Where does philosophy come from?

[coberst]

Where does philosophy come from?

 

Western philosophy emerged in the sixth century BC along the Ionian coast. A small group of scientist-philosophers began writing about their attempts to develop “rational” accounts regarding human experience. These early Pre-Socratic thinkers thought that they were dealing with fundamental elements of nature.

 

It is natural for humans to seek knowledge. In the “Metaphysics” Aristotle wrote “All men by nature desire to know”.

 

The attempt to seek knowledge presupposes that the world unfolds in a systematic pattern and that we can gain knowledge of that unfolding. Cognitive science identifies several ideas that seem to come naturally to us and labels such ideas as “Folk Theories”.

 

The Folk Theory of the Intelligibility of the World

The world makes systematic sense, and we can gain knowledge of it.

 

The Folk Theory of General Kinds

Every particular thing is a kind of thing.

 

The Folk Theory of Essences

Every entity has an “essence” or “nature,” that is, a collection of properties that makes it the kind of thing it is and that is the causal source of its natural behavior.

 

The consequences of the two theories of kinds and essences is:

 

The Foundational Assumption of Metaphysics

Kinds exist and are defined by essences.

 

We may not want our friends to know this fact but we are all metaphysicians. We, in fact, assume that things have a nature thereby we are led by the metaphysical impulse to seek knowledge at various levels of reality.

 

Cognitive science has uncovered these ideas they have labeled as Folk Theories. Such theories when compared to sophisticated philosophical theories are like comparing mountain music with classical music. Such theories seem to come naturally to human consciousness.

 

The information comes primarily from “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson.

[rockytriton]

philosophy came from the first people who could ask the question "why am I here?"

[cotner]

I thought that I had come to a definition of philosophy which I still think is the best and most versatile and most prolific description of philosophy.

 

Philosophy is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

 

If you read anywhere under any name something like my definition of philosophy, above, then it is from me, here called cotner, or from people who have heard me or read me.

 

 

What do you guys here say about my definition, which also explains where philosophy comes from.

 

 

In this respect of my definition, animals like our home pets dogs and cats also do philosophy when they seek to determine the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything, starting with their masters, humans, at home who feed them and love them and they in return manifest closeness to their masters.

 

That kind of philosophy is what I call close-sighted philosophy; with humans we go for much much more far-sighted philosophy, asking or probing or determining the question even of what is the beginning of being, and my answer is being has always been there, being IS, and we all are parts and parcels of being.

 

So there is no sense in asking about the beginning of being. The question should be directed to any particular form of being, like you and me, and the answer is we have our beginnings from our parents.

 

You will ask me then, and our parents? from their parents of course. Are we not diving then into infinite regression? No, not necessarily, because the beginning of all beginnings is being; and the question then is how being transformed itself into all forms of being.

 

And the most to our human knowledge complex and in a way perfect -- in our human estimation, is the form of being we are, humans.

 

 

cotner

[jedaisoul]

Philosophy is the continuous unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything in the light of speculative reasoning.

 

What do you guys here say about my definition, which also explains where philosophy comes from.

 

Hi cotner,

 

a) You say that philosoply is "continuous". Surely there have been major discontinuities in it (at least, in the extant philosophical writings). How can you know what philosophical thought there was in the past if it was never recorded, or has not survived?

 

:rolleyes: Similarly, you suggest that philosoply is "unending". How can you know that it will never end?

 

c) In what sense are you using the word "programming"?

 

d) Programming implies a programmer. Isn't that theology rather than philosophy?

 

e) It depends on your answer to c) above, but from what you have said so far it would appear that you are using the term "philosophy" to encompass all intellectual endeavours, including the whole of science and technology. If so, perhaps you need to be a bit more specific in your definition of philosophy?

 

f) In what way does what you have said explain where philosophy comes from?

[jedaisoul]

The information comes primarily from “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson.

 

Hi coberst[/i],

 

It's an interesting subject. I'd like to hear your views on the validity of folk theories, and their relevance today?

[coberst]

Hi coberst[/i],

 

It's an interesting subject. I'd like to hear your views on the validity of folk theories, and their relevance today?

 

This post is about the nature of the assumptions we develop in our quest for comprehension of our world and of our self.

