Subjects and Relations Philosophy

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
JHuber
Posts: 37
Joined: August 1st, 2011, 12:46 am

Subjects and Relations Philosophy

Post by JHuber »

There have been many metaphysical belief systems throughout history. Such a fact tells us that none are commonly accepted. We all know about the religions of the world but the metaphysical philosophies are not as well known. The most established metaphysical philosophy is based on particulars and universals. This is an idea that goes all the way back to Aristotle and still continues today. It leads to an argument about realism vs. nominalism or, in other words, is reality true in substance or in name. However, the words particulars and universals are primarily adjectives. Although they are being used as nouns, perhaps there are better words out there that aren’t adjectives. Another metaphysical philosophy is Schopenhauer’s idea about will and representation. This idea states that we can’t actually know reality, we can only know a representation of it, and everything in reality has its own will. He wrote this in a long book which is interesting to read but, frankly, it’s difficult to accept that everything has its own will. A more modern metaphysical philosophy is called Object Oriented Ontology which believes that all of reality is made up of objects. It leads to an explanation about real objects and sensual objects as well as real qualities and sensual qualities. This philosophy says that objects should be for each other, not necessarily for humans. From this sample of metaphysical philosophies we can tell how profound they are and what they are trying to do. Of course not all philosophies can be accounted for here but at least we have an idea of what history has given us.

The metaphysical philosophy presented here is based on subjects and relations. The word subject has the highest scope of all words. Anything we want to discuss is a subject. Courses in school are called subjects and topics of conversation are called subjects. That is why for metaphysical purposes the word subject is the most appropriate. More than one subject combined together is a relation. Therefore, relations are composed of subjects. The subjects within a relation are known as being relative to one another. Relative subjects are either higher or lower (or equal) to each other. Relations themselves can be subjects. This leads to a self-referential phenomenon. Subjects and relations can be related in the same subject. As the word subject has the highest scope of all words, the subject of subjects and relations is therefore the highest of all metaphysical philosophies.

If we left this philosophy as it is, there is not much more to say. However, if we introduce the concept of happiness in it, the whole world opens up to us. What we do is say that happiness occurs if subjects combine and form a relation. Alternatively, unhappiness occurs if related subjects separate into unrelated subjects. From this modification this philosophy can now incorporate the phenomena of family, logic, games, humor, music and morality. Furthermore, all of the emotions can be defined in it. This philosophy now becomes very large but then that is what we should expect from the highest of all possible subjects.

There are two core concepts that need to be explained first. The first is the concept of extrinsic and intrinsic subjects. An extrinsic subject is a subject that comprises or labels a relation. For example, categories are extrinsic subjects and topics are extrinsic subjects. Intrinsic subjects are subjects that compose a relation. They are the parts of an extrinsic subject. For example, red and blue are intrinsic to color or cat and mouse is intrinsic to animal. The other concept is that of primary and secondary happiness. Primary happiness is what was mentioned before, if subjects combine and form a relation. Secondary happiness is when subjects combine to an existing relation. Primary happiness is about creating or beginning. Secondary happiness is about increasing or perfecting. To put it another way, the word related is primary and the word relative is secondary. These concepts, extrinsic and intrinsic subjects as well as primary and secondary happiness are necessary for the explanations of family, logic, games, humor, music and morality.

Family

We all refer to our family members as relatives. This is of course a universal fact. The members of our families are connected to each other because there was a combination. They are related together and are therefore intrinsic subjects. The family name is the extrinsic subject. We use the word relative because, for example, siblings are relatively closer to us than cousins. This applies to animals and plants as well.

Logic

The most important terms in logic are right and wrong. Right is if an intrinsic subject is within an extrinsic subject. Wrong is, of course, if it is not. It is also important to know that the inverse of right is possession. Whatever is in one’s possession is in its rightful place. Also, in English, we have the word proper which is a synonym for right and the word property which is a synonym for possession. To give a simple example for this, we can use the statements, “Dogs chase cats. Fido is a dog. Fido chases cats.” Fido is intrinsic to dogs. As dogs chase cats Fido must also chase cats because Fido is intrinsic to dogs. If we say, “Does Fido chase cats?” we can now say that is right. Another example would be, “Is Houston in Texas?” We’d say yes, that is right. Houston is intrinsic to Texas even though it doesn’t have to be.

