"who was phone?" is the one true muse.

More seriously though, in what sense could philosophy even be said to have a starting point? Philosophical concepts come from different starting points - it might be substance, process, bodies, love, assemblages. It might be indifferent to starting points; "groundless grounds", anything which treats foundationalisms with suspicion. Philosophy's origins as contested base assumptions.

Philosophical ideas are also historically situated and embedding in social conduct. Revolutions and revolutionary philosophy, suffrage and critical theory, spiritual metaphysics and meditation, materialism and science. They arise whenever their context needs thought. Philosophy's origins as political and historical.

There's also philosophy in the institutional sense. Where do philosophical ideas come from? Well, how are they produced? Academies, books. Philosophy's origins as an actor network.

IMO, ideas have more than one type of origin, they are created when they are needed. And sometimes they are stories about what's already done. If it's possible to construe philosophy as "seeing how things (in the broadest possible sense) hang together (in the broadest possible sense)" it'll be ordered thought in response to how something works or is done. More or less formal, more or less discursive, more or less practically inclined.

when = specific time — punos

Q. When? Ans: Always.
Doesn't have to be a specific, time place or thing etc as exemplified by the words always, everywhere, everything, every way

But it would be eye-opening to learn how others perceive and understand the origins of philosophy to be. — Bret Bernhoft

There is only one answer to this question. The origin of any philosophy arises out of some belief or set of beliefs. I take a very broad view of philosophy, i.e., everyone in some sense is a philosopher. If you have a set of beliefs regarding ethics, science, history, mathematics, family life, on and on, then you are a philosopher, not a professional philosopher, but a philosopher nonetheless. Having beliefs about ethics, for e.g., requires, at the very least, some critical analysis (even if it's very basic) about what you believe. And, it is this critical analysis that's at the heart of doing philosophy, or being a philosopher. The only question is, do you do it well, and not many do it well.

I was going for the flippant answer "half a brain" as an initial idea, which on introspection isn't even that bad.

Happy to learn more about Sulawesi but isn't it arbitrary? Because that behaviour presupposes other behaviour that came before it. Maybe they drew in the sand before that in Spain and we'll never know. And cave art is complex so why not lesser steps leading up to cave art? So why not that earlier behaviour? Leads to a bit of regress, I'm afraid.

Happy to learn more about Sulawesi but isn't it arbitrary? — Benkei

What aspect of philosophy isn't? I simply chose to draw the line of definition at the earliest known evidence of abstract thinking.

And cave art is complex so why not lesser steps leading up to cave art? — Benkei

Exactly because it is complex, and deep in a cave. A drawing on a rock outside, or in the sand, could simply be a depiction of what the artist was seeing. The only way the artist could carry great big wild animals into that cave was inside his or her head. And it also shows a planned, purposeful communication: somebody had to make and bring the art supplies.

So why not that earlier behaviour? — Benkei

There obviously had been earlier bahaviour of some kind, and quite a lot of thinking, but I couldn't justify calling it philosophy. We do know about rock paintings and etching from many places around the world https://www.kateowengallery.com/page/Rock-Art, but they're not as old. So, while all early painting may be symbolic and significant, as far as I know, these are the earliest example yet discovered. Note that both the Sulawesi and Australian examples include stencilled human hands, strongly suggesting a kinship: part of the Indonesian population migrated on to Australia. The hands, too, signify a sense of identity, self-assertion and reflection.

I believe the root of philosophy is the need to create a logical identity where there is none. For example, what is "good"? Many feelings and implicit discussions use terms which capture a general feel that can differ between people and cultures. The goal of philosophy is to create a consistent and logical language that can be used across cultures and people so that when we say the word "good", there is a nod of logical understanding between people of all types.

Did philosophy begin somewhere? — Bret Bernhoft

Has religion begun from somewhere? Or science?
They are all "products" of the natural development of the human mind. And as such they have their roots in all parts of the planet and they are developed in different ways and levels, based on conditions that anthropologists know better.

Take for instance Western and Eastern philosophies: their differnece is huge even after thousands of years since the time we have some evidences of their origin. In fact, there are differences --sometimes huge-- even between cultures in the same geographical area.

IMO, it would be more interesting if we just take the word "all" out: "What is the root of philosophy?". Or "How does philosophy emerges?"
And to that, my quick answer would be: from logic and the need for knowledge.

And to that, my quick answer would be: from logic and the need for knowledge. — Alkis Piskas

I think that applies to science. Philosophy emerges from the need to organize the world into a discernible pattern. (And religion, to control its forces)

:fire:

I can only speak for myself. The root of my interest in philosophy is a need for self-awareness — T Clark
The radix of all philosophy is the desire need to know reality, in and for itself and/or as a path to success, not as a businessman, not as a king, not as an engineer, not as a doctor, but as a human. — Agent Smith

I agree that the original root motive of ancient Greek Philosophy was the need to understand physical Reality. But that practical "need" is now being filled by empirical Science. So, modern Philosophy has been left holding the bag of trying to understand the elusive Self.