 

Philosophy is in charge of deciding the validity of assumptions in all sciences. Those who are scientists are not able to judge the validity of their own assumptions; at least we can say specialist, qua specialist in the field in which they are educated, is not qualified to study the nature of their own assumptions. Also, I might add that they, the scientists, are too biased to study their own assumptions.

 

So philosophy, which considers it self to be qualified to study its own assumptions and all other assumptions, is left with the task of determining the validity of all assumptions of all sciences.

 

This post allows us to see that cognitive science, as dressed in its new paradigm, steps forward and challenges this basic premise of traditional metaphysics and the assumptions of all sciences. It appears to me that cognitive science, dressed in its new paradigm, is challenging our whole traditional metaphysical system.

[jedaisoul]

Philosophy is in charge of deciding the validity of assumptions in all sciences. Those who are scientists are not able to judge the validity of their own assumptions; at least we can say specialist, qua specialist in the field in which they are educated, is not qualified to study the nature of their own assumptions. Also, I might add that they, the scientists, are too biased to study their own assumptions. So philosophy, which considers it self to be qualified to study its own assumptions and all other assumptions, is left with the task of determining the validity of all assumptions of all sciences.

 

This is a bold assertion, and I would not be surprised if you get some flak from scientists. As an outsider myself, I feel that there is some truth in what you say, but you need to be more specific. There are two aspects to science, the "how the universe and every thing in it works" and "what the universe and everything in it is". For the former, I would suggest that science, and science alone, is fit to validate the assumptions. That is done by experiment, and comparing the results to the predictions produced by their scientific models (their assumptions).

 

However, the latter is very different. There I would say that you need a philosophic background against which the assumptions can be examined. For example, General Relativity is proven to be the most accurate model of "how the universe works". That is not a matter for philosophers or laymen like myself to dispute. The answer is the result of a hundred years of scientific experiments. But is the universe actually a Minkowski spacetime continuum? That's another matter. That is where philosphic judgement becomes relevant.

 

This post allows us to see that cognitive science, as dressed in its new paradigm, steps forward and challenges this basic premise of traditional metaphysics and the assumptions of all sciences. It appears to me that cognitive science, dressed in its new paradigm, is challenging our whole traditional metaphysical system.

 

Appending the word "science" to a non-scientific undertaking is often a warning sign, as in "creation science". Why would people studying cognitive functions wish to append the word "science" to their endeavours, if not to give a false appearance of rigour and authority? What reason is there to assume that they are better equipped than anyone else to perform the function of determining the validity of scientific assumptions? Sounds like nothing more than academic infighting to me.

[coberst]

Everything I have studied about philosophy and science lead me to conclude that my statement about assumptions is not unique but is basic understanding of the meaning of philosophy and science.

 

The meaning of the concept “science” is, in my opinion, generally misunderstood and therein lays the fundamental reason for much misunderstanding.

[jedaisoul]

Everything I have studied about philosophy and science lead me to conclude that my statement about assumptions is not unique but is basic understanding of the meaning of philosophy and science.

 

Then I would, respectfully, suggest that you may have overlooked the context in which philosophic comments about scientific assumptions were made. Yes, I agree there is a context in which scientists may not be best equipped to question their assumptions. But, in my opinion, that does not apply to all scientific assumptions. If you do not agree with the analysis I gave to substantiate that claim, please state where you think it is incorrect; and why?

 

The meaning of the concept “science” is, in my opinion, generally misunderstood and therein lays the fundamental reason for much misunderstanding.

 

Misunderstood by whom? I would suggest that the meaning of the words "science" and "scientific method" are well understood by scientists, albeit difficult to define philosophically. In what way is this statement relevant to the thread?

[coberst]

Then I would, respectfully, suggest that you may have overlooked the context in which philosophic comments about scientific assumptions were made. Yes, I agree there is a context in which scientists may not be best equipped to question their assumptions. But, in my opinion, that does not apply to all scientific assumptions. If you do not agree with the analysis I gave to substantiate that claim, please state where you think it is incorrect; and why?

 

 

 

Misunderstood by whom? I would suggest that the meaning of the words "science" and "scientific method" are well understood by scientists, albeit difficult to define philosophically. In what way is this statement relevant to the thread?