Games

Games are simply competition for secondary happiness. Whichever participant scores more points than an opponent is relatively higher. However, some games value which participant scores lower. Value, therefore, is known as the direction of a relation. If lower is what is valued, the lower value is higher in secondary happiness.

Humor

Humor is not as complex as one might think. There are three types of humor: primary, secondary and leverage humor. Primary humor is primary happiness done acutely. It occurs when subjects from two completely unrelated extrinsic subjects combine together. In general, the farther apart the extrinsic subjects are and the more quickly the combination occurs the funnier the humor is. For example, given the joke, “When is the best time to go to the dentist”? The answer is 2:30. Here, the time, 2:30, is combined with the phrase, tooth hurty. The combination of a time of day and a reason to go to the dentist, coming from completely unrelated subjects, triggers the humor.

Secondary humor is an exaggeration of secondary happiness. It occurs if we get a relatively higher answer than what we would expect. For example, we’ll use the common question, “How far away are you”? An answer such as, “a million miles away,” would be an instance of secondary humor. It should be noted that the near infinite amount of available dimensions for relations makes this type of humor extremely varied.

The third type of humor, leverage humor, comes from a subtype of secondary happiness, leverage happiness. Leverage happiness occurs when a related subject gets relatively lowered. This causes the other subjects in the relation to be relatively increased. This is very common. We can see it in the example, “Hey bonehead, how’s it going”? If the people involved know each other, related in some way, then it’s funny, it’s leverage happiness. If they don’t, it’s insulting. This type of happiness is risky because it flirts with hate. In order to inhibit hate we say, “only kidding.”

Music

It is not intuitive that music is much like humor. As music and humor are both phenomena of happiness it actually makes sense that they are. Without happiness music would simply be noise. Music though, is a bit more complicated than humor. It employs another subtype of secondary happiness called contentment happiness. Contentment happiness is a relative position in a relation. It is where we are ‘happy’ at. Above contentment is complimentary, below is insulting. So, for music, we have the beat and the inclusion of instruments as primary happiness. The beat establishes the relation. The raising of pitch and tempo is secondary happiness. The expectation of a note but the result of something lower is leverage happiness, and the return to a base pitch or tempo is contentment happiness. The employment of these types of happiness is what makes music so enjoyable.

Morality

The general definition of morality is not doing something for cognitive reasons what one impulsively would want to do. Morality in terms of subjects and relations stems from two axioms. They are called the league rule and the base rule. The league rule states that an intrinsic subject can never be related to an extrinsic subject. In other words, one should not have a relationship with an extrinsic subject, an employer for example. The other rule, the base rule, applies to morality both non-physically as well as physically. Non-physical examples are repeated jokes are not funny, time doesn’t rhyme with time, and redundancy is pointless. Physical examples won’t be presented here but they are easy enough to figure out by oneself.

Being able to account for family, logic, games, music, humor and morality is not what any other metaphysical philosophy is capable of. Why the subject of subjects and relations has eluded us in history probably has to do with its self-referential nature. Even though it has no functional utility, metaphysics affects the direction of society. Imagine if Aristotle would have written about this philosophy in his book, “Metaphysics.” There never would have been a creation/evolution debate that took 2000 years to surface. Anyone who understood subjects and relations would simply say, “we know already.” The resources society spends on this issue in terms of defense and security is astonishing. All of that never should have existed. It all depends on what belief system one has. On account of us already referring to family members as relatives, we already use subjects and relations. It therefore is already true. It just has never been published before.
Hoggy
Posts: 131
Joined: August 22nd, 2012, 7:31 am

Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy

Post by Hoggy »

J Hubner starts:" There have been many metaphysical belief systems throughout history. Such a fact tells us that none are commonly accepted". Maybe it just tells us how we shout down anything authentic
Nick_A
Posts: 2441
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy

Post by Nick_A »

There are two core concepts that need to be explained first. The first is the concept of extrinsic and intrinsic subjects. An extrinsic subject is a subject that comprises or labels a relation. For example, categories are extrinsic subjects and topics are extrinsic subjects. Intrinsic subjects are subjects that compose a relation.

