What is the root of all philosophy?
Like almost any maturing pursuit, there are a million and one paths being taken by equally earnest and savvy individuals. Another way of stating the previous sentence, is to say that there seems to be an endless, largely unaccounted for, diversity of philosophies; as well as philosophers.
Which is, in my humble opinion, extraordinary. And speaks to human nature.
Along those lines, I wonder, is there a common root for all such endeavors? Did philosophy begin somewhere? If so, where and how and when and why and who and what?
I have my own suspicions, but such is only one person's "guesstimates". But it would be eye-opening to learn how others perceive and understand the origins of philosophy to be.
Which is, in my humble opinion, extraordinary. And speaks to human nature.
Along those lines, I wonder, is there a common root for all such endeavors? Did philosophy begin somewhere? If so, where and how and when and why and who and what?
I have my own suspicions, but such is only one person's "guesstimates". But it would be eye-opening to learn how others perceive and understand the origins of philosophy to be.
Comments (78)
Sulawesi, in Indonesia https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/journey-oldest-cave-paintings-world-180957685/ The oldest cave paintings date from 35,400 years ago.
To paint something from memory, in a private, protected place signifies abstract thought. What the purpose of the cave paintings was, we can only speculate - but the point is, that long-ago artist made figurative representations of real things. And that means his or her people were capable of thinking about the world and themselves in symbolic terms. And that's philosophy.
Quoting Bret Bernhoft
So, there's your when, where and who. But why? To organize one's physical experience in the world into a coherent system of abstract symbols, in order to think about the world even when it's not in front of you. Once we can abstract, symbolize and organize what we know, we can make stories, plans, rules, promises - and communicate our ideas, as well as our immediate feelings and intentions.
I can only speak for myself. The root of my interest in philosophy is a need for self-awareness.
No doubt, if there is such a thing, "a common root" of thinking is Change. :fire:
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.
In my own view, the root of my interest is trying to understand why despite the fact we have limited lives, we are forced to do something because otherwise we would feel "empty". Even in your thread, you have started as a "maturing pursuit".
... I guess we are so ambiguous.
:up:
The radix of all philosophy is the [s]desire[/s] 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.
The actual word, 'philo-sophia', 'love-wisdom' is derived from Greek, and what is recognised in Western culture as philosophy is likewise derived from ancient Greek culture. Some say the first to be given the title 'philosopher' was Pythagoras, others that philosophy proper begins with Plato's Apology. Some will argue that philosophy is universal and found in other cultures also, and there's some truth in that, but I think for the English-speaking world, it's worthwhile trying to think about the subject in the terms that are associated with the philosophical tradition, proper. Trying to re-invent it from scratch would be rarely productive, save for the occasional prodigy.
René Descartes?
:lol:
:100:
Addiction risk, beware! Truth can have you hooked for life. :fear:
Parvenu!
Forgot his background, read it though.
Quoting 180 Proof
:up:
Philosophy probably began with conversation. This exchange of ideas led to the creation of values and beliefs and a concomitant exploration of whether these were accurate. Humans can't help but manufacture meaning and explanatory narratives and argue about them.
Philosophy is a name for a specific kind of thinking a type of thinking distinguished by its questions; questions that are universal.
What is the question of questions? Answer, in my view: the question of being.
So when did philosophy begin? Well, the oldest extant writings tells us thats more or less the early Indians and Greeks, who questioned being.
I believe that philosophy, at least in the form we know it evolved from the ground of religion. I posted something speaking partly to this. I reproduce part of that post below:
"The evolution of knowledge in the context of the history of mankind started with the development of religion (from animism to monotheism). This was man's first attempt at understanding the world. Most of what was formulated in this stage was based on ignorance (not judging). We had no way of thinking about things other than how we thought about ourselves, thus everything that happened happened because someone did it (anthropomorphism); the birth of gods and angels, place holders for what is not known. The gods held our questions in the form of answers waiting to be questioned by the coming of philosophy.
Out of religion emerged philosophy, a new refined way of thinking and inquiry. The gods began to be questioned, and thus new understanding evolved, proliferating into a multitude of different philosophies as had happened with religion. Environmental selection pruned and nurtured the tree of this growing tree of knowledge.
