philosophical starting points

[ViaCrucis]

Was Jesus an all consuming fire?

The "all consuming fire" language is judgment language. That makes it sound as though it's a bad thing, but judgment language is primarily a good thing, because the Judgment is a good thing. When the imagery of fire is invoked in the Bible it usually is done so to emphasize two things fire does: Fire destroys and fire purifies/perfects. The refiner brings raw metal to the flame, the impurities are burned away and in so doing a more pure metal is left; the potter places the vessel into a kiln to finish the creative work.

The language of judgment is often all these things. As such to describe God as "an all consuming fire" is to speak of God as Judge, who sets the world aflame in judgment, to destroy that which is only to burn, to renew and restore the world and bring about the ultimate glorious purposes for which all things were intended. It is ultimately to set the world to rights, to establish justice and peace, everlasting life for the world. The Eschaton is judgment, resurrection, renewal, restoration, it is the conclusion of the old and the ushering in of the new. From Olam HaZeh, this present age to Olam Ha'ba, the age to come.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Resha Caner]

So you defined your dad/father into existence. I do not mean he didn't physcially exist, I mean that until you had a frame of reference (i.e. functional definition) for "dad/father" that man was just another friendly human.

Or is there no difference between your father and any other human to you?

Now we're into semantic arguments. My Dad became distinct from others humans when I experienced that he was distinct. When I was told he was my father, those distinctions became my definition of "father". Again, all experience-based.

The experience preceded the definition. To argue with me is to claim something else - that some aspect of my definition preceded the experience. If you're now going to agree with me, and say that "functional definitions" and "frames of reference" are just synonyms for "experience" ... well ... In my experience, such things are language-based expressions that describe experience. They are not the experience themselves.

And even then, one theory of language is that one learns how to use words by hearing them applied to specific contexts - specific experiences - not by explicit definitions. Rather, one agrees ex post facto that a definition is a reasonable representation (an approximation made up of other elements of language) of how one should use the word.

So, definitions become a way to tie my experiences to your experiences. When we don't share common experience, language starts to break down as an effective tool.

I took your example of eating an orange to be an argument for its existence as an orange (not as anything) being independent of any functional definition for an orange. That looked like you trying to convince all the readers (including me) of something.

I was merely arguing the opposite.

Do you see a difference between explanation and argument?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Aside from the question of definition, how would the precept "God exists" precede your perception or experience as fundamental?

 

[Resha Caner]

Aside from the question of definition, how would the precept "God exists" precede your perception or experience as fundamental?

This is why I struggled to answer the question in the first place. The question asked what is fundamental to my philosophy. It didn't ask if that fundamental thing preceded all other things.

As ViaCrucis stated, theology comes from revelation (it comes to us) and philosophy comes from inquiry (we go to it). So, experiencing things came first, and putting definitions to it came second. It took time for me to settle on "God is the first cause" as my fundamental axiom. I'm still not sure that is quite right.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I guess it comes to a question as to what one means by fundamental. For me, I was thinking about a starting point of knowledge.

It's a weird thing: I can't think about a fundamental of knowledge or axioms until I already know something. I have to have an experience of knowing before I can posit how one knows. So perhaps I'd have to retract my axiom (posted earlier) and go with experience as the most fundamental thing.

As for "God exists", I can see how that could be a fundamental for philosophy, e.g., "Given that God exists ...". But as a question of fundamental for me (as above), I'd consider the means by which we come to a "given" as that fundamental.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I guess it comes to a question as to what one means by fundamental. For me, I was thinking about a starting point of knowledge.

It's a weird thing: I can't think about a fundamental of knowledge or axioms until I already know something. I have to have an experience of knowing before I can posit how one knows. So perhaps I'd have to retract my axiom (posted earlier) and go with experience as the most fundamental thing.

As for "God exists", I can see how that could be a fundamental for philosophy, e.g., "Given that God exists ...". But as a question of fundamental for me (as above), I'd consider the means by which we come to a "given" as that fundamental.

You could start with an axiom like: Reality is knowable and I am capable of knowing it.

If neither is the case, why bother?

 

[Resha Caner]

It's a weird thing: I can't think about a fundamental of knowledge or axioms until I already know something. I have to have an experience of knowing before I can posit how one knows.

Exactly. So is it then invalid, once one has achieved that state, to backtrack and identify it as the fundamental? I don't think so.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I guess it comes to a question as to what one means by fundamental. For me, I was thinking about a starting point of knowledge.

