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.

. I did, however, check the physics and the prior analytics for "first principles" as well, just out of curiosity, and didn't find as much that seemed to grab me as relevant. — Moliere

No worries! It is a very opened and beautiful debate because "first principles" is a very general term and it leads us to wonder what does really means when we try to specify it. So, I even thinks it can take hours this debate.
Aristotle was a clever man when he wrote about these fundamental principles because after centuries we still debating.

And the last time I read Aristotle in real depth was over 10 years ago. — Moliere

In my case, it was over 4 years and was Nichomachean Ethics! It brings me back good memories :100:

I'm just pulling quotes from The Metaphysics which mention first principles and first philosophy, because that's what I thought was referred to be Aristotle as "the first principles" — Moliere

Completely agree and you are, of course, on the right path because the paper I have read was referring and quoting to The Metaphysics. So, I appreciated all the big quotes you shared with us. The paper I used is not that complete and drafted.

then I think it'd be fair to say it was be a Subject, and not a Predicate. — Moliere

:100: :up:

They seem to be at the top of the species-genus chain, and somehow explain how everything is made of or comes from some primary thing, — Moliere

This is why, I guess, we can treat it as universal affirmative premises inside Aristotle's syllogisms. Or as @Gnomon previously said: The only evidence to support such unproven premises (axioms) is logical consistency.

It is not something worked out by reason (dianoia) but something the intellect (nous) sees. — Fooloso4

:up: I see and understand yout point and argument. But I think I have made a mistake because I didn't quote all the phrase you were referring to. The quote ends in this way: (and I think it probably fits in your arguments and point of view)

But there is no certainty to the generalizations of induction. The "Problem of Induction" is the question How we know when we have examined enough individual cases to make an inductive generalization. Usually we can't know.

Then, I think here is when (nous) appears. Probably we can know thanks to how the intellect sees.

First of all, thank you for taking part in my thread. Appreciated it.

First Principles are simply labels for First Causes : the cornerstone of all practical knowledge. Example : the distinction between Substance (matter) and Essence (form ; qualities). — Gnomon

I understand it now! Both labels have always been a classical debate among all philosophical schools or doctrines.
I think is important to bring here some thoughts of John Locke -as an example- about "primary" and "secondary" qualities:
These I call original or primary Qualities of Body, which I think we may observe to produce simple Ideas in us, viz. Solidity, Extension, Figure, Motion, or Rest, and Number. Such Qualities, which in truth are nothing in the Objects themselves, but Powers to produce various Sensations in us by their primary Qualities, i.e. by the Bulk, Figure, Texture, and Motion of their insensible parts, as Colours, Sounds, Tasts, etc. These I call secondary Qualities. [An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book II, Chapter VIII]

Apparently, Aristotle's First Principles were presumed "self-evident", based on his self-confidence in his own reasoning ability. But quantum scientists are no longer so self-assured, regarding their ability to make sense of the evidence — Gnomon

That's true.

Nevertheless, I think Aristotle's principles of logic are still important in some ways. After thousands of years the system of reasoning by syllogisms can help us. I understand that is a very basic pattern if we compare it with the complexity we currently live in. But the "essence" :grin: keeps flourishing!

i just posted a question and it seems to have stirred up a lot of different positions and disagreements. — GLEN willows

That’s what philosophy is all about :wink:

I have a friend who has no minds eye. She does not see visual mental images. She didn't even realize this herself until she was in her 60s. Next time I talk to her, I ask about what that experience is like. — T Clark

I don’t want to look like a “blab” but this story is so interesting. Please, if you finally ask her what that experience is like I want to know her answer too.
It amazed me when I read she didn’t realize herself until she was in her sixties!

Cognitions, subcognitions and metacognitions. — 180 Proof

:up: :100:

In terms of teaching magick to anyone, this website is a great place to start. IMO, the best way to teach magick is to both embody said subject through metaphor. — Bret Bernhoft

Probably I am lost in the issue, but it looks like another type of religion with their own sects. It is true that I have confused it with paganism, but it turned out that it is more related to Christianity.
(At least according to the information you provided us).

That’s why the search for a reason to live or argument why not suicide. — rossii

There are not reasons to live at all. You only have to have to do it. I think you would make a big mistake if you put yourself in a search for a cause of living.
Instead of live, you need to "survive" this life. Don't commit suicide. As you expressed, the effects would be devastating to your love ones.
Suicide could be only acceptable if you are alone and such act would not affect anyone.
Keep in mind that if you kill yourself your family or friends will suffer with the remorse of thinking "what they did wrong with you to end up killing yourself"

I knew that Mishima's quote would affect you. But do not worry. It always happens after reading his works. It is not about to keep the roles separate but a clever use of culture/philosophy (art) and exercise (sword). The perfect equilibrium.
But I do not want to go in an off topic debate because it would be disrespectful for the OP. Nevertheless if you are interested about how Mishima's works can lead our minds to a state of euphoria and ecstasy, you can follow these ones: On beautiful and sublime.
Why does religion condemn suicide?