From philosophy came science (natural philosophy), a fusion of logic, mathematics, and other ideas and methods developed by philosophy. Science is an even further refinement of thinking and is the leaf edge of the tree of our knowledge and understanding. A natural selection among the elements of philosophy."
The sophisticated kinds of questions that can be asked in the traditional philosophical way could not have been possible without first the influence of religion.
~Benedictus de Spinoza
Quoting punos
I agree philosophy began with questioning calling-into-question (otherwise unquestioned) religious beliefs & practices (e.g. myths, idols, rites, superstitions, creeds, taboos, castes, testimonies, scriptures, etc), seeking to substitute naturalistic explanations for supernatural fairytales.
Philosophy begins at one simple phenomenon: Curiosity. A trait not exclusive to humans by any stretch, but certainly exemplified best, to its furthest reaches, by us.
That all important word "Why?" and its offspring: "who", "what" "when", "where", "which" and "how".
They are all components of how curiosity manifests, and perhaps more importantly all of them reflect fundamentally the nature of the reality/universe we inhabit. The answer to the questions we have.
Who =subjects, what = matter/material/objects, when =time, where =space, which =definition/discrimination/categorisation and how = their associations/relationships with one another, how they interact.
Finally "Why" = the all encompassing umbrella term. The formula for Meaning.
These core concepts are the basis for all possible thought and linguistics and simply put: are all we need to ask about anything at all, the infinity of application of conscious awareness.
Philosophers attempt to use these to ask about their origin. A circular argument: using premises (question words) to find conclusions (what question words represent).
For example: Why is when? (why does time exist), "what is who" (what makes up a person?), where is which? (what is the location of all the pieces of the puzzle/"how" do they all come toghether?)
Notice how the sentences in brackets still use who, what, when, where etc to rephrase or grammatise the questions?
"Why" does something happen vs "how" does something happen vs for "what" purpose does something happen vs for "which" reason does something happen vs "who" makes something happen" vs "when ought something happen?"
Arguably very similar questions that can answered much the same way.
Metacognition:Thinking about thought and belief.
You make an important point about the who, what, where, when, how, and why questions, these are like the atoms of questions. I don't know how many people have done this but i think it's potentialy inspiring to create a confusion matrix of all the fundamental questions. As such:
results of a confusion matrix of fundamental questions: who, what, where, when, how, why
who is who?
who is what?
who is where?
who is when?
who is how?
who is why?
what is who?
what is what?
what is where?
what is when?
what is how?
what is why?
where is who?
where is what?
where is where?
where is when?
where is how?
where is why?
when is who?
when is what?
when is where?
when is when?
when is why?
how is who?
how is what?
how is where?
how is when?
how is how?
how is why?
why is who?
why is what?
why is where?
why is when?
why is how?
why is why?
The quest of philosophy begins from among these questions.
I've noticed one commonality, a lot of these are used in day to day language. They're every day things, as well as deep philosophical pursuits.
For example a new substitute teacher going "okay I have this list of names, so, "who is where? " and proceeds to call the roll so students can identify themselves.
And on a deep philosophical level it could be a question like "where does subjectivity come from?" "where does one self end and the next begin" "how does subjective awareness of individuals overlap?"
Or in this case. "So there's a party? Where is it and when (where is when).
This may enable us to further understand the role of verbs like" to be" well as the role of addition (and), subtraction (except/exclusion), division and multiplication in language.
As in the following sentence: the party (what) will be at the beach (where) at 9pm (when), you can get there on bus 43 (how) and (+) you're invited, except (-) your friend, we don't like them (division).
It's as if natural language models and mathematics/physics can be directly correlated which makes sense considering the success of natural language models of AI these days based on algorithms.
Does that mean they're basic consciousness/brains or are we just complex biological machinery? I wonder
Not me waiting for the antinatalists to swarm in lol
who = specific person
what = specific thing
where = specific place
when = specific time
how = specific process or function
why = specific logic
Yes, one can use the Ws as data structures that act as variables: what = party, when = 10:00 pm, where = address
Further more a fundamental logic confusion matrix can help in understanding how to process these questions. In fact there is an entire system of confusion matrices that can be networked together to yield a knowledge structure.
fundamental logic confusion matrix: NOT, AND, OR
NOT NOT = ?
NOT AND = ?
NOT OR = ?
AND NOT = ?
AND AND = ?
AND OR = ?
OR NOT = ?
