[Guille]

Philosophy, as it is the study of The REALITY of the EXISTENCE of the whole of NATURE is divided in several different branches. The question I want to centre on this thread is:

What are the REAL branches of philosophy?

I mean, by this, that we should identify which are the proper branches of philosophy, the different study areas, and, if we can, to develop a proper method of how to identify branches of a study, in this case, philosophy.

I will add diagrams with the branches of philosophy and their relationship in the future. In the poll there are different sets of branches, you just have to vote the one you find better. Where it says science, religion or politics, it is philosophy of --. I want to see if our current branches are good enough.

[HappytheStripper]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> Philosophy, as it is the study of The REALITY of the EXISTENCE of the whole of NATURE is divided in several different branches. The question I want to centre on this thread is: What are the REAL branches of philosophy? I mean, by this, that we should identify which are the proper branches of philosophy, the different study areas, and, if we can, to develop a proper method of how to identify branches of a study, in this case, philosophy. I will add diagrams with the branches of philosophy and their relationship in the future. In the poll there are different sets of branches, you just have to vote the one you find better. Where it says science, religion or politics, it is philosophy of --. I want to see if our current branches are good enough.

Hi Guille

I think - although our current branches ask the questions of the past - it is the question of the here and now I am more concerned with.. and for that I am more than willing to come up with another branch of philosophical thought ...

Lets wait and see what your poll shows ... be interesting I know that much ...

Ashley

[harmonygirl]

Guille,
I get the sense that you feel something is missing? If you are able to posit that the current branches of philosophy may be incomplete, have you then noticed an area of incompleteness?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Guille, I get the sense that you feel something is missing? If you are able to posit that the current branches of philosophy may be incomplete, have you then noticed an area of incompleteness?

Something is missing. A future philosophy. HTS is correct. These branches are all incomplete, individually and collectivelly. But what I say is not an 'area' of philosophy, it is more a 'part' of it. By part I mean something which is missing in the whole of it, in the process of it, there is a part missing. Not an area, as in a type of philosophy. This is part of what I'm constructing, the study of the meaning of analysis (my long post in the thread 'The Problem With Problems' includes many thoughts), and the whole idea of philosophy. Basically, it is philosophy of philosophy, but not being metaphilosophy, it is philosophy out of philosophy. Strange but true.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

"Wisdom is intuitive reason combined with scientific knowledge." Aristotle
"First principles are products of intuitive reason." Aristotle

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> Something is missing. A future philosophy. HTS is correct. These branches are all incomplete, individually and collectivelly. But what I say is not an 'area' of philosophy, it is more a 'part' of it. By part I mean something which is missing in the whole of it, in the process of it, there is a part missing. Not an area, as in a type of philosophy. This is part of what I'm constructing, the study of the meaning of analysis (my long post in the thread 'The Problem With Problems' includes many thoughts), and the whole idea of philosophy. Basically, it is philosophy of philosophy, but not being metaphilosophy, it is philosophy out of philosophy. Strange but true.

Guille, I think you may find what is missing isn't really missing at all___it's just been thrown out by the post-moderns, pragmatists, and analyticists. It's been there all along___it's simply the sensible employment of intuition. All the older philosophies included some form of such intuition, it's only the purified/unpurified newer ideas that are at fault. We must return again to the beginning and build anew on the old foundations. All foundations must include the absolute middle ground of intuitive reason and logic___or plain old metaphysics and ethics. IMO Aristotle's are the best in this area. Here's a short description of the era and his most important ideas;
http://www.interlog.com/~girbe/ethics6.html

regards

P.S.
Just as a short example I include this; "Demonstrable truths, and every kind of scientific knowledge (because this involves reasoning), depend upon first principles. It follows that the first principles of scientific truths cannot be grasped either by science or by art or by prudence. Nor are these first principles the objects of philosophic wisdom. If, then, the states of mind by which we have truth and are never deceived about things invariable or even variable are scientific knowledge, practical wisdom, philosophic wisdom, and intuitive reason, and it cannot be any of the three (i.e. practical wisdom, scientific knowledge, or philosophic wisdom), the remaining alternative is that it is intuitive reason that grasps the first principles."

