Origin of Philosophy

[Ginkgo]

first cause? causation is an unfounded and meaningless habit of association of events...

-Imp

That would be Hume's causation you have in mind. First cause is a teleological concept while, causation is an empirical concept. At first glace they seem similar, but there is an important difference.

I understand this... (it was a question of "established and recognized truths" and "methodology" in the previous post)

-Imp

Sorry my mistake, didn't read the previous post.

[Ginkgo]

Jacques Maritain was a French Catholic that wrote an excellent beginning book for philosophy, Introduction to Philosophy. That book is standard for most Catholic seminaries for their philosophy degrees. It is a great book. He states quite categorically that Philosophy is a science. Philosophy also studies First Causes. Philosophy looks to essences of things and a corollary to essence is First Causes. This comes from Aristotle.

Plato is NOT an idealist. Philosophy is not about Idealism whatsoever. The Republic is based on the Doric Republics of Crete and Sparta--real actual entities that lived for over 600 years. That is not idealism.

I wish those that replied to this thread read the link because all the objections stated in this thread have been answered in the link!

READ THE LINK.

I would have to completely disagree with Maritian on both counts.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_idealism

Science can be closely related to philosophy at times, but is is incorrect to say that all science is philosophy.

Philosophical idealism in this sense is not actually referring as to whether such places actually existed, it is referring to Plato's methodology, more particularly his theory of Forms.

[Gee]

Imp;

I would have responded sooner, but did not realize that you were addressing me until I read the second quote to Ginkgo.

first cause? causation is an unfounded and meaningless habit of association of events...

-Imp

Regarding "first cause" I attributed a meaning to it that apparently is not what philosophy considers "first cause", so I retract that statement.

Regarding "causation", long ago I dropped a hammer on my toe by accident. I firmly believe that the hammer dropped on my toe caused the pain that ensued, so I am very careful to not drop hammers or heavy tools on my toes. You can call that an "unfounded and meaningless habit of association", but not dropping a hammer on my toe has ensured that I no longer experience that pain. Causation.

I understand this... (it was a question of "established and recognized truths" and "methodology" in the previous post)

-Imp

What is it about "established and recognized truths" and "methodology" that you dispute? Or question?

G

[Gee]

That is way too broad of a definition. Defining it so broadly is like defining 'car' to mean 'anything with four wheels.' It is both overbroad and vague. It includes too much (carts and probing antenna) and not enough (three wheeled cars and study of abstract concepts).

Philosophy, I think, is more an area of inquiry and perhaps a methodology. But maybe I'm arguing semantics. I do agree with you that there is a kind of person, or aspect of people, that strives towards the truth. But the term 'philosophy' carries too much historical baggage to be used to describe it anymore.

Wyman;

Of course, you are correct. It is way too broad a definition, but I don't think that I am allowed to change it. Philosophy has broken into three distinct disciplines now, Philosophy, Religion, and Science, and those disciplines have broken down into branches of science, different religions, and lots of "isms" and methodologies in academic philosophy. Then there is the belief that everyone can have a personal philosophy.

For myself, this is how I look at it: We are physical, mental, and spiritual beings. And by coincidence, we have three truth seekers; science studies the physical, philosophy studies the mental, and religion studies the spiritual. So I think this can work.

G

[Impenitent]

Imp;

I would have responded sooner, but did not realize that you were addressing me until I read the second quote to Ginkgo.

first cause? causation is an unfounded and meaningless habit of association of events...

-Imp

Regarding "first cause" I attributed a meaning to it that apparently is not what philosophy considers "first cause", so I retract that statement.

Regarding "causation", long ago I dropped a hammer on my toe by accident. I firmly believe that the hammer dropped on my toe caused the pain that ensued, so I am very careful to not drop hammers or heavy tools on my toes. You can call that an "unfounded and meaningless habit of association", but not dropping a hammer on my toe has ensured that I no longer experience that pain. Causation.

I understand this... (it was a question of "established and recognized truths" and "methodology" in the previous post)

-Imp

What is it about "established and recognized truths" and "methodology" that you dispute? Or question?

G

established and recognized through the methodology of inductive reasoning?

there is no necessary connection ... claiming the future event will occur because the past event occurred begs the question...

-Imp

[Gee]

Clinias;

I am sorry. I usually read all links, but yours is just way too long. I reviewed the first few pages and did not find your arguments compelling enough to want to read more.

Please consider that although you may have a strong interest in your subject matter, I do not see it as an explanation of the "Origin of Philosophy" because it seems to just be about Western philosophy. Western philosophy is not the beginning and the end in my opinion.

G

[Gee]

established and recognized through the methodology of inductive reasoning?

Are you making stuff up just to argue? No one said anything about "inductive reasoning". You are not making any sense.

there is no necessary connection ... claiming the future event will occur because the past event occurred begs the question...

-Imp

OK, but I will advise you to stay away from hammers if you choose to not be careful.

G

[Ginkgo]

established and recognized through the methodology of inductive reasoning?

Are you making stuff up just to argue? No one said anything about "inductive reasoning". You are not making any sense.

there is no necessary connection ... claiming the future event will occur because the past event occurred begs the question...

-Imp

OK, but I will advise you to stay away from hammers if you choose to not be careful.

G

The problem of induction was recognized by Hume and has been the bane of philosophers and scientists ever since. It just means there is no logical necessity when it comes to cause and effect.

[A_Seagull]

The problem of induction was recognized by Hume and has been the bane of philosophers and scientists ever since. It just means there is no logical necessity when it comes to cause and effect.