What if the universe is like a ladder of being which requires both extrinsic and intrinsic subjects as explained in the great Chain of Being

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Great-Chain-of-Being
The idea of the chain of being was first systematized by the Neoplatonist philosopher Plotinus, though the component concepts were derived from Plato and Aristotle. Plato’s form of the Good (or Goodness) in the Republic—eternal, immutable, ineffable, perfect, the universal object of desire—is fused with the Demiurge of the Timaeus, who constructed the world of becoming because “he was good, and in one that is good no envy of anything else ever arises.” Aristotle introduced a definition of the continuum and pointed out various graded scales of existence. Thus, in the words of Plotinus, in his Enneads, “The One is perfect because it seeks for nothing, and possesses nothing, and has need of nothing; and being perfect, it overflows, and thus its superabundance produces an Other.” This generation of the Many from the One must continue until all possible varieties of being in the descending series are realized.

The scale of being served Plotinus and many later writers as an explanation of the existence of evil in the sense of lack of some good. It also offered an argument for optimism; since all beings other than the ens perfectissimum are to some degree imperfect or evil, and since the goodness of the universe as a whole consists in its fullness, the best possible world will be one that contains the greatest possible variety of beings and so all possible evils. The notion died out in the 19th century but was briefly revived in the 20th by Arthur O. Lovejoy (The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea, 1936). See also best of all possible worlds.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1728
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy

Post by Pattern-chaser »

JHuber wrote: April 6th, 2021, 1:32 am There have been many metaphysical belief systems throughout history. Such a fact tells us that none are commonly accepted...

...or maybe it tells us that "metaphysics" is not one thing, but many, just as "politics" is?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
JHuber
Posts: 37
Joined: August 1st, 2011, 12:46 am

Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy

Post by JHuber »

Pattern-chaser wrote: April 7th, 2021, 12:56 pm
JHuber wrote: April 6th, 2021, 1:32 am There have been many metaphysical belief systems throughout history. Such a fact tells us that none are commonly accepted...

...or maybe it tells us that "metaphysics" is not one thing, but many, just as "politics" is?
Maybe, but if the problem had been solved we wouldn't be looking for more solutions.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 3549
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy

Post by Sculptor1 »

JHuber wrote: April 6th, 2021, 1:32 am There have been many metaphysical belief systems throughout history. Such a fact tells us that none are commonly accepted. We all know about the religions of the world but the metaphysical philosophies are not as well known. The most established metaphysical philosophy is based on particulars and universals. This is an idea that goes all the way back to Aristotle and still continues today. It leads to an argument about realism vs. nominalism or, in other words, is reality true in substance or in name. However, the words particulars and universals are primarily adjectives. Although they are being used as nouns, perhaps there are better words out there that aren’t adjectives. Another metaphysical philosophy is Schopenhauer’s idea about will and representation. This idea states that we can’t actually know reality, we can only know a representation of it, and everything in reality has its own will. He wrote this in a long book which is interesting to read but, frankly, it’s difficult to accept that everything has its own will.
It is just a way of looking at the world.
He does not mean that a plant pot want to grow daffodils rather than roses. Since Schopenhauer did not believe in free will, his idea that everything has a will means that all things obey their determinants; you, me and the plant pot. The plant pot being simple is determined to fall to the ground an break if pushed, or be the recepticle for soil and growing things determined by choices of the humans that designed it.
For Schopenhauer you have a will but cannot command your will.

A more modern metaphysical philosophy is called Object Oriented Ontology which believes that all of reality is made up of objects. It leads to an explanation about real objects and sensual objects as well as real qualities and sensual qualities. This philosophy says that objects should be for each other, not necessarily for humans. From this sample of metaphysical philosophies we can tell how profound they are and what they are trying to do. Of course not all philosophies can be accounted for here but at least we have an idea of what history has given us.
I assume this is a philosophy which seeks to avoid naive teleology?

The metaphysical philosophy presented here is based on subjects and relations. The word subject has the highest scope of all words. Anything we want to discuss is a subject. Courses in school are called subjects and topics of conversation are called subjects. That is why for metaphysical purposes the word subject is the most appropriate. More than one subject combined together is a relation. Therefore, relations are composed of subjects. The subjects within a relation are known as being relative to one another. Relative subjects are either higher or lower (or equal) to each other. Relations themselves can be subjects. This leads to a self-referential phenomenon. Subjects and relations can be related in the same subject. As the word subject has the highest scope of all words, the subject of subjects and relations is therefore the highest of all metaphysical philosophies.