Until we get this back in our heads, once again, we are dead in the water___intuition rules...!

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie "Wisdom is intuitive reason combined with scientific knowledge." Aristotle "First principles are products of intuitive reason." Aristotle

Aristotle was a good philosopher. But I say, hasn't that fallen? I mean, science has deconstructed the road through which our cars, the cars of philosophers like us, were going through. I mean, nowadays physics has lost it's sense. There is no sense in a physics of un-dimensional particles existing and interacting, and there is no sense in string theory. Physics had sense until the 1920s or so, but not further. What some physicists are trying, at least in these forums, is to find out the basis of physics, to give a logic to those 'first principles taken from intuitive reason', they want to un-intuitivize them. Einstein did part of it, by explaining space-time, explaing real gravity, and explaining mass and energy. But there is more. The thing is, that before we used to discuss between empiric axioms and rational axioms. Axiom is just a propert terminology, or at least the mathematical one, to 'first principles taken from intuitive reason'. Now we advanced from that discussion between Descartes and Hume, Locke and Lebinitz, Hobbes and Spinoza. And this is how the 20th century philosophy emerged; they stopped discussing about principles, and they started to discuss about derivations; Inductive and deductive, neccesary and contingent, logical and metaphysical... I do agree that a terrible problem rises with this. This is why I try to solve the whole problem. But if we go back to axioms, we will be repeating a path through which we ahve already gone. And there is no way to go through that path and not fall down the cleft to which it leads. I want to find something, aristotle is right, but maybe the interpretation we've given to those two qutoes isn't the appropiate one.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> Aristotle was a good philosopher. But I say, hasn't that fallen? I mean, science has deconstructed the road through which our cars, the cars of philosophers like us, were going through. I mean, nowadays physics has lost it's sense. There is no sense in a physics of un-dimensional particles existing and interacting, and there is no sense in string theory. Physics had sense until the 1920s or so, but not further. What some physicists are trying, at least in these forums, is to find out the basis of physics, to give a logic to those 'first principles taken from intuitive reason', they want to un-intuitivize them. Einstein did part of it, by explaining space-time, explaing real gravity, and explaining mass and energy. But there is more. The thing is, that before we used to discuss between empiric axioms and rational axioms. Axiom is just a propert terminology, or at least the mathematical one, to 'first principles taken from intuitive reason'. Now we advanced from that discussion between Descartes and Hume, Locke and Lebinitz, Hobbes and Spinoza. And this is how the 20th century philosophy emerged; they stopped discussing about principles, and they started to discuss about derivations; Inductive and deductive, neccesary and contingent, logical and metaphysical... I do agree that a terrible problem rises with this. This is why I try to solve the whole problem. But if we go back to axioms, we will be repeating a path through which we ahve already gone. And there is no way to go through that path and not fall down the cleft to which it leads. I want to find something, aristotle is right, but maybe the interpretation we've given to those two qutoes isn't the appropiate one.

Guille, the whole point is that the entire world is founded and performs on emotional action, and only emotional action___at base. To me, the whole world you are trying to describe with analogous universalization is "Emotional Materialism". I just simply ask, is there any other? All science comes from base emotional intent and action. Only emotions can act the body - period! Ludwig Feurerbach proved all this when hanging around with the Marxists. He also proved the futility of most of Kant's and Hegel's work, along with showing the truth of the Christian god ego. Feurerbach clearly shows the problems with subjectifying objects and objectifying subjects___he is the clearest of all the philosophers as to the historical problem of such false classifications from the ancients to the moderns. He clearly shows the mistakes of the neo-platonists doing the same thing as Descartes in the opposite direction, as has been done many times over by many when trying to understand "Being" and being differences. The most difficult problem of philosophy is to properly and intelligently classify and discuss the singularity, whether of physics, philosophy, religion, self or whatever___it is extremely difficult without causing the opposite of what is desired. Look at what happened with V.I.Lennin, one of the truly great philosophers of "Being" and being, only to get entangled in politics. Have you checked out Lennin's critique of Kant, Hegel, etc?