 

I am aware that there are some scientists who are educated in philosophy. Heisenberg comes to mind as an example. Also I think that Descartes can be considered to be both scientist and philosopher.

 

I am a retired engineer and have worked around those who are educated in the natural sciences and I suspect not one in twenty knows anything about the meaning of the concepts science and philosophy except for the science about which they were educated. The individuals in the natural sciences have been educated with a very narrow horizon and their work has generaly not helped them expand those horizons.

[jedaisoul]

I am aware that there are some scientists who are educated in philosophy. Heisenberg comes to mind as an example. Also I think that Descartes can be considered to be both scientist and philosopher.

 

I am a retired engineer and have worked around those who are educated in the natural sciences and I suspect not one in twenty knows anything about the meaning of the concepts science and philosophy except for the science about which they were educated. The individuals in the natural sciences have been educated with a very narrow horizon and their work has generaly not helped them expand those horizons.

 

However valid these comments may be, they do not answer my point. I suggested that there are two types of assumptions, a more "practical" type that it is up to the scientists to validate, and ar more "philosophic" type that requires a philosophic understanding. You seem to be referring to the latter as if that is the only type of assumptions that scientists make.

 

Anyway, I've made my point and you appear to have answered it to the best of your understanding, so I'll leave it there...

[coberst]

jedaisoul

 

I think that you are confusing assumption with hypothesis. An assumption cannot be proven by empirical means whereas an hypothesis can be disproven by empirial means.

[coberst]

jedaisoul

 

In my OP 'Folk Theory' should correctly be called 'Folk Assumption'. Like the Virgin Mary had an Immaculate Assumption.

[jedaisoul]

I think that you are confusing assumption with hypothesis. An assumption cannot be proven by empirical means whereas an hypothesis can be disproven by empirial means.

 

Ok, I don't want to get into a semantic argument about what "assumption" means. I understand what you are saying and am happy to leave it there.

 

Regards, Terry.

[jedaisoul]

In my OP 'Folk Theory' should correctly be called 'Folk Assumption'. Like the Virgin Mary had an Immaculate Assumption.

 

I expected to see a smilie, because I thought you were joking. But if you were not, try Googling "Mary's Assumption". Mary's Assumption into heaven has nothing to do with making assumptions, scientific or otherwise. I don't think that any Folk Theories have been "Assumed" into heaven. At least, not according to the Catholic faith :)

[coberst]

I expected to see a smilie, because I thought you were joking. But if you were not, try Googling "Mary's Assumption". Mary's Assumption into heaven has nothing to do with making assumptions, scientific or otherwise. I don't think that any Folk Theories have been "Assumed" into heaven. At least, not according to the Catholic faith :)

 

 

You are correct about the Virgin Mary's assumption into heaven but you missed the assumption that a Catholic must make regarding the truth of such a happening. The distinction between assumption and hypothesis is not a matter of semantics; it is extremely important if one wants to dig science and/or philosophy.

[jedaisoul]

You are correct about the Virgin Mary's assumption into heaven but you missed the assumption that a Catholic must make regarding the truth of such a happening.

Well, actually, the church have to make a lot of assumptions before arriving at the hypothesis of Mary's Assumption. Just a few are:

- God exists.

- Heaven not only exists as a spiritual place but as a physical place as well.

- It is possible for a person to be bodily transported to heaven.

- That, in Mary's case, God would break his own ruling that human bodies were to remain on the Earth until the judgement day.

 

I'm sure that's just scratching the surface!

 

The distinction between assumption and hypothesis is not a matter of semantics; it is extremely important if one wants to dig science and/or philosophy.

 

I believe that I am fully aware of the difference between the meanings of the words assumption and hypothesis, and it is a matter of semantics:

 

Tenets, axioms and premises are assumptions. They are logical devices. If your assumptions are correct and you apply a logical process, the conclusions you arrive at must also be correct. By contrast, if you arrive at a self-evidently incorrect conclusion (e.g. a reductio ad absurdum) then one or more of your assumptions must be false, or you must have applied an illogical process (or both).

 

A hypothesis is a putative explanation for an observed or expected behaviour. A hypothesis will almost certainly be based on assumptions. Hypotheses may be tested by practical observation, a process of logic, or a combination of the two.

 

Semantics is the study of the meaning of words. I suspect that you were confusing it with linguistics.