. 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)

There are two different sources of law:

1. Positive law: those laws which are approved and promote by the Congress and Senate thanks to the representation of the people in the chambers.
2. Natural law: basic principles which are inherited in the rule of law in each nation such as "good faith", "moral", "equity" etc... these concepts are not necessarily being expressed in the law itself but they are inside them. It is like their "soul"

We can say that Natural law comes from equity or "equilibrium". Whenever you want to approve a law you tend to reach equal footing.

"Golden" as a characteristic has a deep connection to exclusivity and richness. Nevertheless, Mishima's point of view in his book "The temple of Golden Pavilion" gives another perspective. Their beauty is related to the "sublime" that is even scary for the protagonist (Hayashi Yoken).
[...]Throughout his childhood he is assured by his father that the Golden Pavilion is the most beautiful building in the world, and the idea of the temple becomes a fixture in his imagination.
[...]Mizoguchi tells her about his experiences. She tries to seduce him, but he experiences visions of the temple.
The 'Kinkakuji' is an assemblage of extremely beautiful sentences, and the whole work is filled with an artistic beauty and transiency that holds Kinkaku-ji Temple at its center. Although the Kinkaku-ji Temple itself was a human work, the behavior and feelings of mankind before it were full of sordidness and weakness. However, perhaps transience alone was one thing both did have in common.

I'm not a leftist, but the small impact that trade unions have in the US simply will widen the gap between the rich and the poor and hinder the ability for a larger middle class to grow. — ssu

That's true.

To be honest, I even think that trade unions (as we know it in Europe) do not exist in the USA at all. Probably, this is due to "Truman doctrine" which wanted to erase all "communist" or socialist theories. According to this thesis, trade unions are not allowed in the USA because it is "contrary" to capitalism itself. So, they eradicate all possible interference between a worker with his businessman. It is weird but it looks like they have the thought that "you are poor because you deserve it" and the "businessman doesn't have to pay with his taxes your medicines". They implemented the savage capitalism.

I am agree with you that in Europe, the trade unions had a more impact. All the progress in terms of healthcare system, public education, or the regulation of working hours came thanks to them.
But all of these efforts, have come, from a socialist thesis indeed. It has always been a fight between the businessman against the workers.

Another example: we are currently having a debate in Spain about to increase the minimum income to 1.000 €. The businessmen obviously do not want to but the trade unions are fighting to reach this aim.
I see it as the classical gap between the rich and the poor. The powerful and the servant. Socialism vs conservatives or "traditionalists"

The worst faulty idea about trade unions is that they are a socialist endeavour promoting socialism.

They aren't, actually. They are just a common sense way to deal with your employer. — ssu

I think it depends on the country we are talking about. Here in Spain trade unions are literally a way to promote socialism (or classwork-leftist doctrines) against the entrepreneur or employers.
I am agree with you that it is a group which -supposedly- has the aim to deal with the employer. But this is a leftist position indeed.
For example: in my country there are three key actors who debate about employee's income: government, CEOE (representatives of entrepreneurs) and UGT (Trade unions)
Wherever they debate is so clear that trade unions promote: worker rights vs rich privileges; better salaries; less working hours or gender equality, etc...
These concepts are socialist or at least "social-democrat" doctrine.

Well you can see it yourself in this image. Look the symbols. Trade unions are a promotion for socialism.

What's the difference between our perception of reality in 2022 vs. the ancient Greek perception of reality in _____ year? — Noble Dust

I guess the main difference lies in polytheism vs monotheism. Back in the day, Roman and Greek empires were polytheist and had a different perception of reality. It is easier to make metaphors when you believe in different aspects inside nature rather than being indoctrinated by one God because this view is pretty simplistic.
I even think that since Christianity took part in Roman Empire all the arts and knowledge started to be so simplistic

Greek mythology. — Noble Dust

It is true that Greek mythology and philosophy are different from each other in terms of reasoning and knowledge. Despite the fact that mythology could be -sometimes- extravagant it shows us interesting metaphors. @Agent Smith shared with us Medusa, but I also like Narcisus myth

Narcissus ⚘

Yukio Mishima was almost too much for me in my early twenties, — 180 Proof

I am 25 years old and yes they are too much for me. The first book I have read of him was four years ago, so I am following your path!

I owe his sublime works a rereading – renewed encounter – soon in order to discover how they will affect me now in my late fifties. — 180 Proof

It would be a unique experience. I also want to reread their works some years after. But I personally think that Mishima's art is timeless and this is why his figure still there during the decades

Sounds like we believe in different things. :smile: — Tom Storm

I respect it Tom :smile: thanks you because you always take part in my threads or discussions and I appreciate that

Perhaps traumatizes (i.e. to wound, to disturb, to call-oneself-into-question) — 180 Proof

Yes! I see your point now. I like how you describe it as "call-oneself-into-question". Until we do not experience such state of mind we don't put ourselves into question or doubt. It looks like when a explosion of colours shapes in a white paper.