If we left this philosophy as it is, there is not much more to say. However, if we introduce the concept of happiness in it, the whole world opens up to us. What we do is say that happiness occurs if subjects combine and form a relation. Alternatively, unhappiness occurs if related subjects separate into unrelated subjects. From this modification this philosophy can now incorporate the phenomena of family, logic, games, humor, music and morality. Furthermore, all of the emotions can be defined in it. This philosophy now becomes very large but then that is what we should expect from the highest of all possible subjects.

There are two core concepts that need to be explained first. The first is the concept of extrinsic and intrinsic subjects. An extrinsic subject is a subject that comprises or labels a relation. For example, categories are extrinsic subjects and topics are extrinsic subjects. Intrinsic subjects are subjects that compose a relation. They are the parts of an extrinsic subject. For example, red and blue are intrinsic to color or cat and mouse is intrinsic to animal. The other concept is that of primary and secondary happiness. Primary happiness is what was mentioned before, if subjects combine and form a relation. Secondary happiness is when subjects combine to an existing relation. Primary happiness is about creating or beginning. Secondary happiness is about increasing or perfecting. To put it another way, the word related is primary and the word relative is secondary. These concepts, extrinsic and intrinsic subjects as well as primary and secondary happiness are necessary for the explanations of family, logic, games, humor, music and morality.

Family

We all refer to our family members as relatives. This is of course a universal fact. The members of our families are connected to each other because there was a combination. They are related together and are therefore intrinsic subjects. The family name is the extrinsic subject. We use the word relative because, for example, siblings are relatively closer to us than cousins. This applies to animals and plants as well.

Logic

The most important terms in logic are right and wrong. Right is if an intrinsic subject is within an extrinsic subject. Wrong is, of course, if it is not. It is also important to know that the inverse of right is possession. Whatever is in one’s possession is in its rightful place. Also, in English, we have the word proper which is a synonym for right and the word property which is a synonym for possession. To give a simple example for this, we can use the statements, “Dogs chase cats. Fido is a dog. Fido chases cats.” Fido is intrinsic to dogs. As dogs chase cats Fido must also chase cats because Fido is intrinsic to dogs. If we say, “Does Fido chase cats?” we can now say that is right. Another example would be, “Is Houston in Texas?” We’d say yes, that is right. Houston is intrinsic to Texas even though it doesn’t have to be.
You seem to be struggling to make a point here.
Maybe it would help to understand that logic has severe limits. Dogs chase cats is not a necessary connection. Some dog do not case cats at all. No dog chases some cats (I'm thinking of Bengal Tigers here). It is rare for reality to comply with logic, as logic is not inherent in the world being a human metric devise to organise human's perceptions and constructions of the world.

Games

Games are simply competition for secondary happiness.
Any statement that starts " X is simply..." is often wrong. Games are so much more.
Whichever participant scores more points than an opponent is relatively higher. However, some games value which participant scores lower. Value, therefore, is known as the direction of a relation. If lower is what is valued, the lower value is higher in secondary happiness.
What about solitare? How about games with no scores?

Humor

Humor is not as complex as one might think.
I think it is probably a hell of a lot more complex than you can achieve with a few short paragraphs.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/humor/

Also see.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/f ... 086/689666

And I'd recommend Stewart Lee’s Stand-up Comedian (2005)

I think I'll leave it there for the moment.

There are three types of humor: primary, secondary and leverage humor. Primary humor is primary happiness done acutely. It occurs when subjects from two completely unrelated extrinsic subjects combine together. In general, the farther apart the extrinsic subjects are and the more quickly the combination occurs the funnier the humor is. For example, given the joke, “When is the best time to go to the dentist”? The answer is 2:30. Here, the time, 2:30, is combined with the phrase, tooth hurty. The combination of a time of day and a reason to go to the dentist, coming from completely unrelated subjects, triggers the humor.

Secondary humor is an exaggeration of secondary happiness. It occurs if we get a relatively higher answer than what we would expect. For example, we’ll use the common question, “How far away are you”? An answer such as, “a million miles away,” would be an instance of secondary humor. It should be noted that the near infinite amount of available dimensions for relations makes this type of humor extremely varied.

