Sinan Ibaguner

This article re-examines Aristotle’s famous assertion in the Metaphysics that “the lover of myth is in a way a lover of wisdom.” Far from being adversaries in the battle for truth, the philomythos and the philosophos are revealed as two responses to the same primordial human condition: the shock of existence. While the philosopher seeks to dissolve wonder into systematic clarity (logos), the myth-lover preserves wonder within narrative (mythos). This paper argues that philosophy cannot afford to abandon its mythic twin, for myth holds the existential and ethical weight that pure reason often bleaches away. The true philosopher, following the example of Plato, must remain a philomythos at heart.

Linguistic Philosophy via Symbolic Logic is an excellent and nuanced topic. Below is a structured explanation of Linguistic Philosophy via Symbolic Logic, covering its core motivation, methods, key figures, and limitations. 1. Core Thesis Linguistic philosophy (especially in its analytic tradition) holds that many traditional philosophical problems—especially metaphysical and epistemological ones—are either: • Illusions created by misunderstandings of ordinary language, or • Pseudo-problems that dissolve once language is clarified. Symbolic logic serves as the primary tool for this clarification because it exposes the logical form hidden beneath the grammatical form of natural language. Key idea: Grammatical form often misleads us into thinking a sentence refers to an object or a fact when it does not. Logic corrects this.

Carpe diem sed post (legaliter, ethice et logice) “Seize the day — but consequence as, legal, ethical and logical” 1. Preamble In an age of instantaneous action and diminishing reflection, humanity risks mistaking motion for meaning. The call of our era is not to act less, but to act more wisely. The Sinani Principle arises from this necessity — an invitation to harmonize vitality with virtue, and spontaneity with structure. We affirm that existence is both a creative impulse and a rational endeavor. To live authentically is to seize the moment; to live justly is to discipline that moment within the bounds of law, ethics, and logic.

Philosophy has traditionally concerned itself with truth, knowledge, morality, beauty, freedom, and the nature of reality. Yet every morning billions of ordinary people awaken asking far simpler questions: Can I remain healthy? Can I earn enough to live? Will I be respected? Will I love and be loved? These questions rarely appear at the center of academic philosophy, although they shape almost every human decision. The purpose of this work is to construct an Analytic Philosophy of Everyday Life: a philosophical framework that studies the ordinary conditions under which human beings flourish or suffer. Rather than beginning with abstract metaphysics, it begins with everyday existence.

Human life is often unconsciously divided into two epochs: life before a significant person enters our existence and life after that person departs. During intense love, friendship, parenthood, or discipleship, individuals frequently identify their own existence with another's presence. Consequently, separation or death appears not merely as the loss of another but as the collapse of one's own world. This article argues that this intuition is philosophically incomplete. Every individual possesses a pre-existence, an autonomous mode of being preceding all relationships, and a post-existence, a transformed but continuous mode of being after separation. Love changes existence but does not create existence. Likewise, loss changes existence but does not annihilate it. Human identity therefore extends across all relationships while remaining irreducibly itself.

The history of philosophy has repeatedly asked What is existence? Yet it has less often asked How does existence transform through human relationships while preserving personal continuity? The PSP = (Pre-Existence →Shared Existence →Post-Existence) framework approaches this directly. PHILOSOPHERS : • Plato explains transcendence. • Aristotle explains friendship. • Augustine explains memory. • Kierkegaard explains becoming. • Heidegger explains worldhood. • Sartre explains freedom. • Levinas explains responsibility. • Frankl explains meaning.

Human life is often unconsciously divided into two epochs: life before a significant person enters our existence and life after that person departs. During intense love, friendship, parenthood, or discipleship, individuals frequently identify their own existence with another's presence. Consequently, separation or death appears not merely as the loss of another but as the collapse of one's own world. This article argues that this intuition is philosophically incomplete. Every individual possesses a preexistence, an autonomous mode of being preceding all relationships, and a post-existence, a transformed but continuous mode of being after separation. Love changes existence but does not create existence. Likewise, loss changes existence but does not annihilate it. Human identity therefore extends across all relationships while remaining irreducibly itself.

Introduction Among the many formulations of Nietzsche’s philosophy, none is more emblematic than Amor Fati. Literally “love of fate,” it expresses Nietzsche’s demand for a radical affirmation of existence in its entirety. While often interpreted as a doctrine of consolation, Amor Fati emerges precisely at the threshold of despair, where the temptation of nihilism or resignation becomes most acute. This essay argues that Nietzsche presents Amor Fati as both (1) a form of self-consolation, insofar as it transfigures suffering into something lovable, and (2) a confrontation with despair, insofar as it demands the affirmation of even the most painful aspects of life.