OR AND = ?
OR OR = ?
These are the process forms (like logic gates).
Though some aspects of what we could consider philosophical thinking where probably always already present and fused into the mythological and the religious, I would say a common root (not necessarily the only one) probably was writing, or at least the more widespread use and cultural integration of writing. There language becomes something that is more fixed, and can more easily be reflected on.
With words surviving past the authors utterances and the concrete situations he made those in, you get more of a need for interpretation (what does such and such really mean?) and a need for fixing meaning over different contexts and precise definitions etc... you get more abstraction, which is what is needed for philosophy.
In short it co-evolved with, or was a by-product of, new technological evolutions in language-use.... as we started using language in other ways, we also evolved other ways of thinking to fit those.
The recognition of and resultant desire to resolve bewilderment and sorrow at their psychological origin
I am taking my time to read through your responses, and what strikes me as interesting, is (what appears to me to be) a fairly common thread. That being a sort of eager and earnest anxiety about understanding. Be that life, or existence or human consciousness. Whatever the motivation, there seems to be a need to (firstly) consider and (secondly) integrate the what, why, how, where, when and who of this universe. And that's appealing to my philosophically inexperienced brain.
Believe me or not, I cherish my interactions on this forum. I've been set straight on a number of (in my humble opinion) critical arenas of consideration. With the vessel of that course correction being philosophical dialogue. And just as Joseph Campbell's monomyth depicts, there will always be something more to explore. But after having asked the question at the center of this thread, I'm pleased to know that this journey well underway. And possible.
"who was phone?" is the one true muse.
More seriously though, in what sense could philosophy even be said to have a starting point? Philosophical concepts come from different starting points - it might be substance, process, bodies, love, assemblages. It might be indifferent to starting points; "groundless grounds", anything which treats foundationalisms with suspicion. Philosophy's origins as contested base assumptions.
Philosophical ideas are also historically situated and embedding in social conduct. Revolutions and revolutionary philosophy, suffrage and critical theory, spiritual metaphysics and meditation, materialism and science. They arise whenever their context needs thought. Philosophy's origins as political and historical.
There's also philosophy in the institutional sense. Where do philosophical ideas come from? Well, how are they produced? Academies, books. Philosophy's origins as an actor network.
IMO, ideas have more than one type of origin, they are created when they are needed. And sometimes they are stories about what's already done. If it's possible to construe philosophy as "seeing how things (in the broadest possible sense) hang together (in the broadest possible sense)" it'll be ordered thought in response to how something works or is done. More or less formal, more or less discursive, more or less practically inclined.
Q. When? Ans: Always.
Doesn't have to be a specific, time place or thing etc as exemplified by the words always, everywhere, everything, every way
There is only one answer to this question. The origin of any philosophy arises out of some belief or set of beliefs. I take a very broad view of philosophy, i.e., everyone in some sense is a philosopher. If you have a set of beliefs regarding ethics, science, history, mathematics, family life, on and on, then you are a philosopher, not a professional philosopher, but a philosopher nonetheless. Having beliefs about ethics, for e.g., requires, at the very least, some critical analysis (even if it's very basic) about what you believe. And, it is this critical analysis that's at the heart of doing philosophy, or being a philosopher. The only question is, do you do it well, and not many do it well.
Happy to learn more about Sulawesi but isn't it arbitrary? Because that behaviour presupposes other behaviour that came before it. Maybe they drew in the sand before that in Spain and we'll never know. And cave art is complex so why not lesser steps leading up to cave art? So why not that earlier behaviour? Leads to a bit of regress, I'm afraid.
What aspect of philosophy isn't? I simply chose to draw the line of definition at the earliest known evidence of abstract thinking.
Quoting Benkei
Exactly because it is complex, and deep in a cave. A drawing on a rock outside, or in the sand, could simply be a depiction of what the artist was seeing. The only way the artist could carry great big wild animals into that cave was inside his or her head. And it also shows a planned, purposeful communication: somebody had to make and bring the art supplies.
Quoting Benkei
There obviously had been earlier bahaviour of some kind, and quite a lot of thinking, but I couldn't justify calling it philosophy. We do know about rock paintings and etching from many places around the world https://www.kateowengallery.com/page/Rock-Art, but they're not as old. So, while all early painting may be symbolic and significant, as far as I know, these are the earliest example yet discovered. Note that both the Sulawesi and Australian examples include stencilled human hands, strongly suggesting a kinship: part of the Indonesian population migrated on to Australia. The hands, too, signify a sense of identity, self-assertion and reflection.
