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. — 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 — Pfhorrest
I think those principles are:
- There are no unanswerable questions
- There are no unquestionable answers — Pfhorrest
Sure, but these are statements concerning epistemology; what about statements concerning ontology? Is — TheGreatArcanum
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.If you mention this one, why not also include the law of identity and the law of the excluded middle? If not, why not? — Benkei
Its not about logical atomistic consistency. Wittgenstein should not be in your list sime. — Gregory
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". — sime
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. — tim wood
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. — sime
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 — tim wood
(B) the principle of insufficient reason (PIR), or random (i.e. acausal) events occur and are ineluctable (i.e. unbounded); — 180 Proof
licit in this question is the assumption that philosophy has first principles. — A Seagull
PNC is either rejected or violated in the works of many philosophers, e.g. Heraclitus, Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein. — sime
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. — TheGreatArcanum
What are the First Principles of Philosophy?
Implicit in this question is the assumption that philosophy has first principles. — A Seagull
Who says? — Gregory
Order is in the eye of the beholder — Gregory
Contingent upon contingency? Maybe — Gregory
But existentialism! — Gregory
That's a word game — Gregory
From nothing — Gregory
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.