philosophical starting points

[Received]

Otherwise known as conciousness.

Now that's interesting. You're saying intuition is really consciousness?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Now that's interesting. You're saying intuition is really consciousness?

Here's something interesting: Intuition is often said to come from the gut. You gut contains 90% of the cells in your body....they are bacteria. Every DNA strand in your body is firing photonic information. The bacteria are the "base background noise" or you mind. This is the same flora and fauna in other human and in the soil.


This is why diet has such a profound impact on mental health. If your gut biome is a wasteland, no amount of pills or mental "self work" will ever fix your depression.

 

[True Scotsman]

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?

No Sarxweh, gods are not a part of my philosophy. I can tell the the reason but I don't want to do that in this thread because it would be at cross purposes to my intention. I asked my question out of curiosity only and not to judge whether or not someone's philosophical starting point is valid or not. I hope you understand I'm not trying to be rude. If you want to private message me I'll be glad to tell you why.

Robert

 

[Gladius]

Now that's interesting. You're saying intuition is really consciousness?

No, I am saying your definition for it which includes (emphasis added):

"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)",

is actually just consciousness.

 

[Received]

No, I am saying your definition for it which includes (emphasis added):

is actually just consciousness.

Oh. So consciousness entails being aware of itself?

 

[Gladius]

Oh. So consciousness entails being aware of itself?

As I understand it, yes. Itself and the world around it.

 

[Received]

As I understand it, yes. Itself and the world around it.

How Cartesian of ya. But here's the thing: you can't know you're aware of yourself without intuitively grasping the validity of your consciousness in being conscious of itself (and the world around it). How do you know your self isn't in fact a construct in a dream? You can't. Well, that says consciousness itself can't objectively determine the existence of your own consciousness, and especially the world around it. So what are we left with? Intuitively grasping that the world isn't fooling with us and that we really are there.

But that "knowing that you exist" part isn't really essential. What's really of relevance here is the other world, existence of other selves, uniformity in nature, etc. Those are all definitely not things that are somehow objectively there that we're somehow objectively tapping into. Intuition mediates here.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hello PhiloVoid,

Would that mean something like the sum total of Human understanding.

Hey True Scotsman,

No. I wouldn't say that it is a sum total human understanding. I have more of an individualistic level of human cognizance in mind. My axiom is along the line of a self-awareness that realizes two things: 1) I am able to absorb data from the world in which I'm immersed, and by way of that absorption, grow in additional understanding, and 2) It is this ability to grow in understanding that I also recognize I already had within myself; it is not something I gave myself.

Thus, axiomatically, I am not my own. Ironically, this axiom is, in a sense also anti-axiomatic, for it does not allow me to simply assume that I can build an epistemological structure that is of a Foundational kind.

Peace

 

[VProud]

I have a few:
-There is no ultimate purpose to anything.
-It cannot be proven that one persons experience of consciousness is the same as another.
-All things are essentially mathematical constructs.

 

[sarxweh]

I have a few:
-There is no ultimate purpose to anything.
-It cannot be proven that one persons experience of consciousness is the same as another.
-All things are essentially mathematical constructs.

You forgot:
-no purpose to my life
-no such thing as love
-no mathematical equivalent of "no your too ugly"

 

[VProud]

You forgot:
-no purpose to my life
-no such thing as love
-no mathematical equivalent of "no your too ugly"

I believe there is no purpose to ANY life, mine, yours, if God exists then there is no purpose to his life either.
Since you can never answer an infinite string of 'Why's' then nothing can have an ultimate definitive purpose.

For A to have an ULTIMATE purpose this must be true:
A must have purpose B. B must have purpose C. C must have purpose D. etc, etc to infinity, since the infinite process cannot be completed, nor can there be infinite answers an infinite string of 'Why's'.

I believe Love is real, it's one of our emotions, although we have a hard time defining it, why would I not believe it actually exists?

'No you too ugly.' - Both shallowness and the through process behind it can be mathematically described as the exact position and interaction of the fundamental particles in the subjects brain.


So, if you have any more pointless insults, feel free.

 

[sarxweh]

Sorry. Not you.

That was a description of me.

Welcome to christian forums

 

[sarxweh]

Don't v too proud

 

[VProud]

Sorry. Not you.

That was a description of me.

Welcome to christian forums

Hehe, okay, sorry, thought you were just insulting me, no harm done.

My name is Vincent Proud, hence the username, but I do try not to act too proud of myself.

 

[True Scotsman]

I have a few:
-There is no ultimate purpose to anything.
-It cannot be proven that one persons experience of consciousness is the same as another.
-All things are essentially mathematical constructs.

VProud,

Thank you for your answers. Do you consider those ideas to be fundamental axioms? If you could boil them down to their absolute most basic concept what would that be?

 

[VProud]

VProud,

Thank you for your answers. Do you consider those ideas to be fundamental axioms? If you could boil them down to their absolute most basic concept what would that be?

Hmmm, first, let me just say that only now am I realizing that my second and third points conflict.
If all things are mathematical constructs that would include consciousness, and since mathematics is the foremost platform of proof, it would have to be provable whether one persons experience of consciousness is the same as anothers.

Anyway, I believe the third point is an Axiom, the first is a result of that Axiom, and I feel like I've just nullified the second. It should be probable, I suppose, even if it currently is not.

Boiled down it would simply be: 'All things are the result of the intrinsic mathematical properties of the fundamental fields.'

Which would in-turn imply that nothing is random, except perhaps the starting state, if there were to be one.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Since you can never answer an infinite string of 'Why's' then nothing can have an ultimate definitive purpose.

I don't see why that should have to be the case.