Has religion begun from somewhere? Or science?
They are all "products" of the natural development of the human mind. And as such they have their roots in all parts of the planet and they are developed in different ways and levels, based on conditions that anthropologists know better.
Take for instance Western and Eastern philosophies: their differnece is huge even after thousands of years since the time we have some evidences of their origin. In fact, there are differences --sometimes huge-- even between cultures in the same geographical area.
IMO, it would be more interesting if we just take the word "all" out: "What is the root of philosophy?". Or "How does philosophy emerges?"
And to that, my quick answer would be: from logic and the need for knowledge.
I think that applies to science. Philosophy emerges from the need to organize the world into a discernible pattern. (And religion, to control its forces)
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.
Aristotle covered both of those needs/desires in his Physics and Metaphysics. However, some posters on TPF seem to think that understanding objective Reality via modern Science, obviates the need to understand subjective Ideality. Hence, Subjective introverts and Objective extroverts (philosophically speaking) tend to talk past each other, with different vocabularies. Making dialog difficult. And yet, we press on. :smile:
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.
[Re: "Philosophy emerges from logic and the need for knowledge"]
I agree. It also applies to science. Don't forget that in ancient Greek philosophy, science and philosophy where one. In fact, the first Greek philosopher is (considered to be) Thales of Miletus, was also a mathematician and astronomer.
Quoting 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.
Don't forget that the word "philosophy" comes from the Greek "philos" (= friend, lover) and "sophia" (= wisdom, knowledge). It's the need and quest for knowledge that drives philosophy, or more correctly, philosophical thinking. And this is achieved mainly by reasoning. Other mental factors like observation, perception, imagination, memory, etc. are also involved.
Characteristic example: Socratic questioning as a critical thinking strategy and pursuit of wisdom (knowledge).
They were called by one name, the real and the BS, in Athens, and we Eurocentric moderns inherit their language as holy writ, because we take 4th c BCE Athens as the origin of everything - whereas, in fact, it's a late-comer, even among sophisticated civilizations.
But what's that to do with cavemen? Early humans explored the physical world, observed, compared, experimented, remembered - scientific activities which led them to the use of natural resources and the invention of clothing, tools, and eventually agriculture. They also questioned their relationship to their environment and its other denizens - philosophical inquiry, which led to the making of symbols, pictures, stories and eventually, mythology. At some point, they attributed supernatural powers to forces of nature and the ghosts of their revered elders, which led to ceremonious burials and other rituals, which is religion, an offshoot of philosophy. They combined the symbology with clever use of tools, pigments and surfaces, which is art. All these human impulses run parallel, from the very beginning all the way though human history, whatever they are called at any given point.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
The label did. Just as Taxonomy came much later than the species it classifies.
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.
For example, religion-in-general has existed among humans for eons. So there must be something good (useful) in viewing the world as something like a super-organism, or of humanity as a family of semi-deities (ruling over animals & plants). Most primitive religions have been rather innocent & childlike. And some, like Buddhism, are essentially private self-help therapies. But those religions associated with political empires may wield the power of life & death (burning at the stake) over its citizens. So, you might want to choose to avoid those that are oppressive, and to emulate those that are humane.
Likewise, Science-in-general is simply the human quest to understand the natural world, in order to tame its wildness. Yet, on the other hand, the amoral & reductive practice of scientific investigation into the underpinnings of Nature have lead to the god-like (thermo-nuclear) power to destroy all life on this planet*1. So again, you can choose the paths of science that lead to "better living through technology", and to avoid those paths that lead to environmental pollution.
That's the beauty of BothAnd, the chooser is free to determine the pertinent criteria for his own selections. :cool:
*1. As he witnessed the first detonation of a nuclear weapon on July 16, 1945, a piece of Hindu scripture ran through the mind of Robert Oppenheimer: Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds. ___spoken by Hindu deity Vishnu
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/manhattan-project-robert-oppenheimer
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page2.html
Quite interesting info and points. :up:
Yin contains yang and yang contains yin, so in what way are they "mutually annihilatory"?
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.