It's a weird thing: I can't think about a fundamental of knowledge or axioms until I already know something. I have to have an experience of knowing before I can posit how one knows. So perhaps I'd have to retract my axiom (posted earlier) and go with experience as the most fundamental thing.

As for "God exists", I can see how that could be a fundamental for philosophy, e.g., "Given that God exists ...". But as a question of fundamental for me (as above), I'd consider the means by which we come to a "given" as that fundamental.

You could start with an axiom like: Reality is knowable and I am capable of knowing it.

If neither is the case, why bother?

Exactly. So is it then invalid, once one has achieved that state, to backtrack and identify it as the fundamental? I don't think so.

See bold.

UVT: I would say as others have that we don't even know reality is knowable until we experience knowing.

Resha: I think my axiom still works in terms of processing the world--as a fundamental place to understand understanding. But as bolded, experience precedes knowing anything.

 

[True Scotsman]

This is why I struggled to answer the question in the first place. The question asked what is fundamental to my philosophy. It didn't ask if that fundamental thing preceded all other things.

As ViaCrucis stated, theology comes from revelation (it comes to us) and philosophy comes from inquiry (we go to it). So, experiencing things came first, and putting definitions to it came second. It took time for me to settle on "God is the first cause" as my fundamental axiom. I'm still not sure that is quite right.

That is what I'm asking. What is the most fundamental concept in your hierarchy of knowledge? The one that precedes all other knowledge and is necessarily contained in all further knowledge.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

See bold.

UVT: I would say as others have that we don't even know reality is knowable until we experience knowing.

Resha: I think my axiom still works in terms of processing the world--as a fundamental place to understand understanding. But as bolded, experience precedes knowing anything.

I see what your saying.

I also see another chicken/egg scenario...which came first, the experiencer or the stuff that supports experience?

 

[Resha Caner]

I also see another chicken/egg scenario...which came first, the experiencer or the stuff that supports experience?

That's part of why I chose what I did. Just because I wasn't aware of many things doesn't mean they lacked existence. It's the whole "you don't know what you don't know" dilemma.

What is interesting about this, is that the way I respond to people has developed into a trichotomy. "God is the first cause" is what is most important to me - most fundamental to me.

But when speaking with another Christian, I tend to start from the relationship with Christ because we don't necessarily share common philosophies, but we do share common theologies (hopefully).

Yet again, when speaking to unbelievers, I tend to start with ideas of experience and revelation (and here we are) because they most often come from a world view that highly favors rationalism and doesn't seem to understand revelation. If someone can't understand me, I don't see how they can agree or disagree.

 

[Received]

Hi all,

I know I'm brand new here and none of you know me. One of the reasons I decided to join the forum besides being interested in philosophy is that I have been interested in asking a diverse group of people what their philosophical starting point is .

What I mean by that is what is your most fundamental principle. What is the first premise of your world view, the one implied and contained in all of the higher level concepts of your philosophy.

By fundamental I mean conceptually irreducible. Not defined in terms of any antecedent concepts. The broadest concept in your knowledge.

I'll go first and I'm really interested to see what you come up with.

Mine is the axiom "existence". This is a plural noun denoting everything which exists, including consciousness. Basically if it exists it is included in this concept. The only thing excluded is the non existent. That is my starting point.

What's yours?

Intuition, or the sense of knowing without reasoning.

Without intuition, you can't even know you exist. Nor can you know how to reason or that experience is valid (as opposed to illusive).

 

[sarxweh]

Scotsman, can my fundamental principal just be your question?

I think my fundamental principal is the difference between want and need. At least that's the closest I can come at the moment.

Also, I think we probably all functionally have the same foundational principal - regardless of whether we think we have different ones. (Now that's a spin on relativity if I ever heard one)

Its a bit like asking, "what does the eye you see with look like?" I love it.

I think we all probably want our eye to be not our own (not a reference to Sartre's peephole eye of course or at least we want that eye to belong ultimately to something outside of us as this would allow us to have more freedom from it (if we so chose, we could act out against it, etc.)

Yet I tend to doubt this is the case, as there are so many morons like myself in the world who simply follow their needs slavishly and seem to never have a single want apart from need (buhda buhda buhda...)

