A proper philosophical starting point

[True Scotsman]

I think of philosophy as a comprehensive view of the world and our relationship to it. A good way I think to conceptualize a philosophy is to think of it as a building with the the more fundamental concepts being like the foundation and the higher level concepts being the floors above with each level integrated with and resting upon the foundation. The starting point of knowledge is a lot like the starting point of a building. Before you can even make the foundation you must dig down through the unstable soil to something solid upon which to build it. If this starting point isn't rock solid then the whole building is in jeopardy of some day collapsing.

So I'd like to share my thoughts on what constitutes a proper philosophical starting point. Rather than write a huge wall of text, I'll just state the principles simply and if anyone needs me to expand on them I will be glad to.

1. A proper philosophical starting point needs to be true. If the truth of the starting point is in question then the rest of the worldview is in doubt.

2. A proper philosophical starting point needs to be objective. It must obtain independent of anyone's conscious action. It means that it is the object in the relationship between the subject of consciousness and the objects it perceives. It means that it exists and is what it is regardless of anyone's likes or dislikes. This translates to mean that it is discovered by looking outward at the world instead of inward to the contents of the consciousness.

3. It must be a fundamental concept. It can't rest on any antecedent concepts or premises if it is the starting point of knowledge. It must be axiomatic in nature. It must be a concept that can only be defined ostensively, by pointing to it. If it is defined in terms of more fundamental concepts it is not a proper starting point.

4. Since it needs to be fundamental and not inferred from more primary premises, it must be something of which we are directly aware. It must be perceptually self evident.

5. Since it is the starting point of knowledge it must be a concept that is so broad that it is implicit in all knowledge. It must be a universal concept.

A proper philosophical starting point must be true, objective, fundamental, perceptually self evident and universal.

 

[bhsmte]

I think of philosophy as a comprehensive view of the world and our relationship to it. A good way I think to conceptualize a philosophy is to think of it as a building with the the more fundamental concepts being like the foundation and the higher level concepts being the floors above with each level integrated with and resting upon the foundation. The starting point of knowledge is a lot like the starting point of a building. Before you can even make the foundation you must dig down through the unstable soil to something solid upon which to build it. If this starting point isn't rock solid then the whole building is in jeopardy of some day collapsing.

So I'd like to share my thoughts on what constitutes a proper philosophical starting point. Rather than write a huge wall of text, I'll just state the principles simply and if anyone needs me to expand on them I will be glad to.

1. A proper philosophical starting point needs to be true. If the truth of the starting point is in question then the rest of the worldview is in doubt.

2. A proper philosophical starting point needs to be objective. It must obtain independent of anyone's conscious action. It means that it is the object in the relationship between the subject of consciousness and the objects it perceives. It means that it exists and is what it is regardless of anyone's likes or dislikes. This translates to mean that it is discovered by looking outward at the world instead of inward to the contents of the consciousness.

3. It must be a fundamental concept. It can't rest on any antecedent concepts or premises if it is the starting point of knowledge. It must be axiomatic in nature. It must be a concept that can only be defined ostensively, by pointing to it. If it is defined in terms of more fundamental concepts it is not a proper starting point.

4. Since it needs to be fundamental and not inferred from more primary premises, it must be something of which we are directly aware. It must be perceptually self evident.

5. Since it is the starting point of knowledge it must be a concept that is so broad that it is implicit in all knowledge. It must be a universal concept.

A proper philosophical starting point must be true, objective, fundamental, perceptually self evident and universal.

Makes perfect sense to me.

It would be like building a house foundation on top of earth that is not solid. Eventually, everything you build on top of the foundation, will have no support and it will crumble in time.

 

[Colter]

I think of philosophy as a comprehensive view of the world and our relationship to it. A good way I think to conceptualize a philosophy is to think of it as a building with the the more fundamental concepts being like the foundation and the higher level concepts being the floors above with each level integrated with and resting upon the foundation. The starting point of knowledge is a lot like the starting point of a building. Before you can even make the foundation you must dig down through the unstable soil to something solid upon which to build it. If this starting point isn't rock solid then the whole building is in jeopardy of some day collapsing.

So I'd like to share my thoughts on what constitutes a proper philosophical starting point. Rather than write a huge wall of text, I'll just state the principles simply and if anyone needs me to expand on them I will be glad to.

1. A proper philosophical starting point needs to be true. If the truth of the starting point is in question then the rest of the worldview is in doubt.

2. A proper philosophical starting point needs to be objective. It must obtain independent of anyone's conscious action. It means that it is the object in the relationship between the subject of consciousness and the objects it perceives. It means that it exists and is what it is regardless of anyone's likes or dislikes. This translates to mean that it is discovered by looking outward at the world instead of inward to the contents of the consciousness.

3. It must be a fundamental concept. It can't rest on any antecedent concepts or premises if it is the starting point of knowledge. It must be axiomatic in nature. It must be a concept that can only be defined ostensively, by pointing to it. If it is defined in terms of more fundamental concepts it is not a proper starting point.