Hot summers in the Mediterranean area. — jorndoe

We have reached 45 C⁰ the month before... it was so damn disgusting and tiresome

You might misunderstand the subject of magick and/or Paganism? — Bret Bernhoft

I guess... (?)

Hello Rocco Rosano.

I really like your definition of time but if you don't mind I want to share another perspective from a Kantian point of view:
Because time, [in Immanuel Kant's terms] is only empirically real and does not exist independently among things in themselves.

Time is the inverse to frequency [ t=(1/f) ] and it only points in a positive direction — Rocco Rosano

What do you mean by "positive?"

That requires some faith, wouldn't you agree? — Agent Smith

No. Faith requires the belief in something that actually exists or at least exists in your thoughts.
I think Richard Dawkins is a sceptical. His scepticism is not related to faith. He says that in such scale he doesn’t believe in God and it is a fiction. So, no there is not faith towards Dawkins opinion

is it prudent/wise to believe in God (re Pascal's wager)? — Agent Smith

I think not but I respect all those who have faith in him. This is where the gap between science/philosophy and religion starts. While logical positivism is based on proofs and scientific evidences, religion depends on your own belief.
I am agree with @180 Proof and I also think the OP is contradictory. There is not "atheistic faith" because atheism is against this sacred and religious act. Putting "faith" and "atheist" in the same group has no sense

It'd be fine to teach about all religions in public schools, but I don't think it'd be wise or proper to teach it as binding or true. I suspect you wouldn't want bible-thumpers teaching biology, for similar reasons.
2h — Pie

:100: :up:

I'm of the opinion that magick should be taught in public schools. — Bret Bernhoft

We are in 21th century already. Those pagans doctrine should not be allowed in schools. It is primitive and it goes against all the basic knowledge the world needs to find solutions to our problems.

it makes sense to me to understand this as a debate about which usage is preferable. — Pie

Folks, that is what philosophy amounts to - finding a good way to say tricky things. — Banno

:eyes: :sparkle:

And what I envied most about him was that he managed to reach the end of his life without the slightest conscience of being burdened with a special individuality or sense of individual mission like mine. This sense of individuality robbed my life of its symbolism, that is to say, or its power to serve, like Tsurukawa’s, as a metaphor for something outside itself; accordingly it deprived me of the feelings of life’s extensity and solidarity, and it became the source of that sense of solitude which pursued me indefinitely. It was strange. I did not even have any feeling of solidarity with nothingness.

No one is wiser than Socrates. — Oracle of Delphi

She was right.

“The Language Instinct” by Stephen Pinker. — T Clark

It is a very substantive and drafted OP. I have been thinking and I guess the following paper can be attached to your arguments about the complexity of thinking. Language is one of the main examples indeed.
Probably you already know it but there is a book called How to do Things with Words by John Langshaw Austin. Well, he also wrote a philosophical paper called Sense and Sensibilia.
According to his thoughts in those papers he wrote:

Austin argues that [Ayer] fails to understand the proper function of such words as "illusion", "delusion", "hallucination", "looks", "appears" and "seems", and uses them instead in a "special way...invented by philosophers." According to Austin, normally these words allow us to express reservations about our commitment to the truth of what we are saying, and that the introduction of sense-data adds nothing to our understanding of or ability to talk about what we see.

Again, Austin argues in Other Minds:

He [Austin] claims, is that if I say that I know X and later find out that X is false, I did not know it. Austin believes that this is not consistent with the way we actually use language. He claims that if I was in a position where I would normally say that I know X, if X should turn out to be false, I would be speechless rather than self-corrective. He gives an argument that this is so by suggesting that believing is to knowing as intending is to promising— knowing and promising are the speech-act versions of believing and intending respectively.

I wish these brief quotes can be useful and interesting for you. Glad to see an OP from you again.

Christianity also holds that there should be no hierarchy and that each community should understand Jesus teachings as they wish with no dogmatic authority. — Tom Storm

I wish they act this way... at least from the country I am come from they do literally the opposite. I always see it as a complex corrupt structure. I am agree with you that there are big differences between Christians and Catholics but they all end up promoting their power through dogma. For example: you can see it in religious schools. They teach the basic concepts of life through the image of Jesus and God.

A brief modification:

I thought my father was God, Paul Auster

The Holy man of Mount Koya, Izumi Kyōka (泉 鏡花)

Runaway horses, Yukio Mishima (三島 由紀夫)