The universe is a single system AFAIK, but it is driven by opposing forces -- Energy & Entropy -- to follow a median path through space-time, neither too hot, nor too cold, but "just right" as Goldilocks gushed. That's not a fact. but an expression of preference for a median temperature. Out in space the temperature is near absolute zero. And in stars it's matter-melting hot. But, on our home planet, those extremes are moderated into a livable range. For which the Chinese philosophers were grateful to the Tao : the middle path.
In philosophical dialog, one person may say "Yaweh exists" while another says "god is dead". Though diametrically opposing opinions, together they cover most of the range of opinions on the god question. A BothAnd position on such unverifiable questions would be Agnostic (possible but unknowable), or Deistic (another name for impartial Nature, or Tao). Which opinion would you choose, if you were describing the ultimate philosophical fact of your world? :smile:
Yin/Yang
Yin and yang (/j?n/ and /jæ?/) is a Chinese philosophical concept that describes opposite but interconnected forces. In Chinese cosmology, the universe creates itself out of a primary chaos of material energy, organized into the cycles of yin and yang and formed into objects and lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang
Theism and Atheism cancel each other out, oui? Unless you mean to say there's theism in atheism and atheism in theism (@Gnomon :chin:)
I prefer your yin in yang and yang in yin idea. @Gnomon is on the right track then - there's religion in science and there's science in religion.
:ok:
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting Baden
So the spark of philosophy is epistemological and philosophers are knowledge detectives?
Try not to fuck up your kids. You will despite yourself. But there is a narrow degree of influence where you won't. So, what is that?
I don't think so.
Is it incorrect to characterize the above question as a spark igniting epistemological inquiry?
Its predomination as an itch that grows as we scratch is not an investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion?
Its expansion does not encompass both truth content of particulars and precepts about general attributes of truth?
I think so
I don't think so.
Those aporia (logically) come later ...
No, ex mea sententia, no! However, though the objective is knowledge (theoretical and practical, re sophia), philosophy is also the realization that the epsitemological project it has undertaken is futile, bound to fail). A dilemma presents itself: raise the bar and it's impossible, lower it and it's dukkha (unsatisfactory). @180 Proof subscribes to fallibilism; I myself adopt what I call an ad interim weltanschauung/philosophy (stick to appearances; those who promise ultimate truths are usually charlatans, oui 180 Proof?) Like @unenlightened once remarked, a brilliant observation, "I treat dreams as real until I wake up." :fire:
As I recently wrote elsewhere, I
Quoting 180 Proof
Like [math]\pi[/math], an irrational - only an approximation is possible. Reduce error and, in more general terms, recognize one's mistakes, awareness of where one could be/go wrong.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Agent Smith
I take you to mean (because of the double-negative) it is correct to understand: Quoting 180 Proof
as a question that sparks the epistemological project of philosophy.
There is, however, a caveat:
Quoting Agent Smith
A general truth about the epistemological project, then, has it bound by the mathematical concept of the limit. The philosopher-as-knowledge-detective makes an ever-progressing approach to the goal of certain knowledge without arrival.
Quoting Agent Smith
Per your view, Agent Smith, philosophy vis-a-vis knowledge stays confined within the bounds of an insuperable skepticism. Moreover, your skepticism is coupled with a sardonic jeering at claims to penetrate the world of appearances with counter-intuitive insights. Like a savvy gumshoe, you regulate your beliefs with a worldview that, in parallel with a floatation device, keeps you in hover mode around promising candidates for truth claims yet non-committal.
Quoting Agent Smith
With his clever approach to self-mockery, wittily characterizing himself as a would-be adept, @unenlightened puts the steamed milk into your latte.
Quoting 180 Proof
... understanding (logically) comes first.
As I understand it, your above statement claims the question therein seeks a way, a manner or a means of knowing our acceptances-without-proof are real.
Objectivist is one way of defining "real."
objectivism (noun) philosophy - the belief that the things of the natural world, especially moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them.
What's your way of defining "real?"
"In the beginning was astonishment."
You're misreading what I wrote. My bad (I guess) for not being clearer. To unpack the statement, all I mean by it is that philosophy reflective thinking begins when we question our assumptions and givens (i.e. the ineluctable background (ontological) conditions for how we live and how we think). 'Topics in epistemology' (re: e.g. truth, knowledge vs opinion, etc) come later once philosophizing has begun in earnest and, IMO, themselves do not, cause us to philosophize.