4. Since it needs to be fundamental and not inferred from more primary premises, it must be something of which we are directly aware. It must be perceptually self evident.

5. Since it is the starting point of knowledge it must be a concept that is so broad that it is implicit in all knowledge. It must be a universal concept.

A proper philosophical starting point must be true, objective, fundamental, perceptually self evident and universal.

That's the math and architecture department, the quest for wisdom goes beyond the rigid constraints that you have provided.

 

[True Scotsman]

Makes perfect sense to me.

It would be like building a house foundation on top of earth that is not solid. Eventually, everything you build on top of the foundation, will have no support and it will crumble in time.

Do you think that God as described in the bible meets any of those criteria? I don't. The Bible says to build your house on the rock so that when the winds come and the rains your house will stand.

For instance, is the concept of God implicit in all knowledge. I don't think so. When I was just a little sprout, I had all kinds of knowledge before I ever heard about God so clearly the concept is not implicit in all knowledge.

 

[True Scotsman]

That's the math and architecture department, the quest for wisdom goes beyond the rigid constraints that you have provided.

They are not my constraints. You certainly can have a different set of criteria. I think that mine are consistent with logic though. If they are constraints they are placed there by reality, not me. I have just identified them. But I would be interested to hear what you think are the essentials of a proper starting point and your reasons why.

 

[Davian]

That's the math and architecture department, the quest for wisdom goes beyond the rigid constraints that you have provided.

The problem is, when you lower the evidentiary bar far enough to allow gods to climb over, you may leave the Earth covered with invisible, immaterial marshmallows. I hate driving through those on the freeway.

 

[bhsmte]

Do you think that God as described in the bible meets any of those criteria? I don't. The Bible says to build your house on the rock so that when the wind come and the rains your house will stand.

For instance, is the concept of God implicit in all knowledge. I don't think so. When I was just a little sprout, I had all kinds of knowledge before I ever heard about God so clearly the concept is not implicit in all knowledge.

Speaking for myself, the more I learned about the realities of our universe, the less the God of the bible made sense and or could be reconciled in my mind without playing mind games with myself, which I could no longer do. Adding in a personal investigation of the new testament from a scholarly and historical standpoint, was really icing on the cake for me.

 

[True Scotsman]

Speaking for myself, the more I learned about the realities of our universe, the less the God of the bible made sense and or could be reconciled in my mind without playing mind games with myself, which I could no longer do. Adding in a personal investigation of the new testament from a scholarly and historical standpoint, was really icing on the cake for me.

That's exactly how I felt. The concept of God, far from being implicit, contradicts the knowledge that I have gotten by observing the world on the fundamental level. The concept of God is not true, it is not objective, it is not conceptually irreducible, it is not directly observable and it is not axiomatic.

 

[Chany]

The problem is, when you lower the evidentiary bar far enough to allow gods to climb over, you may leave the Earth covered with invisible, immaterial marshmallows. I hate driving through those on the freeway.

Speak for yourself.

 

[True Scotsman]

That's the math and architecture department, the quest for wisdom goes beyond the rigid constraints that you have provided.

So in other words, epistemically, anything goes? Is that what you are proposing. Are you proposing that the starting point of "wisdom" can be false, subjective, not fundamental, not observable and not universal? If those are your criteria, can you explain how they are proper if one is concerned with his philosophy being consistent with reality? If the starting point does not need to be true then anything following it need not be true either, right? If it does not need to be objective then anything anyone wants to start with would be appropriate. In the building analogy it would be like picking any old spot and laying out the footers with no regard for what lies beneath. That seems to be what you are saying here. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

 

[quatona]

A proper philosophical starting point must be true, objective, fundamental, perceptually self evident and universal.

Man, are you strict! Not even a tiny little bit of special pleading allowed?

 

[True Scotsman]

Man, are you strict! Not even a tiny little bit of special pleading allowed?

I am. Maybe I should go apply for a job at a catholic school. I've got my ruler right here.

 

[EmethAlethia]

As a side note, I have discovered that there are only (2) different methodologies involved in getting to "truth" for everyone on the planet.

1.) The first is to prove your beliefs true and hold fast to them. This involves:

a.) Gathering every passage, fact, piece of data ... that you can "use" to prove your beliefs true AND

b.) Gathering every passage, fact, piece of data ... that you can "use" to prove all opposing beliefs false AND

c.) Interpreting all of your selected data in the light of your beliefs.

2.) The second methodology is to continuously keep on proving ALL things over and over again, as a habit and way of life and always altering your beliefs, life ... to fit that which is good/true. This involves:

a.) Gathering every possible passage, fact, piece of data ... that anyone believes might be related to the topic at hand, and the pieces no one uses because they don't fit with what anyone wants to believe, but yet still pertain.

b.) Cutting each and every passage, fact, piece of data ... that "might" pertain out straight in the context in which it is found without adding meaning that isn't there, subtracting meaning that is there, or distorting meaning to make it fit your beliefs. Thus getting to the exact meaning of every piece of data.

c.) Combining all of the data in the previous step in such a way that again, nothing is added, subtracted or distorted to make it fit, but so that everything fits perfectly with everything else.

