But it would be eye-opening to learn how others perceive and understand the origins of philosophy to be. — Bret Bernhoft
Happy to learn more about Sulawesi but isn't it arbitrary? — Benkei
And cave art is complex so why not lesser steps leading up to cave art? — Benkei
So why not that earlier behaviour? — Benkei
Has religion begun from somewhere? Or science?Did philosophy begin somewhere? — Bret Bernhoft
And to that, my quick answer would be: from logic and the need for knowledge. — Alkis Piskas
I agree that the original root motive of ancient Greek Philosophy was the need to understand physical Reality. But that practical "need" is now being filled by empirical Science. So, modern Philosophy has been left holding the bag of trying to understand the elusive Self.I can only speak for myself. The root of my interest in philosophy is a need for self-awareness — T Clark
The radix of all philosophy is the desire need to know reality, in and for itself and/or as a path to success, not as a businessman, not as a king, not as an engineer, not as a doctor, but as a human. — Agent Smith
[Re: "Philosophy emerges from logic and the need for knowledge"]I think that applies to science. — Vera Mont
This maybe applies to the philosophy as we know it today, i.e. the systematic study of general and fundamental questions. That is, to a "philosophy" as an already established field of knowlege, not to the origin of philosophy, as a human need and mental activity, which is the question I talked about. "Systematization", as an attribute of philosopy, came much later.Philosophy emerges from the need to organize the world into a discernible pattern. (And religion, to control its forces) — Vera Mont
Don't forget that in ancient Greek philosophy, science and philosophy where one. — Alkis Piskas
The label did. Just as Taxonomy came much later than the species it classifies."Systematization", as an attribute of philosopy, came much later. — Alkis Piskas
Who is forcing you to make a choice of one belief system or another? What if both are part right and part wrong? The BothAnd philosophy leaves you the freedom to choose the best parts of each complex multi-faceted belief system. Remember, like a see-saw, contradictory positions always have a balancing pivot-point between them. But maintaining the precarious balance requires philosophical agility.As a human, I'm inclined to agree, we have both objective and subjective aspirations. However, the objective and the subjective sides tend to contradict each other e.g. the classic case of belief in a deity in the absence of evidence and just like that we're faced with an intractable dilemma, a choice hasta be made between the two and it's an either-or, not a BothAnd. — Agent Smith
Yin contains yang and yang contains yin, so in what way are they "mutually annihilatory"?As part of yin-yang duality, they're mutually annihilatory, not complementary. — Agent Smith
BothAnd doesn't mean both parts of a duality are right or true, but merely that both extremes are parts of a larger whole unitary system -- because they are interrelated. As says, it's a YinYang concept. The opposing forces don't annihilate, like antimatter, but merely moderate each other.↪Gnomon
Both can't be right because they're mutually contradictory. As part of yin-yang duality, they're mutually annihilatory, not complementary. What we can do is find the middle ground i.e. find a compromise and say that the subjective and the objective are two very different windows to reality with no overlapping magisteria. So if I say God exists, I don't mean it in an objective, provable sense and when I say God doesn't exist, I don't mean it in a subjective, unprovable sense. — Agent Smith
That's not remotely a new insight ... and, IMO, irrelevant to the manifest functions of both institutions. :roll: — 180 Proof
Philosophy, IMO, begins (again and again) wherever the question "How do we know our assumptions are true or our givens are real?" predominates like an itch that grows as we scratch it. — 180 Proof
Philosophy occurs when a community permits discourses that question its truth and necessity.
Philosophy, IMO, begins (again and again) wherever the question "How do we know our assumptions are true or our givens are real?" predominates like an itch that grows as we scratch it.
— 180 Proof
:up: — Baden
"How do we know our assumptions are true or our givens are real?" — 180 Proof
I think soIs it incorrect to characterize the above question as a spark igniting epistemological inquiry? — ucarr
I don't think so.Its predomination as an itch that grows as we scratch is not an investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion?
Those aporia (logically) come later ...Its expansion does not encompass both truth content of particulars and precepts about general attributes of truth?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.