Guille, Feurerbach, Krishnananda, Aurobindo, Husserl and Peirce are great honest critics of Discartes, Kant, and Hegel etc. Everyone should check out their contributions to accurizing the history of thought where it comes to "Being" and being differences and "if possible" truths. The modern world has just simply fallen victem to these earlier false interpretations, whether it be Descartes on to Searle, they are all victems of false "Being" understanding. True "Being" is so mixed with personal emotions and intuition, I don't even think I could do the subject justice, even though I thoroughly understand the massive problems involved___but I do think this is the area of the philosophical investigation most wanting and needing...

We need join all these ideas into a new "Idea Understanding" of "Conceptual Intentionality" of "Emotional Materialism" by "Analogous Universalizations." I see no other way of putting the pure humaness back into present dry and dead philosophy___we need a new consciousness of sensuous intuitional reasoning as well as a new understanding of the old non-sense intuitional logic___the world is wide open to new ideas in this area...

more later,
regards

[Guille]

LLoyd,

I agree with you completelly. We need a new way of looking at the being. But please do realize that with Anun and Emotional Materialsim (you are the best at naming, I could have not think of anything better) I intent to surpass the surppass of metaphysics. I want to go over posmodern philosophy, not to go back. I don't want to create a new metaphysics. I want to create a new geishe (talk, discourse) about the being, but not a metaphysics. I want this new talk to have the good from metaphysics but not the bad, just as Anun has the good of Abun but not the bad. I'll check about Lenin's critique, I believe I will like it.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> LLoyd,I agree with you completelly. We need a new way of looking at the being. But please do realize that with Anun and Emotional Materialsim (you are the best at naming, I could have not think of anything better) I intent to surpass the surppass of metaphysics. I want to go over posmodern philosophy, not to go back. I don't want to create a new metaphysics. I want to create a new geishe (talk, discourse) about the being, but not a metaphysics. I want this new talk to have the good from metaphysics but not the bad, just as Anun has the good of Abun but not the bad. I'll check about Lenin's critique, I believe I will like it.

Guille, I agree that the new talk should have the good but not the bad, also the simple not the complex___but how to describe the complex singularities of "being", being and being in simple language is a tall order. IMO the three beings just mentioned must be boiled down to basic heart and head relational language and dialogues. These three beings would be 1.personality/ego/reason/intuition 2.essence/emotions/soul/intuition 3.universal concept/universal idea/universal singularity/logic/intuition. Now, at present, all three of these beings have complex relationships with both heart and head___what is needed is an easily understood simplification of all the possible relationships___also realizing that different people put more emphases on either heart or head relationships as more primary___I guess like subjective/objective or predicate/subject. Since these are the most basic ideas of human understanding, they would be the most important to concentrate on, I believe.

You see, again IMO, any true talk must be encompassing enough to take in all the diverse personalities and ideas of all groups, yet make perfect sense to the many with one major set of new ideas___again a tall order, yet I do think possible if discussed enough to boil down. As a matter of fact my wife and I had about a three hour conversation about this very topic tonight. She agrees that all the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo is entirely unnecessary, and can be simplified___as a matter of fact she says it already is___it's just certain members of society challenging, knowingly and unknowingly, the simplicity of which she sees the whole issue. She says all this talk of modern complexity, especially as to the singularity, has been with us for centuries in one form or another___and confusion has reigned in place of simplicity. Her simple statement of "being" is; "I am as any being I choose to be, or not be."

Now do you see all the complexity this simple statement sets in play? Imagination is the key player in her statement, yet truth is its major and minor premises. The female has been beckoning us to play in her predicate playground for many, many centuries and we have been avoiding her___I think it's time we dabbled in her simple intuitive logical mysteries___just a bit. Female has much to tell us of taking our subjects into the predicate world of the here and now, and maybe together we can all start to see and build a better future...

more later,
regards

[Guille]

LLoyd,

I agree completely with your post. I find an interesting way of calling the three points: 1.indirect, 2.direction, 3.direct. It's hard to explain what I mean by using these three terms, so I'll use some analogous (but not abstract) ones: 1.derivatives, 2.axiomatization and derivation, 3.axiom. Or another set of non-abstract analogous terms: 1.abilities, 2.limitation and abilitation, 3.limits. Tell me if you get what I'm meaning, cause I just can't explain it with sentences, I have to use the terms, tell me if they are good or not.