Note: when something doesn't seem to fit it is usually because we have taken a few pieces and altered their meaning to try and make them support a belief or point of view when they don't. Usually, if we are objective, 95%of the data fits with everything else, and at the most 5% doesn't fit. Try and figure out how you are trying to make the remaining 5% fit your beliefs. Keep reevaluating everything until everything fits with everything else.

Note 2: Even when you believe everything fits with everything else, you aren't done. You may have missed something, or you may have interpreted a passage or two incorrectly to hold fast to a belief, and someone may offer some information that proves that this should be done.

Think about it ... no matter what belief group, belief, or belief set, you pick, if you only gather those things that you can "use" to prove your beliefs true and all opposing beliefs false, and you interpret all of your selected data in the light of your beliefs, can you not, "Believe with all your heart, mind, soul and strength", anything you want to believe as truth?

If you are using that methodology, do you want truth? OF COURSE NOT! it might mess with your beliefs, you must close your eyes and ears to everything else, and to interpreting any other way. If you want truth, you must be open to altering any, and all of your beliefs, and to objectively examining ALL of the data. If you use the first methodology, you hate truth, and love what you believe to "be truth".

 

[Colter]

So in other words, epistemically, anything goes? Is that what you are proposing. Are you proposing that the starting point of "wisdom" can be false, subjective, not fundamental, not observable and not universal? If those are your criteria, can you explain how they are proper if one is concerned with his philosophy being consistent with reality? If the starting point does not need to be true then anything following it need not be true either, right? If it does not need to be objective then anything anyone wants to start with would be appropriate. In the building analogy it would be like picking any old spot and laying out the footers with no regard for what lies beneath. That seems to be what you are saying here. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

The purpose of a personal philosophy is the subjective correlation of the material, intellectual and spiritual aspects of reality, as we understand them, in real time, in our approach to living. The elements that form a persons philosophy are subject to change as new facts or insights come to light.

I see philosophy as satisfying the gap between the finite-known and the infinite-unknown.

 

[Chesterton]

1. A proper philosophical starting point needs to be true. If the truth of the starting point is in question then the rest of the worldview is in doubt.

A starting point is a good place to start. So what's true? Math?

 

[True Scotsman]

The purpose of a personal philosophy is the subjective correlation of the material, intellectual and spiritual aspects of reality, as we understand them, in real time, in our approach to living. The elements that form a persons philosophy are subject to change as new facts or insights come to light.

I see philosophy as satisfying the gap between the finite-known and the infinite-unknown.

I didn't ask you what philosophy was. The topic is the essentials of a proper starting point to knowledge. You take issue with mine but don't give any of your own leaving me to assume that anything goes as far as you are concerned. Do you at least agree that the starting point must be true?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

A starting point is a good place to start. So what's true? Math?

A starting point is a summation of all things before movement. At the start of a race all the racers are present behind the starting line and the entire course is marked out with a beginning, middle and end.

All matter, space and time was present as a singularity before the expansion of vacuum space.

The singularity before inflation is either of 2 conditions: Either exactly finite to account for the exact amount of matter in the universe require to oppose dark energy. Or the singularity is infinite and the universe is a cavitation as the result of a standing wave vibration, and dark energy is constant by a self limiting holographic sphere stack of infinite universes.


The start place before the beginning of time (movement) is Infinite Substance, Eternity and Infinity. An ocean with no top, bottom or sides of something like quark matter: trillions of times denser and hotter than atomic matter, infinitely super-conductive, and in "zero" gravity ( quantum gravity, every point is being pulled outwards in all directions) it would set up like a self reflective plasma crystal that who's degree of freedom by the strong nuclear force. It is more metastable than atomic matter and would consume it in a micro-second heat death collapse.

The starting place is the physical body of the Infinite God. It is One.


You begin with a 1 that is infinite. The never was a zero.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I thought the very concept of infinity had been shown not to be useful

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I thought the very concept of infinity had been shown not to be useful

Oh really? Where?

I find that beginning with an infinite "particle" (Fermi liquid quark matter ocean) and dividing it by it's own self relationships (wave form) yields a finely tuned vibrational container (universe) that directly predicts the structure of DNA.

I also never have to "renormalise" for infinity later. It self accounts for everything.

You only need to understand 4 principles to unfold a stabilized metaverse: Particle, wave, field, and motion.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Oh really? Where?

I find that beginning with an infinite "particle" (Fermi liquid quark matter ocean) and dividing it by it's own self relationships (wave form) yields a finely tuned vibrational container (universe) that directly predicts the structure of DNA.

I also never have to "renormalise" for infinity later. It self accounts for everything.

You only need to understand 4 principles to unfold a stabilized metaverse: Particle, wave, field, and motion.

I meant philosophically speaking, not scientifically speaking. Remember, the subjects don't go very well together, given one requires evidence and the other rarely uses it.

Philosophically useless because the concept of something being infinite is near impossible to comprehend when you really think about it.