what is the beggining of philosophy?

Forums: Philosophy, General, Religion, Aliens, Psychology
Email this Topic • Print this Page

My opinion would be to know that you could be wrong. What is your opinion?

These words just do not seem to go to gather very well do they? [ know] that you could be [wrong]

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 26 • Views: 40,824 • Replies: 583

[+3] - Holiday20310401 - 09/01/2010 I think that philosophy starts when one realizes a desire or need to be honest in an inquiry where previously there was no catching the mind at its own games in that way. A concern for truth is...
[+3] - GoshisDead - 09/03/2010Good times.......... Good times
[+3] - reasoning logic - 10/07/2010You all may find this odd but I think that both of you are being logical and very emotional. You both seem to have good reason for what you say! Rex is very upset because he sees that most all...

@reasoning logic,

If I only knew that I could be wrong about the spelling of [together] then maybe I could be a philosopher

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

The beginning is consciousness; the event when someone says "I." After that there arises the recognition of a "not I," and contemplation on the differences produces "philosophy."

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Philosophy is very basic; it seeks to answer the question, what and who am I?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Albert Camus wrote:

There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest--whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories--comes afterward. These are games; one must first answer.

The moment or question that acts as one's introduction to philosophy is accidental, or perhaps, at best, incidental. The point at which one begins to address the origins of philosophy, rather than the moment of inception, holds greater interest for me. Given that, i like Camus' answer.

NB: i think that "to gather" works just as well as "together" in the context in which you used it, regardless of contemporary usage.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

My opinion would be to know that you could be wrong. What is your opinion?

These words just do not seem to go to gather very well do they? [ know] that you could be [wrong]

Spelling "beginning" correctly?

But aside from that, what does it mean to ask what the beginning of philosophy is? Maybe that question suggests the answer. The beginning of philosophy is to begin by turning your attention to the questions before you seek any answers to the questions. For, it so often happens in philosophy that when you investigate the question, you find that no sensible question has been asked, so that there is no solution. And that is called, "dissolving the problem" , not "solving the problem".

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

Razzleg wrote:

Albert Camus wrote:
There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest--whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories--comes afterward. These are games; one must first answer.

The moment or question that acts as one's introduction to philosophy is accidental, or perhaps, at best, incidental. The point at which one begins to address the origins of philosophy, rather than the moment of inception, holds greater interest for me. Given that, i like Camus' answer.

NB: i think that "to gather" works just as well as "together" in the context in which you used it, regardless of contemporary usage.

Isn't Camus' answer to the question about suicide simply that since there is no good reason to do anything, there is no good reason to commit suicide? At least that is how I understand his, The Myth of Sisyphus.

1 Reply

My own beginning in philosophy was seeing the title of a book in the Library: The Sickness Unto Death.

I think philosophy sprouts out of mysticism, expands out into rationality and then disintegrates back into mysticism. It's a circle you can follow starting at any point.... like a merry-go-round you can jump onto. Weeeee!

1 Reply

Aristotle:
"All men by nature desire to know."
"Philosophy begins with wonder."

The latter seems to reflect ("wonder" can also mean "confusion") the example of Socrates, who went about Athens asking questions only knowing that he did not know. It is only when an occasion, interrupting our routine thinking, presents itself as a problem, appears "out of the ordinary," or asks an existential question in such a way as it forces us to attend to it and attempt to frame an answer, that we begin to think philosophically.

The former quotation, which begins Aristotle's Metaphysics, seems to tell us that mankind is the unique existent that is concerned with finding truth even when there is no immediate satisfaction or utility in the activity. This knowing, moreover, is not limited to philosophy but extends as well to art, to music, and to science.

3 Replies

@jgweed,

It all begins and ends with "me."

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

The beginning is Wonder (to me, more emphasizing definition 1 and 3b here).

reasoning logic wrote:

My opinion would be to know that you could be wrong. What is your opinion?

That is certainly necessary. The person who doesn't accept they could be wrong about something has no chance of growth or learning.

reasoning logic wrote:

These words just do not seem to go to gather very well do they? [ know] that you could be [wrong]

No, they don't seem to. But it's a safe bet - almost always - to say, "I know I could be wrong".