I take my principal from the idea that God created the world out of a want but not a need. So, nothing fancy there. I think I'm just saying, functionally, that's about as far as I go, till you take me somewhere else

Wouldn't that be great, to want without need? But to my mind, therein lies the challenge to the question you ask. We probably simply need our principal to be what we think it is? What we "want" it to be? But really we just need it to be that.

Don't mean to limit the question though, just a word game application. Great thread!

 

[True Scotsman]

Scotsman, can my fundamental principal just be your question?

I think my fundamental principal is the difference between want and need. At least that's the closest I can come at the moment.

Also, I think we probably all functionally have the same foundational principal - regardless of whether we think we have different ones. (Now that's a spin on relativity if I ever heard one)

Its a bit like asking, "what does the eye you see with look like?" I love it.

I think we all probably want our eye to be not our own (not a reference to Sartre's peephole eye of course or at least we want that eye to belong ultimately to something outside of us as this would allow us to have more freedom from it (if we so chose, we could act out against it, etc.)

Yet I tend to doubt this is the case, as there are so many morons like myself in the world who simply follow their needs slavishly and seem to never have a single want apart from need (buhda buhda buhda...)

I take my principal from the idea that God created the world out of a want but not a need. So, nothing fancy there. I think I'm just saying, functionally, that's about as far as I go, till you take me somewhere else

Wouldn't that be great, to want without need? But to my mind, therein lies the challenge to the question you ask. We probably simply need our principal to be what we think it is? What we "want" it to be? But really we just need it to be that.

Don't mean to limit the question though, just a word game application. Great thread!

Thank you for your response.

I was a little confused until your last paragraph. I think from that that I can surmise that your first principle is the primacy of consciousness.

This isn't a word game though. I have found very few people who know what their founding principle is and more importantly those who know it and can validate it.

Everyone has one but very, very few in my experience know it explicitly.

 

[True Scotsman]

Intuition, or the sense of knowing without reasoning.

Without intuition, you can't even know you exist. Nor can you know how to reason or that experience is valid (as opposed to illusive).

Do you mean a priori knowledge?

 

[sarxweh]

Thank you for your response.

I was a little confused until your last paragraph. I think from that that I can surmise that your first principle is the primacy of consciousness.

This isn't a word game though. I have found very few people who know what their founding principle is and more importantly those who know it and can validate it.

Everyone has one but very, very few in my experience know it explicitly.

Well, really, wouldn't my starting point be Gods existence? Since it was God who wanted without need, thereby norming the lot of us as image bearers. Our state of sin forces us to want only in terms of the way we need (lack) in a full way

My position is he created out of a want without need, and we are those creatures who were meant to also want without need the way he did (since he created us to be in direct fellowship with him), so wouldn't my starting point be the way he made me? I mean, is that consciousness or existence?

I'm just thinking the "starting point" is probably muddled for people like crazy because the starting point they start with before they even start starting is stopped by their own starting point (which is separation from God).

Hope that's not meaningless. Didnt mean that to sound so much like the "Who's on first" skit

(I'm painting my sons bike right now and got paint all over my phone screen)

 

[Received]

Do you mean a priori knowledge?

More or less.

 

[True Scotsman]

Well, really, wouldn't my starting point be Gods existence? Since it was God who wanted without need, thereby norming the lot of us as image bearers. Our state of sin forces us to want only in terms of the way we need (lack) in a full way

My position is he created out of a want without need, and we are those creatures who were meant to also want without need the way he did (since he created us to be in direct fellowship with him), so wouldn't my starting point be the way he made me? I mean, is that consciousness or existence?

I'm just thinking the "starting point" is probably muddled for people like crazy because the starting point they start with before they even start starting is stopped by their own starting point (which is separation from God).

Hope that's not meaningless. Didnt mean that to sound so much like the "Who's on first" skit

(I'm painting my sons bike right now and got paint all over my phone screen)

Yes having God as your starting point is the same as the primacy of consciousness.

 

[Gladius]

Intuition, or the sense of knowing without reasoning.

Without intuition, you can't even know you exist. Nor can you know how to reason or that experience is valid (as opposed to illusive).

Otherwise known as conciousness.

 

[sarxweh]

Yes having God as your starting point is the same as the primacy of consciousness.

So gods existence doesn't come first in your system? Maybe you could elaborate how gods existence is not existence.

I'm saying, that when I think about anything, ultimately none of it makes sense apart from the WAY god made it.

Because he wanted it, he intended it; because he intended it, he created it.

(Interesting he made man so HE (god) could master it)

How else are you supposed to find your starting point?