A proper philosophical starting point

[Usus Vox Tractus]

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.

Strange, I find it quite easy to comprehend and very comfortable because I am inside of it and looking through it with my mind. It is equally distributed all around itself, at the center of itself everywhere, and throught itself as one. Basic quantum sphere/point/field relationship.

Just imagine a honey amber ocean of liquid light that has no top, bottom, or sides. Look in all directions...it is the same everywhere. No matter how far you travel, it is the same there. There is no higher or lower state of energy. It is "flat" with itself.

Only 4 properties to know of the infinite "particle" (quark matter ocean): 3 are spatial 1 is energetic. These define the resulting wave front.

Simple.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

A problem with the OP seems tobe that all those words (true, universal, objective etc) already need to be understood and accepted. And so the would be philosopher is already part way there, or does she or he say "I must abandon language, as its reliability is not validated."???

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

My foundation would be something like:

Something exists.

This is arguably true, objective, fundamental, perceptually self-evident, and universal.

Even a solipsist cannot deny existing without mental evasion. The axiom is fundamental in that knowledge is about stuff-that-exists (even if we are talking about the products of imagination), and is only true with respect to such. Existence is perceptually self-evident, if we do not confuse existence with accurate knowledge of what exists. And it is universal, since universality pertains to everything that exists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

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?

Leaves you to assume? You just broke your own fist principle, that's been my experience with Atheists.

Philosophy marries the known and the unknown in the consciousness of the thinker forming their rational approach to life. It seems to me if you are using only the known then that's more a science not a traditional philosophy.

 

[True Scotsman]

My foundation would be something like:

Something exists.

This is arguably true, objective, fundamental, perceptually self-evident, and universal.

Even a solipsist cannot deny existing without mental evasion. The axiom is fundamental in that knowledge is about stuff-that-exists (even if we are talking about the products of imagination), and is only true with respect to such. Existence is perceptually self-evident, if we do not confuse existence with accurate knowledge of what exists. And it is universal, since universality pertains to everything that exists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yes. I think that is the only proper starting point. It is the first premise before all others. It is the only concept that subsumes literally everything. Its referents are everything that exists. No concept could possibly be primary to it since whatever the referents for that one would be they would no doubt have to exist.

Opponents are left with nothing but to attack consciousness itself in order to try and refute it, saying that we can't know that we exist. If we can't know that then we can't know anything else.

 

[True Scotsman]

Leaves you to assume? You just broke your own fist principle, that's been my experience with Atheists.

Philosophy marries the known and the unknown in the consciousness of the thinker forming their rational approach to life. It seems to me if you are using only the known then that's more a science not a traditional philosophy.

You still have not answered my question. Do you think that a proper starting point for knowledge needs to be true. Not answering this question is really telling about your epistemology.

 

[Chesterton]

You still have not answered my question. Do you think that a proper starting point for knowledge needs to be true. Not answering this question is really telling about your epistemology.

You haven't answered my question either. Or maybe you did when you agreed with Eudaimonist that "something exists" is true. I have to agree with that because I can't think of any way to attack it. Even if everything is an illusion then an illusion exists. I can't tell myself I'm not thinking because I have to think in order to do that. So I agree with both of you but, wow, that is about as basic, wide-open and unhelpful a starting point as you can get.

 

[True Scotsman]

A problem with the OP seems tobe that all those words (true, universal, objective etc) already need to be understood and accepted. And so the would be philosopher is already part way there, or does she or he say "I must abandon language, as its reliability is not validated."???

No not at all. All of these concepts are known at a very young age, at least implicitly. The job of any philosopher is to state them explicitly. Sadly the vast majority of people never do this. They start in midstream and never go back and learn and validate the premises underlying their beliefs. That is why we get questions in forums like "what is truth" and "who created the universe" and "what was here before anything was here". Those last two questions have as their root "nothing" as the starting point implicitly. I think that if you apply the criteria that I stated above to the concept of nothing you will see why it is an improper starting point.

 

[True Scotsman]

You haven't answered my question either. Or maybe you did when you agreed with Eudaimonist that "something exists" is true. I have to agree with that because I can't think of any way to attack it. Even if everything is an illusion then an illusion exists. I can't tell myself I'm not thinking because I have to think in order to do that. So I agree with both of you but, wow, that is about as basic, wide-open and unhelpful a starting point as you can get.

I went back through your responses and I did not see a question to me. If the question is, what is your starting point, then yes mine is the same as Eudaimonist's. It can be stated in many ways: 'existence exists", "stuff exists", "things exists" or "something exists". As for being "about as basic and wide open" as a starting point can get, well duh. That is what a starting point should be. But you don't just say "existence exists" and leave it at that. The rest of philosophy is all about discovering the logical corollaries to this very basic starting point and the implications of them. Many people criticize "existence" as a starting point because it is not useful in deducing anything. Exactly. Philosophy is an inductive science. Deduction only comes into play when applying the principles induced from observation to real world concrete problems.

I'm glad that you finally agree with the first two principles of my philosophy, Objectivism. In the recent past you have gone on record as rejecting them. Now we just have to get you to acknowledge the next two corollaries to these, "identity" and the "primacy of existence", which are just as undeniably true, objective, fundamental, perceptually self evident and universal as "existence" and "consciousness". We'll make you into an Objectivist yet!

edit: Sorry Chesterton. I thought I was responding to Colter. I was just about to answer your question about what is true, math? You couldn't say that math is true. Statements about math can be true, such as math is an excellent way of discovering quantitative relationships. That would be true. But Math is not a fundamental starting point. It is a very high level concept. There are all sorts of things you have to know before the concept of math. The staring point would be the most basic concept that underlies math.

