textman
*
+
] Philosophy Forums > General Philosophy
] Thread > what field of philosophy is most important? / 12Jan07 /
] Post Title > Before Anything Else
.
>>> On 20Dec06 Mao asks: what field of philosophy do you think
>>> is most important?
.
>> On 23Dec ying say: Eudaimonology
.
wurm say: Hey, ying. What is "Eudaimonology" anyway? :)
.
>>> e.g. ethics, metaphysics, etc. i think the study of the nature
>>> of mind is most important, as it's sort of the first thing that
>>> really affects us before anything else.
.
Mind and Logic and Language are all essential prerequisites for
Philosophy; the most basic foundational trinity upon which all
philosophies (and even all knowledge in general) grow and develop
until they seem (like Science) to take on a life of their own. Logic
and Language are given to us by others (ie. by way of learning within
and through civilization); we make them our own by putting them into
practice within the context of our thoughts and lives.
.
Mind, however, is far more an internal and/or subjective affair. The
capacity for mind is given by Nature, at birth more animal-mind, but
it soon becomes the individual person's business to shape and develop
the contents and complexity of one's own mind. The Quality of any
particular mind is impossible for the skeptics and analysts to measure
and verify (and is therefore not subject to detailed mathematical
analysis and logical judgment); as it both is and is not a product
of Will and Personality.
.
> On 22Dec muxol answers Mao thusly: Logic.
> It is what affects us before anything else.
.
Hey, muxol. That's a very interesting answer in some ways. It says
more about you than anything else, perhaps? As agreed above, Logic is
foundational, but "what affects us before anything else" can only be
awareness itself. Logic comes *after* the fact of life and awareness:
I am ... therefore I think.
.
> [snipsome] I can't even see how your question is coherent,
> or how it could ever be coherently phrased.
.
Seems coherent enough to me; and to you too, methinks, since you just
gave a coherent answer to Mao's query. Or is there some hidden logical
or analytical problem lurking about in the bushes? :)
.
> Will you provide a scale of importance on which we can place each of
> the subdisciplines of philosophy? If you did that, you would have
> already answered your question, so I suppose that you are asking of
> us each of us to do precisely that. Well, in good spirit, here it is:
> 1. Mathematical logic
> 2. Recursion theory
> 3. Set or category theory
> 4. Abstract algebra
> 5. Abstract model theory
> 6. Formal geometry
> 7. Computational complexity theory
> 8. Solipsism
> though I suppose (1) may include some of the others.
.
I suppose that Mathematical-Logic could influence all of the others
... number seven sure sounds interesting anyway ... but I'm still
not sure of the logic behind the presence of number eight on this
otherwise stellar list of related ... umm ... "fields of abstraction"?
.
> I just noticed that some people think that you should focus
> on all branches of philosophy if you wish to be considered a
> "true" philosopher, as opposed to an inorganic or fake one.
> (Personally, I have yet to be sprayed with commercial pesticides.)
.
hehehe
.
> But that's just stupid.
.
wut-iz?
.
> In academia it is rare that somebody has a general knowledge of a good
> number of areas, and if they do, they usually satisfy the old aphorism
> "jack of all trades, master of none".
.
So then the big-ac focuses all its energies on specialties and sundry sub-fields that are relatively small enough for one (or a small group) to master. Thus one university might focus on epistemology, while another on logical analysis, and a third on Wittgenstein, and so on and so forth "all around the world". With so much information available today to so many people, with so much raw-data out there (especially online), it's really the only sensible way to practice professional philosophy in a post-modern global civilization / culture.
.
I truly sympathize with the sheer deterministic simplicity and utility of the current popular philosophical paradigm: "It's better to be a master of a small - but real - grain of sand, than to attempt to master "the big picture"; which is obviously impossible anyways, and blatantly absurd, also logically dubious (at best!), and very probably a highly illusory "mountain" as well."
.
Well, you can't fight logic like that, now can you? ... But I can't help wondering what is lost to this approach: What is left by the wayside by this determinedly over-focused funnel-vision that the current philosophical paradigm so excels at? What if, at some conceivable point in the future, there were no professors anywhere on Planet Earth who bothered to waste their precious time reading the ponderous writings of some retro philosopher-type ... oh, say Aquinas, for example? ... Would that not mean that Aquinas is effectively dead as far as professional philosophy is concerned? Always available to philosophy students and historians, but of no great concern to "real" philosophers! ... ???
.
... Is this the part where Solipsism sneaks into the works? :D
.
> Yes, if you wish to be unrecognized in one of a number of fields,
> study them all!
.
In other words: "It's *OUR* way or the highway, bub! Get it?"
.
Yeah, I got it alright. I got it good ... :(
.
However, the good news is that Philosophy is bigger (and better) than
Academia. Sophia does indeed exist in the grandiose ivory towers of the
professional specialists, but She also exists out-there in the Real-
World; in the form of public books and magazines and dedicated megabytes,
but also (and more importantly) in all manner of people who find
themselves with a sudden or unexpected interest in some things of a
more philosophical-type nature. Curiosity is indeed the corner-stone
of all *living* philosophies!
.
BTW: My nominee for the most important field of philosophy (and thus
knowledge in general) is ... tada ... Hermeneutics! ... because, both
logically and rationally, interpretation comes first. That is, the
moment after/during the primeval awareness, which is the alpha and
omega of modern philosophy: I am ... therefore I think.
.
- the almost hermeneutical one - cybrwurm ;>
.
P.S. It all comes down to first principles in the end you know.
.
P.P.S. Strangest thing. Seems I shaved my head off with Occam's
Razor this morning. Accidentally, of course. Hurt a bit too ...
x
+
] Philosophy Forums > General Philosophy
] Thread > what field of philosophy is most important? / 22Feb07 /
] Post Title > Re: Before Anything Else
.
> On 12Jan ying wrote: Eudaimonology is a term coined by, as far
> as I know, Schopenhauer in his Parerga und Paralipomena (I prefer
> Schopenhauers term). It's the study of 'the good life', or happiness.
.
wurm say: The study of 'the good life' is certainly a very important
aspect of philosophy, although it seems to be quite beyond the capacity
of the more analytical-type philosophers; and also all those who
conceive philosophy as some form of 'science' (ie. chiefly owing to the
fact that 'happiness' can't be measured, or even adequately defined).
But I'm curious about Schopenhauer's own contribution to Eudaimonology.
As an extreme pessimist, did he even believe that happiness was/is
possible and/or achievable? Or did he believe that it was a kind of
by-product of ignorance?
x
+
] Philosophy Forums > General Philosophy
] Thread > what field of philosophy is most important? / 24 Feb07 /
] Post Title > someone blew it ...
.
You know, now that I thimk on it for a while, it occurs to me that
"history-of-philosophy" is surely the most basic *and* most primary
field within all the wide wide scope of philosophy. I mean really,
the first thing you have to do is to actually get out there and read
the writings of the great (and not-so-great) philosophers of previous
generations. Like it or not, this involves getting into the history
of philosophy. You gotta know this road before you can actually drive
on it, baby! ... And furthermore, I'm quite surprised that no one
here even bothered to mention it ... :(
x