Ultimate purpose does not mean a purpose that is found at the end of some infinite chain of justifications. It means the final, or root, purpose. It suggests that it isn't elephants all the way down, but that there is a floor there somewhere that holds the final elephant.

What you seem to think is that one purpose can only be grounded in some other separate purpose. I realize that there are some philosophers who would agree with you, but there are some who don't. While one purpose may be justified by reference to a deeper or wider purpose, this isn't a requirement. If a purpose can be justified by reference to the facts that give rise to the recognition of the need for that purpose, then you have a candidate for an ultimate purpose.

I realize that may be a controversial claim, but there are philosophers who advance such a claim, and it sounds reasonable to me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[VProud]

I don't see why that should have to be the case.

Ultimate purpose does not mean a purpose that is found at the end of some infinite chain of justifications. It means the final, or root, purpose. It suggests that it isn't elephants all the way down, but that there is a floor there somewhere that holds the final elephant.

What you seem to think is that one purpose can only be grounded in some other separate purpose. I realize that there are some philosophers who would agree with you, but there are some who don't. While one purpose may be justified by reference to a deeper or wider purpose, this isn't a requirement. If a purpose can be justified by reference to the facts that give rise to the recognition of the need for that purpose, then you have a candidate for an ultimate purpose.

I realize that may be a controversial claim, but there are philosophers who advance such a claim, and it sounds reasonable to me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

But, if that final or root purpose, it's self has no meaning or purpose, doesn't that crumble the entire structure?

Sure, from my perspective I might have the purpose of A, and I do not need to know the purpose of A to believe I have a purpose. I do see what you are saying.

But, without A having a purpose, does that not make my purpose ultimately pointless?

I suppose we simply have different, intrinsic philosophical viewpoints.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But, if that final or root purpose, it's self has no meaning or purpose, doesn't that crumble the entire structure?

Its purpose is itself because what it accomplishes is a person's own good. It doesn't refer to any deeper or broader purpose. It cuts to the essence of what purpose in human life is for.

But, without A having a purpose, does that not make my purpose ultimately pointless?

Let me make this abstract discussion a bit more concrete.

Let's say that I'm in bed wondering what to do with my day. Perhaps it's a work day, so I know that have to shower and eat breakfast before I can leave my home.

Shower, breakfast -> Leave the building

What I have identified above is an instrumental means-end relationship. Leaving the building is dependent on showering and eating breakfast (not physically, but because of my intended goals).

Okay, so I still have to get to work. So let's do a few more...

Leave the building -> Drive
Drive -> Arrive at work
Arrive at work -> Start working
Start working -> Work till evening

But what is my purpose at working?

It may be a number of different things. Let's say that it is two things:

1) To earn money -> pay bills.
2) Because it is something I really want to do with my life

In the case of 1, paying the bills still seems like a means. Why should one want to pay bills? Presumably it is because of (2) and related goals. At some point, one starts to identify goals that are valuable in and of themselves. If the work one does is one of those activities that one really wants to do with one's life, then it isn't justified in an instrumental way to anything else. We need to identify another relationship.

Working one's dream job < Something that suits my life

I'm using this symbol "<" to indicate that a goal is a constitutive means towards some end.

The difference between an instrumental means and a constitutive means is that an instrumental means is just a necessary preliminary activity -- something that must happen before some other activity as a necessary means. A constitutive activity happens during some broader activity for which is a necessary means (or condition).

Let's head back to the home where I work up. Let's say that I decide to wear a tie to work. So, I put on the tie, and while wearing the tie I achieve the goal of looking professional and suitable for work.

Putting on the tie -> Wearing the tie
Wearing the tie > Looking professional

I could add a number of other things like this:

Showering -> Hair looks better
Hair looks better > Looking professional

Looking professional is an instrumental means towards career success, though it could also be part of one's vision of what one ultimately wants to accomplish in life. If one has a job doing the sort of work one finds fulfilling, presumably one wants to look the part.

So, once we follow the chains of instrumental means to ends, we're going to start running up against constitutive means to ends, and some of those constitutive means will be chosen because of the role they play in the final end, and not solely because of any instrumental relationship to future goals.

What might one list as constitutive means to the broadest conception of one's desired life? Maybe it's something like this:

- A successful and fulfilling career
- A safe and happy family
- Good friends
- Good moral character
- Travel to interesting places in the world
- Climb Mount Everest

These are all ingredients in what may be a good life for oneself. They constitute the good life, which the Greek philosophers were likely to call eudaimonia, which could be translated as happiness, self-actualization, success at life, or personal flourishing. Eudaimonia is an activity -- a beneficial pattern of living.

Career, Family, Friends, Character, Travel, Mount Everest > eudaimonia

Eudaimonia is the ultimate purpose because it is the ultimate good. It is not for anything other than its own existence. The purpose of a well-formed human life is that well-formed human life. It is what a life is to be good (beneficial) for a particular individual. Judgments about goodness aren't about identifying deeper purposes, but rather about explaining how the concept of goodness arises from facts related to human life (e.g., that because of our nature as living human beings, we need a life that contains certain beneficial activities).

I hope that clarifies the issue a bit.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[VProud]

-snip-

eudaimonia,

Mark

I hate to reply to that entire well thought out and massively long statement with something very simple and short. (Thanks for writing that, by the way. )

But, happiness, well being etc, etc. These have no purpose.
No, you can say they do not need a purpose, they are intrinsic goals, a self terminating end to what you strive for.
And from the prospective of yourself, that is true.

But from objective observations, in the grand scheme, from the prospective of the universe, these things are pointless.

I think we just differ in basic ideas:
I believe nothing can be intrinsic or have meaning that is allocated by it's self, or from something that it gives meaning to.
You do.

Although, your reply has given me something to think about. I'm currently questioning my own stance eon this, thank you!