5

I tend to view First Principles as 'getting to the bottom' of something; in this case the embodied self.

I also understand that a first principle is one which cannot be 'built' from other concepts nor reduced to other concepts. Descartes decided the first principle he was looking for was "I think, therefore I am." But thinking requires 'conceptualizations' for manipulating as thinking? Where do these concepts (constructs) come from?

Gary Reist
  • 99
  • 1
  • 8
  • What is your definition of an "embodied self"? Do you mean self-identity? If so, why do you think self-identity constructs reality?

    First principles may be thought of as metaphysical questions: what is reality? what exists? what is knowledge? and so forth.

     –  Dec 23 '17 at 22:45
  • 1
    See Aristotle and First Principles and T.Irwin, Aristotle's First Principles. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Dec 24 '17 at 08:42
  • @Infoatu. I tend to agree with those who do not see any practical necessity for the metaphysical (as un-experience-ables). I tend to view reality as the conceptualization(s) of experienced existence (experience being that which is provided to us bio-beings by our bio-senses. [by 'tend' I mean a dispositional or pre-dispositional preference for the logical.] – Gary Reist Dec 28 '17 at 17:08

1 Answers1

5

The question mark may be missing but this looks like a question to me : 'What are First Principles ?'

The term's meaning has shifted more than a little in the history of Western philosophy but Aristotle's characterisation in 'Posterior Analytics', ch. 2 is a reasonable starting point which gives the, or a, basic, sense of the phrase :

  1. First principles are true

  2. First principles are necessarily true

  3. First principles are indemonstrable - they are not and cannot be deduced from anything else since otherwise the premises from which they are derived would be prior and not the First Principles themselves.

  4. First principles are more certain than anything derived from them - anything derived (deduced) from them can contain errors but first principles are free from any possible error as necessary truths.

An example might be 'If equals are taken from equals, equals remain' ('Post. Anal., 76a). Aristotle would also include the law of excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction ('Metaphysics', 996b). Excluded middle : of two propositions, p and ¬p, one must be true and the other false. So 'p or not-p' : 'p' must be true, or 'not-p' must be true. One or other must be true but both cannot be true. By the law of non-contradiction : ¬p(p and ¬p) (not both p and not-p). In other words, no proposition and its negation can simultaneously be true. (Thanks to Peter J on this.)

Before the waves inundate let me just say that I do not endorse first principles, Aristotle's or others, and I do not commit myself to Aristotle's examples as meeting the requirements of his characterisation of first principles. I am simply trying to convey a first idea of what First Principles are or have traditionally widely taken to be.

Geoffrey Thomas
  • 35,647
  • 4
  • 43
  • 146
  • First principles sound like assumptions except for the "necessarily true" part. Why do you not endorse first principles at least in some weaker sense? – Frank Hubeny Dec 27 '17 at 17:00
  • @Frank Hubeny. I felt the questioner needed basic guidance. I wanted to convey a reliable first idea of what First Principles are or might be. The final para. was partly put in to prevent a critique of First Principles or my formulation of them from becoming of focus of attention in Comments or other Answers in ways that wouldn't help the questioner. Reading Quine's 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism' has led me to doubt whether any statement, including one of First Principles, is immune from revision and might not need to be changed in the face of recalcitrant experience. I was being cautious..GT – Geoffrey Thomas Dec 27 '17 at 19:17
  • @Frank Hubeny. I do appreciated your reply. I treat many things as First Principles, as do most people. But Quine has put the frighteners on me ! I like to keep a little sceptical distance between myself and FP. All the best - Geoff. – Geoffrey Thomas Dec 27 '17 at 19:21
  • @ Geoffrey Thomas. I disagree, First Principles (as Aristotle knew) are essential building blocks. As I see it 'foundation' blocks for the construction of reality. – Gary Reist Dec 28 '17 at 16:54
  • @Gary Reist. Thanks comment. I can accept your reading of Aristotle. I conceded to Frank Hubery that in practice I use First Principles. I just am uncertain that they are fixed and reliable and not, like (say) Collingwood's 'absolute presuppositions', historically specific. Truth is, I wanted to explain roughly what I thought First Principles are, and in this I relied heavily on Aristotle, but wanted to keep any responses away from my own views. It doesn't matter what my own views about First Principles are; it matters very much what Aristotle's were. But I could have put the para. better. – Geoffrey Thomas Dec 28 '17 at 18:39
  • @GeoffreyThomas - A quibble but an important one,.The LEM does not use A and B as a contradictory pair but A and not-A. It should not be applied to A-B unless B = not-A. It;s a point we forget at our peril. In philosophy people regularly set-up contradictions of the form A/B and try to decide between them when they are not legitimate contradictions according to Aristotle. The result is chaos. –  Jan 31 '18 at 12:10
  • 'Nothing is both F and not-F.' We agree on this as a formulation (or instance) of the LNC ? But Aristotle also uses LNC more widely. E.g. he appears to regard this as a statement of 'the most firm principle of all', from context = LNC : 'It is impossible for the same thing to hold and not to hold at the same time of the same item in the same respect' (Metaphysics 1005b19-22 : tr. J. Barnes, 'Truth, etc.', Oxford, 2007 : 49). This is my ''A is B' and 'A is not B' cannot both be true together (at the same time, in the same respect)'. Barnes' interpretation is not lightly to be dismissed. – Geoffrey Thomas Jan 31 '18 at 14:11
  • @PeterJ. I have come round to your point of view. In the form in which I stated it in my answer, which can be verified in Aristotle, it is a metaphysical principle. Or the metaphysical application of a logical principle. The logical principle is as you have stated it. I will revise my answer accordingly with acknowledgement. Thanks for the correction. Best - Geoff – Geoffrey Thomas Jan 31 '18 at 14:28
  • @GeoffreyThomas - Glad to have said something useful. I see this as one of the most important but also completely simple issues in metaphysics. Very few academic philosophers apply Aristotle';s rules correctly and the cost is considerable confusion. –  Feb 01 '18 at 10:26