PHILOSOPHY: It's relevent subjects

[John Dailey]

~ In O-ism, N. Branden succinctly summed up the basic/fundamental/essential (ahem!) questions that any/all philosophies are based upon. Indeed, attempts at answering these questions are what philosophy has been (to be sure, 'traditionally') all about. They are: "Where am I (or, are we)?"-"How do I/we 'know'?"-"So, what (now)?"

~ My concern, in these posts, is to attempt to establish a relevency amongst the questions, O-ism's 'traditionally' oriented answers to them (as well as its systemic-orientation re their 'connections'), and maybe a solidly-argued base re NEW questions derivative from them...or...at least some questions about the proper 'place' of these problematic catagory-questions. ('Meta-' or derivative?)

LLAP

J:D

Edited January 9, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

~ It appears that, so far, 'basically' the questions comprise the 3 notedly named territories: 1)-Metaphysics ('This' is the type of place 'we' are), 2)-Epistemology ('This' is how we 'know' we're actually 'here') and 3)-Ethics ('This is the 'so what'? Here's how we 'should' act...in this type of place-we-[so far]'know'-about) based on 3a)-Morals ('This' is the 'why' of the Ethics.)

~ Clearly, Rand, via her officially-designated "O-ism", accepts these as the 'fundamental' territories to not only 'find' answers about, but especially, for all of us, to 'NEED' answers about. Just as clearly, she considers the Ethics of 'using force on others' to deserve a 'territory' all its own: Politics.

~ Then...there's the O-ist category, 'tacked on' later, called Art/(A)esthetics. What philosophy-question does this address? Aye, here's a rub!

LLAP

J:D

Edited January 9, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

~ Now, what kind of 'philosophy-Question' can Art be addressing/answering/relevent-to? None that are obvious from the 1st 3-4 mentioned.

~ How about a separate (though clearly related) 'Metaphysical' one: "WHAT am *I* (or, WHAT are *we*)?" Re-phrased, given 'where' we are and how we 'know' this, "WHAT are our/my needs here?"

~ (A)esthetics DOES answer...1...need. Indeed, it seems to answer, basically, a 'psychological' need...for the controverted (as a 'need') territory of flourishing.

~ Prob is: THIS raises questions about derivative 'fundamental'...essential(?)...questions. Like, oh, Philosophy-of-Man (thence, derivatively, '-of-Mind', and thence derivatively from that, '-of-Sex/Gender-Preference; can one say Sexual-Metaphysics?)

LLAP

J:D

Edited January 9, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

~ Given the above stated concerns (re 'philosophic' questions/answers 'essential' basics), and, a fairly established rational basis of questions/'answers'-so-far, where, how, and why, would the following concerns/questions/'catagories' properly fall?

1) Science ('Philosophy'?) of Philosophy (or, would this be 'Meta'-Philosophy?)

2) Philosophy-of-Science

3) Philosophy-of-Logic (don't say 'Epistemology' ONLY!)

4) Philosophy-of-Sex ('Ethics' ONLY, or maybe even 'Metaphysics'? ['Sub'-Metaphysics, anyone?])

5) Philosophy-of-History (aka 'Historiography' which would include 'Philosophy-of-History...of 'philosophy'! Shades of 'Class-of-all-classes' conundrums!)

6) 'Meta'-observations/analyses on any/all of the above; or, is the very idea of 'meta-' maybe NOT all that rationally justifiable a concept applicable to the above? - Is 'Historiography' really a mere sub-set of O-ism?

LLAP

J:D

Edited January 9, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

Addendum:

~ I would have put all the above in *1* post, but I seem to have a post-size limitation prob. I'm sure it's on my end; a 'firewall' thingee, mesuspects. Sorry for the multiples.

~ My last post was what I was leading up to, btw. Questions within questions...even for what types are relevent (or not) to, about, and within how O-ism (supposedly and 'interpretively') views 'philosophy-per-se'...especially...Historiography-according-to-LP (AR's FTNI nwst!!!) Are, to be redundant, 'Historiography' et al 'derivative' sub-cats...or 'meta-' subjects?

LLAP

J:D

Edited January 9, 2007 by John Dailey