Aren't there any e.g. works of art, experiences of nature or erotic encounters, javi, which have irreparably changed some aspect of your life, your self-awareness, in large or small ways? — 180 Proof

Completely. Yukio Mishima's books, for example. I have experienced a big change in my awareness in a huge way after reading those. I understand now why I always consider it as "sublime" their works. They changed my way of seeing the life. Before that I didn't even know a basic concept of aesthetics, but afterwards, I have evolved to a different person with different views in arts: Loneliness, self-discipline, ephemeral, the way of samurai, etc...

but this experience can, I think, be objectively described as an experience of beauty. — Noble Dust

Agree and interesting experience you have shared with us

:up: :100:

Bonum (good) ____ (fill in the blank). — Agent Smith

I think "bonum" or "good" is related to ethics rather than aesthetics :chin:

This link to an old post is my general treatment of the topics raised here: — 180 Proof

Thanks for sharing. I would check it out later on :up:

A pleasure so extreme it terrorizes as it fascinates. — 180 Proof

Interesting. You follow the thesis of Edmund Burke then. I respect it indeed. But I don't see why a pleasure can "terrorizes" me. I guess something sublime not only fascinates but gives a context of pure satisfaction. It is far of being terrified.
Nevertheless, I guess you explained it in the link you posted above

I am not aware of any example of perfection in the world, except when the word is used in a quotidian context to subjectively describe the best example of something - eg,' This cake is perfection.' — Tom Storm

But we should not give up on objectively context. The paper I have read yesterday propose that there are some "supernatural" examples which we can consider as "high" or "top quality". Thus, the ones who goes further than just "beauty"
Kant and Otto connected the sublime with objects that are unrepeatable such as Egyptian pyramids.

I have virtually no use for the word beauty in my daily life and although I find some things aesthetically pleasing - this might be because they are striking rather than 'beautiful'. — Tom Storm

Interesting point of view and thanks for answering your aesthetic experience. But I think that even if we don't use the word "beauty", we all have like a basic sense of it... or at least the opposite: ugliness.

sublime - I have no knowledge or experience of a word like this but recognise its romantic and quasi-religious associations for others. — Tom Storm

It is true that the sublime is related to religious themes. Nevertheless, I see it as "perfection". We all should have a basic concept of "beauty" (as you explained in a Platonist view, for example) which is intersubjective (I guess).
But sublime it seems to go beyond. It is something like "supernatural" as Otto stated. An essence we cannot reach and it accommodates in our fantasies and dreams

Find out what life is, then the answer will be obvious. — ArielAssante

What if there is not an answer after all? :chin:

But ultimately, it's not a pointless question to ask what's next since quality of life isn't promised to anyone. And philosophy is the subject that must be open to all things. — TiredThinker

So you want an answer to something which is inevitable? We have to accept that we all have to die one day. Some would do it sooner or later than others. But do not stress yourself so much wondering what happens after all. There are even more probabilities to be noting rather than something

And no, America is not a fake Democracy. — Philosophim

... what?

Also consider where your vote matters more. Local politics often times only take a few individuals to make major changes. Start there. — Philosophim

The problem we are discussing in this thread is that our votes do not matter or count at all. It doesn't matter if we speak about local or national politics. Everything ends up with same issue: ineffectiveness. Whenever they catch their seat they forget why we voted them. It is a system where only a few wins. There are not changes. The issue only changes when those in the power start seeing the problems so close. They do not care about us and I do not want pay them with my taxes

Either you're at the table, and will receive some modicum of respect and consideration, or you're at the kids table while the adults make decisions about your life. — Philosophim

How can I (as a citizen) join the adult's table? Anyone knows the formula? Because it seems to be so opaque inside politics and who are the ones making and ruling the decisions

Take the opposite, that you can't vote at all. That you can't congregate with others to discuss what you're going to vote on. You have absolutely no choice to be run by a few others who have all the power. Do you want that? Is that somehow more favorable? — Philosophim

It is literally the same issue but we don't waste our time to go a poll and vote for politicians. China is a good example to consider of. They do not "vote" there. They just elect their general secretary of Chinese Communist Party. They decide what is convenient to Chinese citizens instead of calling to emptiness elections. We all can be agree here that China is a dictatorship but you have to accept that they are the power ruling the world right now, so they are not doing the things that bad...
Examples as China show us that we are just overrated democracy and the system of representatives. Simple.