Aristotle covered both of those needs/desires in his Physics and Metaphysics. However, some posters on TPF seem to think that understanding objective Reality via modern Science, obviates the need to understand subjective Ideality. Hence, Subjective introverts and Objective extroverts (philosophically speaking) tend to talk past each other, with different vocabularies. Making dialog difficult. And yet, we press on. :smile:

As a human, I'm inclined to agree, we have both objective and subjective aspirations. However, the objective and the subjective sides tend to contradict each other e.g. the classic case of belief in a deity in the absence of evidence and just like that we're faced with an intractable dilemma, a choice hasta be made between the two and it's an either-or, not a BothAnd.

I think that applies to science. — Vera Mont

[Re: "Philosophy emerges from logic and the need for knowledge"]
I agree. It also applies to science. Don't forget that in ancient Greek philosophy, science and philosophy where one. In fact, the first Greek philosopher is (considered to be) Thales of Miletus, was also a mathematician and astronomer.

Philosophy emerges from the need to organize the world into a discernible pattern. (And religion, to control its forces) — Vera Mont

This maybe applies to the philosophy as we know it today, i.e. the systematic study of general and fundamental questions. That is, to a "philosophy" as an already established field of knowlege, not to the origin of philosophy, as a human need and mental activity, which is the question I talked about. "Systematization", as an attribute of philosopy, came much later.

Don't forget that the word "philosophy" comes from the Greek "philos" (= friend, lover) and "sophia" (= wisdom, knowledge). It's the need and quest for knowledge that drives philosophy, or more correctly, philosophical thinking. And this is achieved mainly by reasoning. Other mental factors like observation, perception, imagination, memory, etc. are also involved.

Characteristic example: Socratic questioning as a critical thinking strategy and pursuit of wisdom (knowledge).

Don't forget that in ancient Greek philosophy, science and philosophy where one. — Alkis Piskas

They were called by one name, the real and the BS, in Athens, and we Eurocentric moderns inherit their language as holy writ, because we take 4th c BCE Athens as the origin of everything - whereas, in fact, it's a late-comer, even among sophisticated civilizations.
But what's that to do with cavemen? Early humans explored the physical world, observed, compared, experimented, remembered - scientific activities which led them to the use of natural resources and the invention of clothing, tools, and eventually agriculture. They also questioned their relationship to their environment and its other denizens - philosophical inquiry, which led to the making of symbols, pictures, stories and eventually, mythology. At some point, they attributed supernatural powers to forces of nature and the ghosts of their revered elders, which led to ceremonious burials and other rituals, which is religion, an offshoot of philosophy. They combined the symbology with clever use of tools, pigments and surfaces, which is art. All these human impulses run parallel, from the very beginning all the way though human history, whatever they are called at any given point.

"Systematization", as an attribute of philosopy, came much later. — Alkis Piskas

The label did. Just as Taxonomy came much later than the species it classifies.

As a human, I'm inclined to agree, we have both objective and subjective aspirations. However, the objective and the subjective sides tend to contradict each other e.g. the classic case of belief in a deity in the absence of evidence and just like that we're faced with an intractable dilemma, a choice hasta be made between the two and it's an either-or, not a BothAnd. — Agent Smith

Who is forcing you to make a choice of one belief system or another? What if both are part right and part wrong? The BothAnd philosophy leaves you the freedom to choose the best parts of each complex multi-faceted belief system. Remember, like a see-saw, contradictory positions always have a balancing pivot-point between them. But maintaining the precarious balance requires philosophical agility.

For example, religion-in-general has existed among humans for eons. So there must be something good (useful) in viewing the world as something like a super-organism, or of humanity as a family of semi-deities (ruling over animals & plants). Most primitive religions have been rather innocent & childlike. And some, like Buddhism, are essentially private self-help therapies. But those religions associated with political empires may wield the power of life & death (burning at the stake) over its citizens. So, you might want to choose to avoid those that are oppressive, and to emulate those that are humane.

Likewise, Science-in-general is simply the human quest to understand the natural world, in order to tame its wildness. Yet, on the other hand, the amoral & reductive practice of scientific investigation into the underpinnings of Nature have lead to the god-like (thermo-nuclear) power to destroy all life on this planet*1. So again, you can choose the paths of science that lead to "better living through technology", and to avoid those paths that lead to environmental pollution.