The third type of humor, leverage humor, comes from a subtype of secondary happiness, leverage happiness. Leverage happiness occurs when a related subject gets relatively lowered. This causes the other subjects in the relation to be relatively increased. This is very common. We can see it in the example, “Hey bonehead, how’s it going”? If the people involved know each other, related in some way, then it’s funny, it’s leverage happiness. If they don’t, it’s insulting. This type of happiness is risky because it flirts with hate. In order to inhibit hate we say, “only kidding.”

Music

It is not intuitive that music is much like humor. As music and humor are both phenomena of happiness it actually makes sense that they are. Without happiness music would simply be noise. Music though, is a bit more complicated than humor. It employs another subtype of secondary happiness called contentment happiness. Contentment happiness is a relative position in a relation. It is where we are ‘happy’ at. Above contentment is complimentary, below is insulting. So, for music, we have the beat and the inclusion of instruments as primary happiness. The beat establishes the relation. The raising of pitch and tempo is secondary happiness. The expectation of a note but the result of something lower is leverage happiness, and the return to a base pitch or tempo is contentment happiness. The employment of these types of happiness is what makes music so enjoyable.

Morality

The general definition of morality is not doing something for cognitive reasons what one impulsively would want to do. Morality in terms of subjects and relations stems from two axioms. They are called the league rule and the base rule. The league rule states that an intrinsic subject can never be related to an extrinsic subject. In other words, one should not have a relationship with an extrinsic subject, an employer for example. The other rule, the base rule, applies to morality both non-physically as well as physically. Non-physical examples are repeated jokes are not funny, time doesn’t rhyme with time, and redundancy is pointless. Physical examples won’t be presented here but they are easy enough to figure out by oneself.

Being able to account for family, logic, games, music, humor and morality is not what any other metaphysical philosophy is capable of. Why the subject of subjects and relations has eluded us in history probably has to do with its self-referential nature. Even though it has no functional utility, metaphysics affects the direction of society. Imagine if Aristotle would have written about this philosophy in his book, “Metaphysics.” There never would have been a creation/evolution debate that took 2000 years to surface. Anyone who understood subjects and relations would simply say, “we know already.” The resources society spends on this issue in terms of defense and security is astonishing. All of that never should have existed. It all depends on what belief system one has. On account of us already referring to family members as relatives, we already use subjects and relations. It therefore is already true. It just has never been published before.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1728
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy

Post by Pattern-chaser »

JHuber wrote: April 8th, 2021, 4:13 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: April 7th, 2021, 12:56 pm
JHuber wrote: April 6th, 2021, 1:32 am There have been many metaphysical belief systems throughout history. Such a fact tells us that none are commonly accepted...

...or maybe it tells us that "metaphysics" is not one thing, but many, just as "politics" is?
Maybe, but if the problem had been solved we wouldn't be looking for more solutions.

Sorry, maybe I'm being dense, but ... what is the "problem"? Your OP doesn't make this clear, to me, if no-one else.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
JHuber
Posts: 37
Joined: August 1st, 2011, 12:46 am

Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy

Post by JHuber »

Pattern-chaser wrote: April 8th, 2021, 8:36 am Sorry, maybe I'm being dense, but ... what is the "problem"? Your OP doesn't make this clear, to me, if no-one else.
I read once that it in general before Socrates philosophy was mostly about metaphysics. After Socrates philosophy moved into how one should live their life. Metaphysics, of course, still continued. At the time there were many scientific interests such as medicine, astronomy, plants, animals and other natural sciences. This progressed into the question, what is the science of all the sciences? This is why Aristotle wrote his books on Physics and Metaphysics.

To me, the "problem" is belief systems. What is it that you believe in? This question is the core of the problem of world peace.

We all refer to our family members as relatives. This is what we do already. It should be what we believe in. Yet it's not.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 3549
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy

Post by Sculptor1 »

JHuber wrote: April 8th, 2021, 4:44 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: April 8th, 2021, 8:36 am Sorry, maybe I'm being dense, but ... what is the "problem"? Your OP doesn't make this clear, to me, if no-one else.
I read once that it in general before Socrates philosophy was mostly about metaphysics. After Socrates philosophy moved into how one should live their life. Metaphysics, of course, still continued. At the time there were many scientific interests such as medicine, astronomy, plants, animals and other natural sciences. This progressed into the question, what is the science of all the sciences? This is why Aristotle wrote his books on Physics and Metaphysics.