On a side note: "knowing", as many of us have long since realized, is elusive and almost always questionable. Thus, many of the most valuable insights have almost nothing to do with 'knowing' as much as understanding more fully the issue, idea, question or problem.

1 Reply

@Khethil,

"Understanding more fully" is no guarantee of truth.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Understanding more fully" is no guarantee of truth.

Aye, absolutely correct. I don't really seek truth, per say, since I've found it so elusive and almost never beyond question. Nor am I out for guarantees; I've found life has almost none.

THanks

0 Replies

@jgweed,

jgweed wrote:

Aristotle:
"All men by nature desire to know."
"Philosophy begins with wonder."

The latter seems to reflect ("wonder" can also mean "confusion") the example of Socrates, who went about Athens asking questions only knowing that he did not know. It is only when an occasion, interrupting our routine thinking, presents itself as a problem, appears "out of the ordinary," or asks an existential question in such a way as it forces us to attend to it and attempt to frame an answer, that we begin to think philosophically.

The former quotation, which begins Aristotle's Metaphysics, seems to tell us that mankind is the unique existent that is concerned with finding truth even when there is no immediate satisfaction or utility in the activity. This knowing, moreover, is not limited to philosophy but extends as well to art, to music, and to science.

In his autobiographical sketch, G.E. Moore writes that he would never have become interested in philosophy had he not been puzzled by the incredible things that philosophers said. Specifically, his puzzlement was how philosophers could possibly believe what some what they said was true. He especially mentions as an example McTaggert's well- known (anyway at the time) view that time was unreal. What particularly puzzles the young Moore was that McTaggeret apparently believed that time was unreal while (at the same time!) believing that he had breakfast before he had lunch. He did not understand how McTaggert could believe that time was unreal, and (at the same time!) knowingly hold beliefs inconsistent with that belief and, apparently not recognize the blatant inconsistency. Moore continues to write that he thinks that his interest in philosophy is still motivated by what other philosophers say, and that he doesn't think that thinking about philosophical issues in themselves would motivate him to think about philosophy.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Understanding more fully" is no guarantee of truth.

If you understand what it means to say that all bachelors are unmarried men, then don't you, at the same time, see that it is true that all bachelors are unmarried men? If not, then what more do you think someone has to know to know that all bachelors are unmarried men is true?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kenneth, You're only looking at one issue. We are talking about the whole spectrum of belief and truth.

1 Reply

Socrates was credited with the idea that the only thing we can know is that we do not know.

In the eighteenth century Immanuel Kant started a revolution in philosophy by claiming the reverse of what Socrates said. Kant claimed that we do not know what we do know. Our minds automatically organize the information they receive through the senses in certain ways which he called "categories." The categories that our minds impose on input from our senses pre-exist our actual experiences. Kant devoted much of his philosophy to describe the nature and limits of these pre-existing categories.

(Kant has always been difficult for me to read and understand. Maybe someone else can point out if I have misinterpreted Kant.)

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Well you could start by spelling beginning right.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Moore continues to write that he thinks that his interest in philosophy is still motivated by what other philosophers say, and that he doesn't think that thinking about philosophical issues in themselves would motivate him to think about philosophy.

Sounds like an imaginative guy.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

(Kant has always been difficult for me to read and understand. Maybe someone else can point out if I have misinterpreted Kant.)

Me too. It doesn't help that guide books say his writings are interpreted in different ways.

Proof can come in a various forms: like empirical and reasonable. If a proof is entirely either of these, the proof is dubious. We're apt to have more confidence if both forms lead to the same conclusion. This shows that we have doubts about our interpretations of experience and the power of reason to predict the real world. Those doubts are more pronounced when there are too many variables to account for... which is usually the case outside of a laboratory.

People will still see how far they can go in raising one basis for confidence above the others. Saying that your experience is a production of your own consciousness is good way of establishing confidence in reasonable principles. You'll never experience anything that doesn't conform to the patterns that are the basis of reason.

0 Replies

what is the beggining of philosophy?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know