issue is morbe related to philosophy of language. The limits of understanding all the philosophical doctrines about logic depends on the art of language too. When I read Gödel or Kant it makes me feel a very complex situation because they express themselves in their works with a very complex language.

Thank you for sharing it with me, Smith :100:

Never had the time nor the brains to dig deeper into Kant's ideas. — Agent Smith

Agreed. It could take some years of our lives to do so! :grin:

What makes an observation true or false will be helpful!
I just read it and I find the following lines so interesting:

This quote from @Banno is very helpful to keep going further forward on this topic!

"Photosynthesis is what takes place in plants" is true only if photosynthesis is what takes place in plants.

And generally, "P" (note the quote marks) will be true only if P. This is called a T-sentence. T-statements set out the general form of all true sentences. Although T-sentences appear uninformative, they make a few things clear. For example, for "P" to be true nothing further is needed than that P. Including being observed.

In logical form,

"P" is true IFF P

That is, "Photosynthesis is what takes place in plants" will be true regardless of whether or not it is observed to be true.

Yes! I have read some of Gödel’s works. But the language the Germans use in philosophy makes it even harder:rofl:

The Gödel sentence G is true but, here's where it gets interesting, unprovable — Agent Smith

:flower: interesting. The paper I have read yesterday quoted Kant. Specifically: “synthetic a priori propositions are first principles of demonstration but are not self-evident”
I guess with different terms or propositions they tend to end up in the same path.

Interesting trick indeed. So, according to your puzzle if I am able to find out which are the premises, then I would be able to find out what is the meaning of “principia prima”
The fact here is not use premises as a tool of logic but trying to understand it previously! :eyes:

The desire to know, and intellectual curiosity, are good things! — Moliere

Absolutely, you are right! :flower:

But it is possible for human beings to want to know something that they are unable to know. — Moliere

This is one of the most humanistic acts or “virtues” we have inherited in ourselves. Interesting, doesn’t it? The desire of searching for complex answers that are unable to know. This is why philosophy is based on tricky questions.
For example: why the “first principles” do not need to be proven? Is very complex itself. So I guess this is the trick of the OP: there is not necessary to answer, but at the same time we want to “know” about because we sapiens sapiens love to go further of basic explanations and thoughts! :eyes:

I think it's pretty common to go through phases thinking/feeling like this, especially in the first third of life. — Tom Storm

Agreed. I also had periods on my life related to these feelings. So, I feel better with myself knowing that is pretty common among the people when they grow up

"Aristotle's first principles" work ... until they don't, just like other "first principles" in domains other than logic (vide S. Haack's foundherentism as critique and alternative to foundationalism of "first principles"). — 180 Proof

Thanks for sharing, 180! :up:

That's true it can happen a scenario where Aristotle's "first principles" don't work. In this context, the paper I read yesterday, shows diverse solutions according to different philosophers., for example: The Rationalists, such as Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz: Self-evidence breaks down as a solution to the Problem of First Principles because there is no way to resolve disputes about whether something is self-evident or not.
Hume sharpened the Problem of Induction by noting that no generalizations whatsoever are logically justified. The Empiricist tradition thus culminated in Skepticism, Hume's conclusion that knowledge in the traditional sense does not exist.
Finally, Karl Popper resolves the regress of reasons, at least for scientific method, by substituting falsification for verification

I think the question is a bit foolish and undecidable — Moliere

I think there are not "foolish" question when someone is asking with aim of learning...

Thanks for the answer :up: very complete and informative. I am learning a lot in this thread!

So, who do you trust : Aristotle or Augustine? :joke: — Gnomon

Aristotle! I trust whatever comes from logic and metaphysics not from faith! But I respect every point of view and beliefs. Everyone is free to trust more one than the other!

What I tried to say is that I interpret Aristotle's logic is based on basic principles or "principia primia". Thus, axioms so logical and basic that do not need to be proven. Then, they are universal affirmative premises which help us to elaborate syllogisms and thus, logic itself. As we put some examples previously such as "substance" and "essence" that these are necessary true.

God thinking the universe and himself into existence is the unmoved mover, and would seem to count, right? But that's not exactly a universal affirmation, ala the logic. — Moliere

Yes, I see your point. I am agree.

It's a metaphysical proposition about the nature of reality and how everything relates back to something fundamental that predicates it all. — Moliere

Exactly. This is what I was looking for. I mean, what we should consider as "fundamental" which predicates it all?

All contraries, then, are always predicable of a subject, and none can exist apart, but just as appearances suggest that there is nothing contrary to substance, argument confirms this. No contrary, then, is the first principle of all things in the full sense; the first principle is something different. — Aristotle, Metaphysics XIV

:fire:

The specific quote I am looking for! Fantastic. This explains everything. Aristotle brought a very important axiom to develop logic.