Practice is ahead of theory.
For me this is not anti-theory, but it does free us from an obsession with artificial foundations. I like to think that we creatively forge phrases. Some of them prove themselves, others don't. I like this about Popper. We don't know (and it doesn't matter) where theories come from. It's how we judge them that matters. It's holding the results of our mystery creativity up to the fire of reality and criticism. — ghost
The best we can do is presuppose the premise and proceed to investigate through strict methodology, which, at least, allows us to proceed with some consistency of logic. — Merkwurdichliebe
That makes sense to me. I think we also have social conventions about what moves are allowed in the game. — ghost
I like how you circled back onto the automatic stuff, subconscious thought/belief factors into everything we assert. — Merkwurdichliebe
what moves are allowed in the game. I call these something like power dynamics. It's about everyone getting along. I think this is related to logic. It's not that we have proved that no one has mystic access to the truth. It's just that we are the kind of people who don't play the game that way. So 'logic' or 'reason' is an abbreviation for some kind simultaneously epistemological and moral background. — ghost
This places the of utmost importance on being clear with respect the rules we are playing by. — Merkwurdichliebe
I'd add that we have to already be in on something friendly to begin with in order to set up the rules. So that suggests that the rules are still a little artificial, however useful. — ghost
↪Merkwurdichliebe I agree that "proto-morality" is not "a domain of morals", and this agreement is related to several discussions about terminology I have had with creativesoul in the past, where I have said that I think it is best for clarity and avoidance of unnecessary and possibly misleading anthropomorphization to make a distinction between the linguistically based abstract forming, having and holding of thoughts and beliefs, and the kinds of pre-linguistic cognitve processes, which we might refer to as 'thinking' or 'believing'. — Janus
This something friendly is part of social aptitude. Perhaps it is the ability to make oneself agreeable to alien thought/belief. — Merkwurdichliebe
This brings us to the question of responsibility. When one has the choice to follow the rules or not. For example, when it becomes possible to consciously transgress the rule (e.g. do not to speak in tongues, or do not commit murder). In the rules of logic, this would merely make one untintellible/dumb. But under the rules of morality, this would make one wrong/unacceptable. — Merkwurdichliebe
I agree that "proto-morality" is not "a domain of morals", and this agreement is related to several discussions about terminology I have had with creativesoul in the past, where I have said that I think it is best for clarity and avoidance of unnecessary and possibly misleading anthropomorphization to make a distinction between the linguistically based abstract forming, having and holding of thoughts and beliefs, and the kinds of pre-linguistic cognitve processes, which we might refer to as 'thinking' or 'believing'. — Janus
The best we can do is presuppose the premise... — Merkwurdichliebe
As long the individuals treat one another as worthy of respect (independent of particular theories) this can work beautifully. — ghost
But that is just not true. While I appreciate the friendly discourse more than my words can probably convey, I'm always at a complete loss when others talk about and/or imply some foregone conclusion that we cannot get 'beneath' language. It's just not true.
There are two main premisses at work here for my part at least. One involves what all things moral have in common, and the other involves what all thought/belief have in common.
While those two premisses can be used as premisses, they were not arrived at by virtue of assumption. — creativesoul
As long the individuals treat one another as worthy of respect (independent of particular theories) this can work beautifully.
— ghost
Well put. — creativesoul
There also needs to be a distinction drawn between linguistic thought/belief that is not reflective, and linguistic thought/belief that is. — creativesoul
Humans, by virtue of language, have transcended the merely instinctual imperative to adhere to proto-moral behavior, but they are nonetheless socially conditioned and inculcated into pre-reflective moral (and obviously other) worldviews, that form cultural and conceptual contexts, contexts only within which questioning of those paradigms may later become possible. — Janus
So, we have the pre-reflective (but not pre-linguistic, obviously) context within which, and by virtue of which, later reflection upon that paradigm becomes possible. — Janus
When does reflection become not only possible but necessary? When the old habits , commandments, and rituals stop working?... Once we have the abstract notion of morality, we are already 'evil.' To see our culture from the outside is maybe only possible for a sinner.Philosophy first commences when a race for the most part has left its concrete life, when separation and change of class have begun, and the people approach toward their fall; when a gulf has arisen between inward strivings and external reality, and the old forms of Religion, &c., are no longer satisfying; when Mind manifests indifference to its living existence or rests unsatisfied therein, and moral life becomes dissolved. Then it is that Mind takes refuge in the clear space of thought to create for itself a kingdom of thought in opposition to the world of actuality, and Philosophy is the reconciliation following upon the destruction of that real world which thought has begun. When Philosophy with its abstractions paints grey in grey, the freshness and life of youth has gone, the reconciliation is not a reconciliation in the actual, but in the ideal world. — Hegel
There also needs to be a distinction drawn between linguistic thought/belief that is not reflective, and linguistic thought/belief that is.
— creativesoul
Yes, that seems to be a good and even necessary distinction, which was at least implied, if not explicit, in an earlier post where I wrote:
Humans, by virtue of language, have transcended the merely instinctual imperative to adhere to proto-moral behavior, but they are nonetheless socially conditioned and inculcated into pre-reflective moral (and obviously other) worldviews, that form cultural and conceptual contexts, contexts only within which questioning of those paradigms may later become possible.
— Janus
So, we have the pre-reflective (but not pre-linguistic, obviously) context within which, and by virtue of which, later reflection upon that paradigm becomes possible. — Janus
So we are playing around with three kinds of thought/belief. Prelinguistic, linguistic pre-reflective, and linguistic reflective.
What do they all have in common that makes them all thought/belief? — creativesoul
You are right, we've put in a lot of groundwork to validate our premise. That post was not meant to discount our premise in this discussion.
I was merely expressing my opinion that no premise is fully immune to criticism. But that a different topic for a different thread, so I will stop here. — Merkwurdichliebe
They are all modes of assessment by which we make correlations/associations/connections. — Merkwurdichliebe
So we are playing around with three kinds of thought/belief. Prelinguistic, linguistic pre-reflective, and linguistic reflective.
What do they all have in common that makes them all thought/belief? — creativesoul
Humans, by virtue of language, have transcended the merely instinctual imperative to adhere to proto-moral behavior... — Janus
..but they are nonetheless socially conditioned and inculcated into pre-reflective moral (and obviously other) worldviews, that form cultural and conceptual contexts, contexts only within which questioning of those paradigms may later become possible. — Janus
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.