Inductive reasoning is much more than that. Inductive reasoning is used for perception and indeed for most of our knowledge of the real world.

It is embraced by scientists. It is only the bane of some philosophers who irrationally cling to outmoded (and mostly fallacious) means of deductive inference.

[Ginkgo]

Inductive reasoning is much more than that. Inductive reasoning is used for perception and indeed for most of our knowledge of the real world.

Yes, that's right. It requires pages of explanation to do it justice. That's the problem when I try to sum up something in a line or two.

[A_Seagull]

Inductive reasoning is much more than that. Inductive reasoning is used for perception and indeed for most of our knowledge of the real world.

Yes, that's right. It requires pages of explanation to do it justice. That's the problem when I try to sum up something in a line or two.

I am of the opinion that if an idea cannot be summarised in a sentence or two it is most likely that the writer does not understand the idea themselves. Though explanations and justifications can take quite a lot longer.

[Clinias]

To Gee, the word philosophy was coined by the Doric Greeks on what they were doing. Pythagoras was just the first to use it. It should be trademarked. It belongs to the Doric Greeks. No one else did "philosophy", not the Chinese, not the Germans, not the Jews. If they coined the term--they get to define it. Socrates, imitating the Dorians, does define it: Only God is wise, and we only partake of His Sophia.

To Gingko

Now to Science can be closely related to philosophy at times, but is is incorrect to say that all science is philosophy.

All science is NOT philosophy. Philosophy is a universal science, that it tries to know all things. Science as defined in Plato's Republic is only "The condition of what is". Socrates says earlier that the goal of philosophy is reality. To know the really real. Philosophy only deals with Reality and only seeks to know Reality especially to know the Natural Law.

Philosophical idealism in this sense is not actually referring as to whether such places actually existed, it is referring to Plato's methodology, more particularly his theory of Forms.

The Platonic Forms is not Idealism. He thought they really existed because the principle of Macrocosm/Microcosm teaches that things repeat. Plato was trying to answer the problem of universals. How come many cows, for instance, share in "cowness". There had to be a perfect exemplar in order for it to be repeated on earth. I don't consider the Forms, Idealism.

[Ginkgo]

All science is NOT philosophy. Philosophy is a universal science, that it tries to know all things. Science as defined in Plato's Republic is only "The condition of what is". Socrates says earlier that the goal of philosophy is reality. To know the really real. Philosophy only deals with Reality and only seeks to know Reality especially to know the Natural Law.

Perhaps not all things. Science doesn't try to know if God exists, or Forms exist. That's the job of metaphysics.

The Platonic Forms is not Idealism.

If it's ok I'll go along with what wikipedia and subsequent links say about Platonic idealism.

He thought they really existed because the principle of Macrocosm/Microcosm teaches that things repeat. Plato was trying to answer the problem of universals.

It would be the case that he was proposing a theory of universals. There have been a variety of theories of universals put forward by philosophers over the centuries. Plato's theory of Forms is just one of them.

I think it would be safe to assume that any philosopher who put forward a theory of universals would they they are real. I am sure Leibniz also thought monads were real.

How come many cows, for instance, share in "cowness". There had to be a perfect exemplar in order for it to be repeated on earth. I don't consider the Forms, Idealism.

That's because the methodology Plato used. He chose certain axioms from which he could deduced his theory.

Plato in his famous "Third Man Argument" provides a criticism of of his own theory. In other word, it is an exploration of the logical weakness of the theory.

If you search wiki I think you will find that Plato's idealism is a form of transcendental idealism or objective idealism.

[Clinias]

In the Republic, Plato wrote: “…that a city established on principles of nature would be wise as a whole.” (Hamilton, 1963, 670: Resp. §428e)

Plutarch and Muller quoting Morgenstern both acknowledge that the Republic is based on Sparta. Sparta's government was "established on the principles of nature". That makes them "wise". Plato is putting this in the mouth of Socrates. Earlier in the Phaedo, Plato has the Laws of Athens ask Socrates why he didn't move to Crete or Sparta since they were his favorite governments. Why were Crete and Sparta, Socrates favorite governments? Because they were established upon the principles of nature and that is why they were "wise"; Crete and Sparta were the most ancient and fertile places of philosophy in the Hellenic world.

True philosophy is based on "the principles of nature", in other words the Natural Law. Did the Chinese discover the dictum of righteousness, the principle of nature, or Natural Law that says "all things are created to do one thing"? The Doric Cretans and Spartans instituted that law in their government and culture. Did anybody else do that? The Egyptians?

[Ginkgo]

In the Republic, Plato wrote: “…that a city established on principles of nature would be wise as a whole.” (Hamilton, 1963, 670: Resp. §428e)

Plutarch and Muller quoting Morgenstern both acknowledge that the Republic is based on Sparta. Sparta's government was "established on the principles of nature". That makes them "wise". Plato is putting this in the mouth of Socrates. Earlier in the Phaedo, Plato has the Laws of Athens ask Socrates why he didn't move to Crete or Sparta since they were his favorite governments. Why were Crete and Sparta, Socrates favorite governments? Because they were established upon the principles of nature and that is why they were "wise"; Crete and Sparta were the most ancient and fertile places of philosophy in the Hellenic world.

True philosophy is based on "the principles of nature", in other words the Natural Law. Did the Chinese discover the dictum of righteousness, the principle of nature, or Natural Law that says "all things are created to do one thing"? The Doric Cretans and Spartans instituted that law in their government and culture. Did anybody else do that? The Egyptians?

Your "principles of nature" seem to suggest you are talking about natural philosophy rather than natural law.

What do you think?