FE Philosophy 101

[Oldavid]

I agree with this bit:

"I was hoping that people who don't learn philosophy or are put off even by the word would feel comfortable discussing bits of it here. I reckon that if it's stripped of all its formalism and snobbery and just looked back on as a series of ideas which are still relevant to Catholics today, people who shy away from it might find it interesting."

I don't agree with this bit:

"
 I'll try to explain again why I think a chronological order is good for people who want to informally get into the main ideas of philosophy. Up to a certain point, philosophy did come about as a step-by-step thing, and reactions to preceding ideas. That's largely what it was. To appreciate the ideas of those old Greek guys you have to imagine a world in which "logic" wasn't even around as an idea yet, Plato was unheard of, etc. "The word "philosophy" wasn't even around yet."

[Benno]

Oldavid, I think I get what you mean, but a thread has to have some kind of thread doesn't it?

That said,
this thread
is dead.

RIP FE Philosophy. 

[Antonius Block]

Good try, Benno!

[Oldavid]

Oh well, you can pull out if you like.....but I'll plug on a bit. You never know, someone, somewhere might understand the issue, take the batton and run with it. I know I'm terse (it's a personality disorder I suppose) but there's nothing to stop someone more loquatious than me from expanding things.
   Philosophy is nothing more than just using your head (logic) to understand things (anything) to the end of finding out the truth (the right answer). Everyone can do it; everyone does do it at some level and in some field(s). Where it comes unstuck is where you get some pompous academic types who use lofty words and contorted images to sustain some far-fetched idea. That's sophistry...that's just trying to win an argument not trying to discern the truth.


If you want to build a bicycle you don't have to start by reinventing the wheel. In fact it can make perfect good sense to use wheels invented, designed and made by others to make your own 'bike uniquely suited to your purpose. But it still has to be a bike...two wheels...pedals etc.
   In a logical construct or expedition it is likewise not necessary to always start from first principles (fundamental premise). One can use as a secondary premise some truth already established which, of course, must conform to the fundamental to be of any use in  arriving at the right answer. To use someone else's conclusions as a premise for your own investigation can be quite useful....standing on their shoulders so to speak. Aquinas could be said to have stood on the shoulders of Aristotle to some extent.
   But you need to be confident that the shoulders you're standing on are looking in the right direction....conforming to the fundamental premise. If you stand on Sartre's shoulders, for example, you'll still only be looking into a deep black hole that comes from nowhere and goes nowhere.

I only get to put a sentence or two together now and again. I'm only dumping this bit in case you all go to sleep.

[Benno]

Well said, Oldavid!
And will you stop being such a moody bastard and just share more of your wisdom? That's what philosophy is, isn't it?
So getting back to mythology....? 

How about moving on from mythology to the very unpopular "Pre-Socratics", who were doing their best to look at the world as a combination of elements (just as even some trad Catholics encourage us to look on human nature as a combination of elements of "temperaments")?

So, what do we think about fire, air, earth and water being the elements of everything? And do things change or stay the same? And can the two ideas meet?

That's the pre-Socratic stuff, still very relevant today. Anyone interested? 
   

[Oldavid]

Benno, why the hell do you want to talk about "Pre-Socratics"? Do you also require the man that services your motor car to be able to deliver a history of the wheelbarrow?

Anyhow, since you've mentioned the Elements; fire, earth, air and water:
the concept is not at all silly from a practical (real) philosophical point of view. If, for example, you were a bushman cold and hungry in the bush you know that there's fire in that wood and if you can get it out you can cook some food and warm your fingers.
Meanwhile the pretentious academic (who may not be able to light a fire or cook) is pontificating about electron shells, valency, quantum mechanics, photons, etc. telling the bushman he "knows nothing about fire". To the bushman all that might be "very interesting if I wasn't so cold and hungry".
And, before we get too smug about the superiority of modern knowledge, even with the accumulation of technology at our disposal the real nature of matter and energy is still unknown. We can discover more of what it DOES but just what it IS I suspect is almost as profound as the mind that created it. If you're so inclined when you get to heaven you can spend the rest of Eternity getting to the bottom of it.

The French have a saying: "The more things change the more they are the same".

"As far as the change. Things can change and be the same. I age everyday, but I am the same person. Is that what you mean?"        Well said Verenaerin, let's see what Benno has to say about it.

[Benno]

Back from a break. Oldavid, the reason why the pre-socratics are so important is given by your post! We wonder about (and rely on) the "elements" of things - from a bushman around the campfire to a quantum physicist. It could be the elements of physical things, or even just the elements of thoughts, people, whatever. The point is that past a certain point in "philosophy" things turned to "elemental" ideas. And the fact that, like you said, even the most advanced scientists haven't figured out the real "elements" proves that it's a good and ageless thing to think about.

Until things turned "elemental", maths couldn't have happened, moral philosophy couldn't have happened, any real "civilisation" couldn't have happened. Past a point the human mind, fallen as it is, tries to figure out the
 "elementals". Don't you think it's amazing that Democritus thought of "atoms" centuries before they were seriously thought about, let alone proved to exist?

[Benno]

And the "do things change or stay the same" question is about the same thing - elementals. Like you quoted from someone, "I age every day, but still stay the same. Is that what you mean?" That's what it's all about. That's the kind of question that the pre-socratics were trying to tackle.