Here's what I mean by real (from a recent thread on the topic) ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/749399
The Pyrrhonist argument is quite simple and as powerful. For every thesis an equal and opposite antithesis (adiaphora). The scale of truth is perfectly balanced at the center. Hence epoché, post-aporia.
The above quote is how I boil down your statement to its essentials.
Quoting 180 Proof
The above quote I understand to be synonymous with: Philosophy = reflective thinking. This can be restated as: Philosophy = deep thought.
Quoting 180 Proof
I read the syntax of the above quote as having 'Topics in epistemology' as the antecedent of themselves and thus I get: 'Topics in epistemology...' themselves do not, cause us to philosophize.
There might be a problem of contradiction because the sentence first claims topics in epistemology come later once philosophizing has begun in earnest, and then it says topics in epistemology themselves do not cause us to philosophize.
If topics in epistemology don't get underway until philosophizing has begun in earnest, and if topics in epistemology exemplify philosophizing (I think they do), then to follow that by saying topics in epistemology themselves do not cause us to philosophize appears to be contradiction.
However, this appearance of contradiction might be dispelled if you can say what precludes topics in epistemology from causing philosophizing after it has begun in earnest.
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
I read your definitions of "real" as follows:
Reality is inescapable because it subsumes the total being of sentients within its larger-than-sentience domain.
Reality is the acid test of the scope of sentient knowledge and understanding because the former is totally super-ordinate to the latter.
Reality is ontically independent of sentience. Humans, for example, cannot create themselves because self-creation would entail creation of a context for self, which is to say, self-creation would entail the concomitant of creation of reality, an impossibility given its permanent super-ordination of sentience.
Reality is totally stifling WRT to individuality of perception and WRT to self-determination of identity because there is one and one only nature of reality, and thus reasoned discussion and its understanding are confined to an absolute determinism thereof.
In Egyptian math the glyph for 1,000,000 is a sitting man with his arms raised above his head (in astonishnment), I can picture Jeff Bezos :yawn:
The idea is to go beyond what is often said to be the beginning of a philosophical journey or adventure, which is that philosophy begins in wonder.
I think it goes beyond that, all the way to utter astonishment, at existence, and life and the universe and objects and perception and unity and diversity and knowledge and so on and on.
Of course, the association one has with any particular word may render any definition bland or trivial. Jeff Bezos having billions may be astonishing to some, and in a way it is. But not in a good way.
That's not how I experience astonishment, nor do I expect others to have the same experience as I do.
Appears to me skepticism has a mathematical structure akin to the cancellation of opposite charges resulting in zero. Since zero in isolation is impractical, philosophy with practical content must be irrational.
Exactamundo!
Let's revisit a couple of my communications.
Quoting 180 Proof
When a philosopher is working in topics in epistemology, s/he is doing philosophy. That you believe this you make clear by declaring topics in epistemology come later once philosophizing has begun in earnest. When you follow this by declaring, IMO, topics in epistemology themselves do not cause us to philosophize, you appear to contradict your prior statement that working in topics in epistemology occurs once philosophizing has begun in earnest.
If, when a philosopher does work in topics in epistemology, this work, once it's underway, exemplifies philosophizing in earnest, as you claim, but then you next claim that, IMO, topics in epistemology themselves do not cause a philosopher to philosophize, then you need to further unpack this statement with a clarifying explanation. Without a clarifying explanation, I claim your statement is a self-contradiction.
Since what I say here, like what I said previously, is easy to understand, if you continue to plead non-comprehension, I will conclude your plea is a pretense that enables you to avoid acknowledging self-contradiction.
Quoting 180 Proof
My response to this claim, in short, says it's nature viewed through the lens of rigid determinism, thus giving the claimant power to deny varieties of perception of nature. This leads straight into viewing topics in metaphysics with the same rigid determinism.
Can you unpack the quote? Also, can you cite its source?
I can't "unpack" any more than I have already. You misread me out of context (or superficially) and thereby see "contradictions" where there aren't any. And I'm citing my own words from old posts (which I've linked), so why do you assume there's some other "source"? I suspect my problem, ucarr, with your responses is I don't see your point as I've not made any factual claims or proposed any arguments here with which it's reasonable to take issue.