ForumGarden

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.

coberst;715738 wrote: 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.


Philosophy started the first time anyone asked themselves why. sadly philosophy rather than being the preserve of everyone with half a brain cell has been hijacked by a pretentious elite that has managed to make it a very boring subject writing long articles to themselves in an arcane dialect. If all you study is philosophy you end up learning very little because you take things out of context.

One of the most common theories of morality; what god says is right, and what god says is wrong.

Social conventions and human psychology could be an alternative origin for morality, does society cause certain actions to be right or wrong, or does it just recognize the right-ness or wrong-ness of actions?

Moral relativism has serious flaws, and these injustices are truely wrong.

A quick thought on moral judgments and moral actions.......... We all know those who make alot of moral judgments but do not act on them, or do not live by them themselves.

Tater Tazz;715746 wrote: One of the most common theories of morality; what god says is right, and what god says is wrong.

Social conventions and human psychology could be an alternative origin for morality, does society cause certain actions to be right or wrong, or does it just recognize the right-ness or wrong-ness of actions?

Moral relativism has serious flaws, and these injustices are truely wrong.

A quick thought on moral judgments and moral actions.......... We all know those who make alot of moral judgments but do not act on them, or do not live by them themselves.


What does god have to do with morality? All religion does is give an excuse for those who seek to justify their demented prejudices and hatreds.

gmc;715743 wrote: Philosophy started the first time anyone asked themselves why. sadly philosophy rather than being the preserve of everyone with half a brain cell has been hijacked by a pretentious elite that has managed to make it a very boring subject writing long articles to themselves in an arcane dialect. If all you study is philosophy you end up learning very little because you take things out of context.


Whoo! Please tell me that you were not taught such non sense by our educational system.

coberst;715786 wrote: Whoo! Please tell me that you were not taught such non sense by our educational system.


No. I would have thought the wee flag would be a big clue but since you seem unaware the saltire depicted is the Scottish national flag. My educational system taught me to think for myself. You asked a question I offered an opinion. If you disagree then surely you can come up with a better response. Philosophy is something that most people get interested in at some point in their lives and a surprising number of people can discourse on the subject with political and moral philosophy being of particular interest . Sadly it has become the preserve of a pretentious intellectual elite living ivory towers who always seem surprised when they meet an "ordinary" person that has even heard if it and even more so when they are told they are talking a load of cobblers. It's like politician when they meet a voter with an opinion they are capable of expounding on with great eloquence -most of them are shocked by the experience.

Philosophy has not developed in isolation from the society around it and if all you study is philosophy you end up overly impressed by your own perspicacity and wisdom and can't put it in it's historical context. In essence philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of nature, reality and existence. It started when the first man-or woman asked why.

If you think what I said nonsense then you are going to have to do a bit better than saying you think it nonsense and expecting me to be impressed by your insight.

We have in our Western philosophy a traditional theory of faculty psychology wherein our reasoning is a faculty completely separate from the body. “Reason is seen as independent of perception and bodily movement. It is this capacity of autonomous reason that makes us different in kind from all other animals. I suspect that many fundamental aspects of philosophy and psychology are focused upon declaring, whenever possible, the separateness of our species from all other animals.

This tradition of an autonomous reason began long before evolutionary theory and has held strongly since then without consideration, it seems to me, of the theories of Darwin and of biological science. Cognitive science has in the last three decades developed considerable empirical evidence supporting Darwin and not supporting the traditional theories of philosophy and psychology regarding the autonomy of reason. Cognitive science has focused a great deal of empirical science toward discovering the nature of the embodied mind.

The three major findings of cognitive science are:

The mind is inherently embodied.

Thought is mostly unconscious.

Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.

“These findings of cognitive science are profoundly disquieting [for traditional thinking] in two respects. First, they tell us that human reason is a form of animal reason, a reason inextricably tied to our bodies and the peculiarities of our brains. Second, these results tell us that our bodies, brains, and interactions with our environment provide the mostly unconscious basis for our everyday metaphysics, that is, our sense of what is real.

All living creatures categorize. All creatures, as a minimum, separate eat from no eat and friend from foe. As neural creatures tadpole and wo/man categorize. There are trillions of synaptic connections taking place in the least sophisticated of creatures and this multiple synapses must be organized in some way to facilitate passage through a small number of interconnections and thus categorization takes place. Great numbers of different synapses take place in an experience and these are subsumed in some fashion to provide the category eat or foe perhaps.

Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal¦Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories.

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh.

P.S If we take a big bite out of reality we will, I think, find that it is multilayered like the onion. There are many domains of knowledge available to us for penetrating those layers of reality. Cognitive science is one that I find to be very interesting.

gmc;715743 wrote: Philosophy started the first time anyone asked themselves why. sadly philosophy rather than being the preserve of everyone with half a brain cell has been hijacked by a pretentious elite that has managed to make it a very boring subject writing long articles to themselves in an arcane dialect. If all you study is philosophy you end up learning very little because you take things out of context.


I like that, gmc...it makes us all philosophers, which I believe is true.

It would be useful if you made clear when you are quoting-and credit the source and when you are stating your own opinion.

posted by coberst

We have in our Western philosophy a traditional theory of faculty psychology wherein our reasoning is a faculty completely separate from the body. “Reason is seen as independent of perception and bodily movement. It is this capacity of autonomous reason that makes us different in kind from all other animals. I suspect that many fundamental aspects of philosophy and psychology are focused upon declaring, whenever possible, the separateness of our species from all other animals.


Or does man have a soul and free will? Our sense of self-do other animals have it or not. Highly subjective opinion, I would say some do but I'm not sure about slugs.

I suspect that many fundamental aspects of philosophy and psychology are focused upon declaring, whenever possible, the separateness of our species from all other animal


coloured by religion- The argument debate ends up being an attempt to fit within religious belief. If god made all things with man to rule over them then allowing animals to have a soul makes man on a par with them rather than superior. That's why the proponents of slavery had to find justification in the bible for their enslavement of black peoples, they had to make them less than animals to salve their conscience. Non religious types find it in social darwinism.

So do you agree with them?

posted by coberst

“These findings of cognitive science are profoundly disquieting [for traditional thinking] in two respects. First, they tell us that human reason is a form of animal reason, a reason inextricably tied to our bodies and the peculiarities of our brains. Second, these results tell us that our bodies, brains, and interactions with our environment provide the mostly unconscious basis for our everyday metaphysics, that is, our sense of what is real.


They're interesting but hardly conclusive, maybe explain how we think doesn't really explain why. The notion hat our sense of self is affected by what is going on in our bodies is hardly a new one. Mens sana in corpore sano is a latin saying no doubt pinched from the greeks.

P.S If we take a big bite out of reality we will, I think, find that it is multilayered like the onion. There are many domains of knowledge available to us for penetrating those layers of reality. Cognitive science is one that I find to be very interesting.


Interesting but not the whole vegetable.

posted by theia

I like that, gmc...it makes us all philosophers, which I believe is true.


All of us are each with an opinion as valid a the next persons but the only way to sharpen your wits is to grind them against another's. Philosophy is interesting but there is a lot of would be philosophical writers out there who are not as otiginal as they like to think they are.