I also believe we must simplify the geische. Now, the question is how. I have a shuffle of ways. All these actions are done from the classicla metaphysics:
1. we could change the elements of the discourse, 2. we could change the methods of discourse, 3. we could change the aim of the discourse. There are more but I want to centre on these three now. Note that we might choose more than one, or even all of them, but before that we must be carefull. Each of the points looks much easier than they are. By changing the methods of the discourse, I don't only mean to change the way by which we treat the universal concepts (which would be anun instead of abun, but much more. The whole idea from outside of it must be changed. The whole logic of "introduction-body-conclusion", "opening-derivation-closing", "imput-process-output"... It must be broken. Nietzsche might be wrong on other things, but when he says there is no order in thought, that is correct. His books are not like other books; they have a part with aphorisms, then whole chapters, then numbered paragraphs mainly unrelated to each other, then stories... That is how it should be. Th expression of the ideas must be analogous to the ideas themselvs, not an abstraction to represent them. Also, we must not forget about the deconstruction of metaphysics. It has given us something valuable, I quote Santiago Zabala in his introduction essay to "The Future of Religion": "In reality, the asumption that all positions are equally valid due to the lack of confidence in the truth constitues the mayor triumph obtained from the deconstruction of metaphysics." That is very important, we must note. Now, the important thing about anun, I've noticed, is that it is divided in two. If you read my long post in "The Problem with problems" there is a paragraph where I describe abun as a writing and anun as painting. Well, we can say that, using one of my terminologies to your 3 points of the being, anun is used twice: first at telling us what we can do and what we 'want' to do out of what we can do (this is the 'whatness' and the 'thatness'. This is from Sartre's distinction of the two terms). Visually, this is when we choose what colours we are going to use, and the texture, size and shape of the paper. Then we use it to paint, to decide what to paint and how to paint it. For this part, it is the what of the why and the how of the why ('of the why' is because we are searching the philosophy of the being).

It is no longer using the classical order, nor is it talking about the theory-practice problem. This is a point where the theoretic and the practical merge into one thing, just as in the link you gave to Feuerbach's articles there was one in which he spoke about that idea which you always mention: it also unites the subject and the object. Not into the 'total' (which would be falling into Hegel's synthesis logic), but into the intuitive reason of the first principle that unites them. A way to represent this (I like using a lot representations of all kinds when I philosophize so analogously) is with an x,y graph. That is how philosophers have seen reality, a place of juxtaposition from the same base, like a jail, for example, Russell's jail of empistemology, wittgenstein's jail of logic, hegel's jail of process, kant's jail of interpretation, carnap's jail of observation, marx's jail of work-value, dewey's jail of 'realisticticity'... Well I give them all a lesson. What if philosophy wasn't a giant prison full of jails, as philosophers have made us believe, but it is a labyrinth full of goods and bads hidden behind every corner, on the other side of every wall we have to go through (but we can't blow the walls down to pieces, cause then the minatour which is in the labyrinth will know where we are and run and smash us (as it smashed many wall-brakers, like Nietzsche or Heidegger), so we ahve to be intelligent and look for the path to go through and end on the other side of the wall). Our aim is not to leave the labyrinth with our hands empty, but full of food for the tribe, our tribe is culture. So, all these thoughts we are developing, anun, emotional materialism, conceptual intentionality, the postmetaphysical talk of the being... Are the parts that make up a rope which we tie to our leg, so if we get lost or followed by the minatour, or we have enough goods, we can run out of the labyrinth. So, If we go back to the x,y graph, now we've discovered to philosophy what Einstein discovered to physics; that the dimensions in reality have a curve, he called it gravity, and Feuerback, you, I and others call it essence. Now we know the the object and the subject form part of the same 'gravitational curve of space-time' but in philosophy. And we just have to develop the whole new idea of metaphysics, this is sort of like when the greeks discovered the logos instead of mitos, we discover the ___ something instead of metaphysics. What causes the curve is the mass, and the way to find out the mass in philosophy is with our ___ something. I can't think of a good total name for it, but that's the less important thing.