To me, the "problem" is belief systems. What is it that you believe in? This question is the core of the problem of world peace.

We all refer to our family members as relatives. This is what we do already. It should be what we believe in. Yet it's not.
There is no joined up thinking here.
Take your last paragraph for example. The penultimate sentence uses "IT" as an object. What, exaclty do you mean by "it", and what makes you think we do not believe in "it"?
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1728
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: April 8th, 2021, 8:36 am Sorry, maybe I'm being dense, but ... what is the "problem"? Your OP doesn't make this clear, to me, if no-one else.
JHuber wrote: April 8th, 2021, 4:44 pm I read once that it in general before Socrates philosophy was mostly about metaphysics. After Socrates philosophy moved into how one should live their life. Metaphysics, of course, still continued.
Yes, and in recent years, there has been a shift in the everyday meaning attached to "metaphysics". It is now becoming a catch-all term that refers to those aspects of philosophy that science cannot address. And, for some, this is a good reason to dismiss these aspects as being of limited importance/significance, presumably because science cannot address them?


JHuber wrote: April 8th, 2021, 4:44 pm At the time there were many scientific interests such as medicine, astronomy, plants, animals and other natural sciences. This progressed into the question, what is the science of all the sciences? This is why Aristotle wrote his books on Physics and Metaphysics.
I think, at the time, there were a number of interests that would, over the following millennia, develop into 'natural science', and then into science (more or less) as we know it. At that time, the only really collected and organised sphere of learning was philosophy; at that time, philosophy was the "science of all the sciences", I think.


JHuber wrote: April 8th, 2021, 4:44 pm To me, the "problem" is belief systems. What is it that you believe in? This question is the core of the problem of world peace.
OK, this seems a little muddled. Belief systems is a Big Topic of itself, yet you add world peace into the mix, without any introduction?

Belief systems are unavoidable, I think. There is so much about the world that we cannot know with certainty that we must either adopt beliefs, and belief systems, or our thinking simply cannot progress. So we believe ... all kinds of stuff. Some of it might even prove to be true, at some time in the future.

But you ask a more personal question: "What is it that you believe in?" The answer is that I believe all manner of things, some of which are shared by many other humans, while others are less commonly accepted. There are so many (things that I believe) that I have to ask which of them you're interested in? Religion? Politics? Science? Morals? Ways of moving toward world peace...?


JHuber wrote: April 8th, 2021, 4:44 pm We all refer to our family members as relatives. This is what we do already. It should be what we believe in. Yet it's not.
This is a good example of human social behaviour. We all claim to do things, and claim that others do them too, when we don't. Human communication is rife with deceptions like this; humans almost never just say what they mean. This is something that baffles autistic people, but others simply don't notice, or don't care. I cannot explain it, and I wonder if anyone else can?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
JHuber
Posts: 37
Joined: August 1st, 2011, 12:46 am

Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy

Post by JHuber »

Sculptor1 wrote: April 8th, 2021, 6:03 pm
JHuber wrote: April 8th, 2021, 4:44 pm
I read once that it in general before Socrates philosophy was mostly about metaphysics. After Socrates philosophy moved into how one should live their life. Metaphysics, of course, still continued. At the time there were many scientific interests such as medicine, astronomy, plants, animals and other natural sciences. This progressed into the question, what is the science of all the sciences? This is why Aristotle wrote his books on Physics and Metaphysics.

To me, the "problem" is belief systems. What is it that you believe in? This question is the core of the problem of world peace.

We all refer to our family members as relatives. This is what we do already. It should be what we believe in. Yet it's not.
There is no joined up thinking here.
Take your last paragraph for example. The penultimate sentence uses "IT" as an object. What, exaclty do you mean by "it", and what makes you think we do not believe in "it"?
By "it" I mean subjects and relations as a philosophy. When subjects combine they form a relation. This is why we refer to our family members as relatives. We all exist because there was a combination. I use the pronoun "we" because I'm certain you do too. We should have joined up thinking here. Yet academic philosophy doesn't contain subjects and relations as a philosophy. It doesn't have any popularity.
JHuber
Posts: 37
Joined: August 1st, 2011, 12:46 am

Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy

Post by JHuber »

Pattern-chaser wrote: April 9th, 2021, 6:49 am OK, this seems a little muddled. Belief systems is a Big Topic of itself, yet you add world peace into the mix, without any introduction?