That's the beauty of BothAnd, the chooser is free to determine the pertinent criteria for his own selections. :cool:


*1. As he witnessed the first detonation of a nuclear weapon on July 16, 1945, a piece of Hindu scripture ran through the mind of Robert Oppenheimer: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”. ___spoken by Hindu deity Vishnu
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/manhattan-project-robert-oppenheimer



https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page2.html

Both can't be right because they're mutually contradictory. As part of yin-yang duality, they're mutually annihilatory, not complementary. What we can do is find the middle ground i.e. find a compromise and say that the subjective and the objective are two very different windows to reality with no overlapping magisteria. So if I say God exists, I don't mean it in an objective, provable sense and when I say God doesn't exist, I don't mean it in a subjective, unprovable sense.

Quite interesting info and points. :up:

As part of yin-yang duality, they're mutually annihilatory, not complementary. — Agent Smith

Yin contains yang and yang contains yin, so in what way are they "mutually annihilatory"?

↪Gnomon
Both can't be right because they're mutually contradictory. As part of yin-yang duality, they're mutually annihilatory, not complementary. What we can do is find the middle ground i.e. find a compromise and say that the subjective and the objective are two very different windows to reality with no overlapping magisteria. So if I say God exists, I don't mean it in an objective, provable sense and when I say God doesn't exist, I don't mean it in a subjective, unprovable sense. — Agent Smith

BothAnd doesn't mean both parts of a duality are right or true, but merely that both extremes are parts of a larger whole unitary system -- because they are interrelated. As says, it's a YinYang concept. The opposing forces don't annihilate, like antimatter, but merely moderate each other.

The universe is a single system AFAIK, but it is driven by opposing forces -- Energy & Entropy -- to follow a median path through space-time, neither too hot, nor too cold, but "just right" as Goldilocks gushed. That's not a fact. but an expression of preference for a median temperature. Out in space the temperature is near absolute zero. And in stars it's matter-melting hot. But, on our home planet, those extremes are moderated into a livable range. For which the Chinese philosophers were grateful to the Tao : the middle path.

In philosophical dialog, one person may say "Yaweh exists" while another says "god is dead". Though diametrically opposing opinions, together they cover most of the range of opinions on the god question. A BothAnd position on such unverifiable questions would be Agnostic (possible but unknowable), or Deistic (another name for impartial Nature, or Tao). Which opinion would you choose, if you were describing the ultimate philosophical fact of your world? :smile:


Yin/Yang
Yin and yang (/jɪn/ and /jæŋ/) is a Chinese philosophical concept that describes opposite but interconnected forces. In Chinese cosmology, the universe creates itself out of a primary chaos of material energy, organized into the cycles of yin and yang and formed into objects and lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

Oh! So you mean to say both our subjective side and our objective side have to be taken into consideration to complete the picture (of reality)? Neither trumps the other, they're both equal even if opposites.

Yin contains yang and yang contains yin, so in what way are they "mutually annihilatory"? — 180 Proof

Theism and Atheism cancel each other out, oui? Unless you mean to say there's theism in atheism and atheism in theism (@Gnomon :chin:)

Atheism is second-order negation of first-order theism. Apple to orange, not apple to apple, comparison.

:up:

I prefer your yin in yang and yang in yin idea. @Gnomon is on the right track then - there's religion in science and there's science in religion.

That's not remotely a new insight ... and, IMO, irrelevant to the manifest functions of both institutions. :roll:

That's not remotely a new insight ... and, IMO, irrelevant to the manifest functions of both institutions. :roll: — 180 Proof

:ok:

Philosophy, IMO, begins (again and again) wherever the question "How do we know our assumptions are true or our givens are real?" predominates like an itch that grows as we scratch it. — 180 Proof

Philosophy occurs when a community permits discourses that question its truth and necessity.

Philosophy, IMO, begins (again and again) wherever the question "How do we know our assumptions are true or our givens are real?" predominates like an itch that grows as we scratch it.
— 180 Proof

:up: — Baden

So the spark of philosophy is epistemological and philosophers are knowledge detectives?

Try not to fuck up your kids. You will despite yourself. But there is a narrow degree of influence where you won't. So, what is that?

The root of philosophy, dear OP, is to (try and) suss out the root of all things. You answered yer own question. I guess, sometimes, we don't know how much we already know. Allah Rahim/El Rachum!

So the spark of philosophy is epistemological and philosophers are knowledge detectives? — ucarr

I don't think so.

"How do we know our assumptions are true or our givens are real?" — 180 Proof

Is it incorrect to characterize the above question as a spark igniting epistemological inquiry?

Its predomination as an itch that grows as we scratch is not an investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion?

Its expansion does not encompass both truth content of particulars and precepts about general attributes of truth?

Is it incorrect to characterize the above question as a spark igniting epistemological inquiry? — ucarr

I think so

Its predomination as an itch that grows as we scratch is not an investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion?

I don't think so.

Its expansion does not encompass both truth content of particulars and precepts about general attributes of truth?

Those aporia (logically) come later ...