A Framework for Philosophical Thinking!

Some of you cool cats and naughty kittens in here may have an interest in the practice of philosophy. This is to say that you may not be interested in just reading about philosophy and coming to know of philosophical ideas; what you may be interested in is investigating the veracity of philosophical ideas and perspectives for yourself. You may intend to think philosophically yourself.

But to think philosophically, you will need to start off with a certain Framework (conceptual approach). You need to start off with a particular approach to conceptualizing the things that may be of philosophical concern. And that’s what I intend to provide you with. What i intend to provide you is what I use as a Framework for my practice of philosophy. You may have your own Framework and may not need mine. And that’s fine. But you may still find my Framework interesting and/or of some use (of some value).

My intent on sharing my Framework is to initiate others also to a way of philosophical thinking (the practice of philosophy). And also so that those of independent perspective and approach who find my Framework to the practice of philosophy to be one that is mistaken to engage me in philosophical discourse in working for the veracity of things. I intend on learning.

That said, the Framework may be claimed to extend to matters concerning “logic” and “natural philosophy”, and an explication of an underlying perspective to the use of rationality for philosophical discourse.

As far as “logic” is concerned, we are going to concern ourselves with predication and existence, so that we are able to partake in valid and sound inferences. With predication and existence, we are able to construct premises that are evident to make evident what is. The predicables of a thing are its genus, species, difference, properties, and accidents. One is able to construct definitions via reviewing a thing’s genus and difference. And, taking into consideration how a thing exists (its substance and properties), one is able to partake in valid and sound inferences.

And then there’s “natural philosophy”. As far as “natural philosophy” is concerned, we are going to concern ourselves with casualty and change. As far as “cause” is concerned, we are going to conceptualize there being two main types of causes: Internal Causes and External Causes.

If there is a rock, the structure that gives the rock its structure is the Formal Cause. And the materials (materiality) that the Form uses is the Material Cause. These two causes are the Internal Causes.

Then there is that force/cause that imposes the Form to give the rock its form. That’s the Efficient Cause. And then there is the cause that gave the Materiality the Form for a particular end. That’s the Final Cause. These two causes are what is known as the External Causes.

Moving onto Change. A thing changes because there is a privation that allows a change of Form and Materiality. And thus, the flow/change of actuality & potentiality happens via the aforementioned causes.

Finally, there’s the explication of an underlying perspective that is to guide one’s use of rationality for the practice of philosophy. I have made a post about it here on Digg before. So, I am going to copy and paste the relevant part for you.

“The perspective is that:

1. Awareness is either a concept, or a concept with a certitude about the veracity of the thing conceived.

2. Only what is necessary, and only what is possible within necessity, can exist. If one conceives something. That thing that is conceived necessarily exists in actuality; does not exist in actuality, but may exist in actuality; or can never exist in actuality. And if a thing exists, it can only exist within the possibility of what it is.

3. What one conceives a particular thing is, and what the particular thing is: may be the same thing; because via a modal inference, one is able to have a sense of proportion, and get at what the thing is in itself that allows one to conceive what one does, and allows the thing in particular to be what it is. Basically, via modal inference about what is conceived, one is able to ensure that what is conceived is NOT NOT but what the thing conceived is. Basically, one is able to attain objectivity, and certitude about the veracity of what one conceives via a modal inference.

The aforementioned perspective that underlies one’s use of reason allows one to seek to become aware, to verify, and also the means to actualize a concept where one has certitude about the veracity of the matter conceived. And it will be the means that you may bring the other to the intellection of the matter like you find yourself having about the matter.”

From what I understand, the Framework is Aristotelian. And the underlying perspective for the use of one’s reason is Ibn Sinan. Thus, from what i understand, if one uses the aforementioned Framework for the practice of philosophy, one is practicing philosophy via an Ibn Sinan Peripateticism.

I have tried my best to make a succinct and lucid explication of the Framework that I am working with. I am NOT an academic. Thus, I am not going to pretend to be one by trying to defend how and why my approach is a rigorous Peripatetic Framework for the practice of philosophy. I am an individual that is interested in the practice of philosophy as such. I use a particular Framework for such practice. And via such practice I have found myself to be of a Plotinian Platonist Metaphysics.

I believe the aforementioned is somewhat of an initiation for others also for the practice of philosophy, and to concern themselves with what is and what can be about existence.

Yeah. So. Let me know what you think. If I am mistaken about anything (philosophical), please let me know with a demonstration. I am open to learning. If I am mistaken in claiming my approach is Aristotelian, please let me know how & why so, also.