Belief systems are unavoidable, I think. There is so much about the world that we cannot know with certainty that we must either adopt beliefs, and belief systems, or our thinking simply cannot progress. So we believe ... all kinds of stuff. Some of it might even prove to be true, at some time in the future.

But you ask a more personal question: "What is it that you believe in?" The answer is that I believe all manner of things, some of which are shared by many other humans, while others are less commonly accepted. There are so many (things that I believe) that I have to ask which of them you're interested in? Religion? Politics? Science? Morals? Ways of moving toward world peace...?
That's true, there is so much about the world that we cannot know with any certainty. However, we do know that when subjects combine they form a relation. That is a certainty. It isn't my opinion. It is a certainty because of the abstract nature of the words subjects and relations. Therefore, it can be claimed as proved to be true just as in mathematics where other abstract concepts can be claimed as proved to be true. Other belief systems try to make that claim but can't. They, and we, use force or diplomacy to do so.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 3549
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy

Post by Sculptor1 »

JHuber wrote: April 9th, 2021, 4:30 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: April 8th, 2021, 6:03 pm
JHuber wrote: April 8th, 2021, 4:44 pm
I read once that it in general before Socrates philosophy was mostly about metaphysics. After Socrates philosophy moved into how one should live their life. Metaphysics, of course, still continued. At the time there were many scientific interests such as medicine, astronomy, plants, animals and other natural sciences. This progressed into the question, what is the science of all the sciences? This is why Aristotle wrote his books on Physics and Metaphysics.

To me, the "problem" is belief systems. What is it that you believe in? This question is the core of the problem of world peace.

We all refer to our family members as relatives. This is what we do already. It should be what we believe in. Yet it's not.
There is no joined up thinking here.
Take your last paragraph for example. The penultimate sentence uses "IT" as an object. What, exaclty do you mean by "it", and what makes you think we do not believe in "it"?
By "it" I mean subjects and relations as a philosophy. When subjects combine they form a relation. This is why we refer to our family members as relatives. We all exist because there was a combination. I use the pronoun "we" because I'm certain you do too. We should have joined up thinking here. Yet academic philosophy doesn't contain subjects and relations as a philosophy. It doesn't have any popularity.
What about taxonomy?
What about genealogy?
What about semiotics?
What about symbology?

WTF are you talking about?
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1728
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: April 9th, 2021, 6:49 am Belief systems are unavoidable, I think. There is so much about the world that we cannot know with certainty that we must either adopt beliefs, and belief systems, or our thinking simply cannot progress. So we believe ... all kinds of stuff. Some of it might even prove to be true, at some time in the future.

But you ask a more personal question: "What is it that you believe in?" The answer is that I believe all manner of things, some of which are shared by many other humans, while others are less commonly accepted. There are so many (things that I believe) that I have to ask which of them you're interested in? Religion? Politics? Science? Morals? Ways of moving toward world peace...?
JHuber wrote: April 9th, 2021, 4:48 pm That's true, there is so much about the world that we cannot know with any certainty. However, we do know that when subjects combine they form a relation. That is a certainty. It isn't my opinion. It is a certainty because of the abstract nature of the words subjects and relations. Therefore, it can be claimed as proved to be true just as in mathematics where other abstract concepts can be claimed as proved to be true. Other belief systems try to make that claim but can't. They, and we, use force or diplomacy to do so.

I'm still unclear on what you're getting at. You mention "other belief systems", as though contrasting them with a belief system that you have proposed. And yet I can't see the belief system that you champion. Is it something to do with "subjects" and their "relations"? What are "subjects"? Are they 'subject matter' (i.e. things), or are they 'human subjects' (i.e. people)? And so on....
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
JHuber
Posts: 37
Joined: August 1st, 2011, 12:46 am

Re: Subjects and Relations Philosophy

Post by JHuber »

Sculptor1 wrote: April 9th, 2021, 5:54 pm What about taxonomy?
What about genealogy?
What about semiotics?
What about symbology?

WTF are you talking about?
Those are ontologies. They are not philosophies. Those can't account for family, logic, games, humor, music and morality all in the same system.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021