 

[Colter]

You still have not answered my question. Do you think that a proper starting point for knowledge needs to be true. Not answering this question is really telling about your epistemology.

Yes, It goes without saying that the mind of the philosopher must think that what he believes is true or "truth".

 

[True Scotsman]

Yes, It goes without saying that the mind of the philosopher must think that what he believes is true or "truth".

Great. Thanks for answering. I wouldn't put it that way though. I would say that the starting point must be true. If you only believe that your starting point is true but don't know it is true, the rest of your philosophy is in jeopardy. That is why it is important for the starting point to be an axiom. If you find out your starting point isn't true then the whole philosophy must be scrapped. By the way, I apologize for getting your and Chesterton's responses mixed up. It's early here and I am not a morning person.

So you agree with the first point. Now how about the second. Do you think the starting point of knowledge should be objective?

 

[Chesterton]

It can be stated in many ways: 'existence exists", "stuff exists", "things exists" or "something exists". As for being "about as basic and wide open" as a starting point can get, well duh. That is what a starting point should be. But you don't just say "existence exists" and leave it at that. The rest of philosophy is all about discovering the logical corollaries to this very basic starting point and the implications of them. Many people criticize "existence" as a starting point because it is not useful in deducing anything. Exactly. Philosophy is an inductive science. Deduction only comes into play when applying the principles induced from observation to real world concrete problems.

I know what you/we think is basically true - something exists. What are the logical corollaries and implications of that?

I'm glad that you finally agree with the first two principles of my philosophy, Objectivism.

I agreed with one. You've only mentioned one to me.

In the recent past you have gone on record as rejecting them. Now we just have to get you to acknowledge the next two corollaries to these, "identity" and the "primacy of existence", which are just as undeniably true, objective, fundamental, perceptually self evident and universal as "existence" and "consciousness". We'll make you into an Objectivist yet!

Okay, one at a time. What does "identity" mean to you?

edit: Sorry Chesterton. I thought I was responding to Colter.

Ah, okay. For a minute there I thought you were a true Scotch-man.

 

[Alfiring]

I'm not so sure about #5.

But I guess it depends upon one's definition of Philosophy. Literally the 'love of wisdom' would encompass e,g, physics, cosmology etc. but if one is instead focussing upon 'theories of mind' then 'universal' is too ambitious as 'life' becomes a constraint.

Nice OP though. Thanks.

 

[True Scotsman]

I know what you/we think is basically true - something exists. What are the logical corollaries and implications of that?



I agreed with one. You've only mentioned one to me.



Okay, one at a time. What does "identity" mean to you?



Ah, okay. For a minute there I thought you were a true Scotch-man.

Yeah I kind of confused you there didn't I. Haven't had any coffee yet. I'm like something from the walking dead in the morning until I have my caffeine.

The concept of "identity" refers to the fact that to exist is to be something, to posses a specific set of attributes. A is A. A thing is itself and nothing else.

The corollary before that one would be that we are aware of things that exist or that we posses the faculty of consciousness.

These are logical corollaries to the statement that "things exist".

 

[True Scotsman]

I'm not so sure about #5.

But I guess it depends upon one's definition of Philosophy. Literally the 'love of wisdom' would encompass e,g, physics, cosmology etc. but if one is instead focussing upon 'theories of mind' then 'universal' is too ambitious as 'life' becomes a constraint.

Nice OP though. Thanks.

My definition is the study of fundamentals or a comprehensive view of the nature of the universe as a whole and how we as Humans relate to it. A universal or axiomatic concept would be one that applies to everything that exists.

 

[Colter]

Great. Thanks for answering. I wouldn't put it that way though. I would say that the starting point must be true. If you only believe that your starting point is true but don't know it is true, the rest of your philosophy is in jeopardy. That is why it is important for the starting point to be an axiom. If you find out your starting point isn't true then the whole philosophy must be scrapped. By the way, I apologize for getting your and Chesterton's responses mixed up. It's early here and I am not a morning person.

So you agree with the first point. Now how about the second. Do you think the starting point of knowledge should be objective?

If something is a fact, I know its true, then I don't need to be philosophical about it. Consciousness exists as well as the material things that we perceive, that I would classify as fact. The subjective contemplation of origin's, meanings and destiny is the birth of ones personal philosophy.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, It goes without saying that the mind of the philosopher must think that what he believes is true or "truth".

Hardly, you can be skeptical about your own philosophical views

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

My foundation would be something like:

Something exists.

This is arguably true, objective, fundamental, perceptually self-evident, and universal.

Even a solipsist cannot deny existing without mental evasion. The axiom is fundamental in that knowledge is about stuff-that-exists (even if we are talking about the products of imagination), and is only true with respect to such. Existence is perceptually self-evident, if we do not confuse existence with accurate knowledge of what exists. And it is universal, since universality pertains to everything that exists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Nice one! Perhaps with could simplify it to: "Stuff is."

 

[Colter]

Hardly, you can be skeptical about your own philosophical views

errrm, am I missing something here? Wouldn't that mean that your view had actually changed from your previous philosophical view if you had become skeptical of that older way of thinking?

 

[Chesterton]

The concept of "identity" refers to the fact that to exist is to be something, to posses a specific set of attributes. A is A. A thing is itself and nothing else.

I agree that to exist is to be something, but moving on to attributes is hard. How do you trust your consciousness to assign attributes correctly? How do you know that you are what you perceive you are? How can you know you're not a brain-in-a-vat, a frog dreaming you're a man, or an alien computer simulation, etc.? There's a vast chasm between acknowledging that something exists and nailing down what that something is.

The corollary before that one would be that we are aware of things that exist or that we posses the faculty of consciousness.

These are logical corollaries to the statement that "things exist".

Yes I seem to be conscious that something exists.