philosophical starting points

[quatona]

Yes it does. I would call that consciousness. Consciousness is consciousness of some thing or an object. And we first experience the world through our senses. So I would agree with that but I would word it as "consciousness is consciousness of an object" because wording it that way ties into my fourth most fundamental concept. "Consciousness" is actually the second most fundamental premise in my world view.

I can see you and I think a lot alike so far.

Not so fast!
I was just trying to get a clear idea of the terminology used, for the time being.

Now, as your most basic axiom is "existence" (actually, I am not even sure that a word can be an axiom?), your second one appears to be "experience", and since "experience exists" is a meaningful proposition in your terminology, so far I am not seeing any need for something else than experience itself to exist (i.e. for something that is experienced nor for someone who experiences), without the introduction of further basic axioms.

 

[True Scotsman]

Not so fast!
I was just trying to get a clear idea of the terminology used, for the time being.

Now, as your most basic axiom is "existence" (actually, I am not even sure that a word can be an axiom?), your second one appears to be "experience", and since "experience exists" is a meaningful proposition in your terminology, so far I am not seeing any need for something else than experience itself to exist (i.e. for something that is experienced nor for someone who experiences), without the introduction of further basic axioms.

There is a need, but I don't want to get into it in this thread as it would contradict the purpose I started it for which was just to learn your first premise. I would love to discuss it another time though.

 

[quatona]

OK.

Personally, my most basic axiom can´t seem to be represented in any of the languages I am capable of speaking.
The grammar of languages themselves already are based on certain axioms, and this fact excludes the representation of axioms that aren´t reconcilable with them.
In particular, I find the necessity to use nouns in order to make a meaningful statement in English (or any other language I am more or less familiar with) quite unfortunate. My most basic axioms involve processes, not objects.

 

[quatona]

There is a need, but I don't want to get into it in this thread as it would contradict the purpose I started it for which was just to learn your first premise. I would love to discuss it another time though.

That´s fine. The reason for asking was not that I wanted to criticize or tackle your approach - it was merely to find out to which extent I agree.

 

[lesliedellow]

OK, I see. Does that mean that you don't have a fundamental starting point and are you saying that knowledge is not hierarchical in nature?

I am saying that reality is far too messy to be systematised.

 

[True Scotsman]

I am saying that reality is far too messy to be systematised.

OK. This may seem like a strange question but to make it concrete for me, would you describe your knowledge as a skyscraper with each floor being another layer of higher level concepts over lower level ones or more like a village spread out with each building being a concept.

 

[Paradoxum]

Not quite.

Let me see if I can make it more concrete for you. Picture your knowledge as a sky scraper with the lower level concepts on the bottom and getting higher level as you go up each floor. Now What I'm looking for is not the basement or the foundation or even the footer but the bedrock the whole building rests on. Does that help.

I think I know what you mean.

As you said, I suppose it would be 'existence'.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

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?

My starting point is: I think, therefore I am.

 

[lesliedellow]

OK. This may seem like a strange question but to make it concrete for me, would you describe your knowledge as a skyscraper with each floor being another layer of higher level concepts over lower level ones or more like a village spread out with each building being a concept.

My knowledge is a village full of a lot of ten storey buildings, rather than one 1,000 storey building. One such building might be called mathematics, with arithmetic on the ground floor and Riemann manifolds on the top floor. Another building might be called programming, with 20 line Basic programs on the ground floor and 2,000 line memory managers on the top floor.

 

[True Scotsman]

My knowledge is a village full of a lot of ten storey buildings, rather than one 1,000 storey building. One such building might be called mathematics, with arithmetic on the ground floor and Riemann manifolds on the top floor. Another building might be called programming, with 20 line Basic programs on the ground floor and 2,000 line memory managers on the top floor.

OK that analogy works really good. Thanks for answering my weird question.

Robert

 

[Resha Caner]

I am saying that reality is far too messy to be systematised.

I would have to agree. I'm not sure I can give a fundamental axiom that would be satisfactory. But, were I to try, it would be of the nature: God is the first cause.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I would have to agree. I'm not sure I can give a fundamental axiom that would be satisfactory. But, were I to try, it would be of the nature: God is the first cause.

So then, define "God"

For instance: Does Goes have any kind of physical material existence?

 

[variant]

Finding myself alive and conscious.

 

[Gladius]

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?

Wow, Philosophy on the Philosophy board, how extraordinary.

I'm torn between matter (however tiny it ends up being divisible into) and mind (or consciousness).

Problem is that we may eventually determine that mind is generated from matter, or that matter is as ethereal as mind (at which point there is no distinction).

Hey, what can I say, it's a pretty old problem.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Wow, Philosophy on the Philosophy board, how extraordinary.

I'm torn between matter (however tiny it ends up being divisible into) and mind (or consciousness).

Problem is that we may eventually determine that mind is generated from matter, or that matter is as ethereal as mind (at which point there is no distinction).

Hey, what can I say, it's a pretty old problem.

Have you explored quark matter? It is billions of times hotter and denser than atomic stuff we call solid. It is an infinitely superconductive Fermi liquid and excludes magnetic fields.

If you have a hydrogen proton the size of an orange, the electron is like the orange seed flying around 2.5 miles away.

Quark matter is that entire 5 mile sphere filled with boiling hot electrified orange juice lava!

 

[Gladius]

Have you explored quark matter? It is billions of times hotter and denser than atomic stuff we call solid. It is an infinitely superconductive Fermi liquid and excludes magnetic fields.

If you have a hydrogen proton the size of an orange, the electron is like the orange seed flying around 2.5 miles away.

Quark matter is that entire 5 mile sphere filling with boiling hot electrified orange juice lava!

Apart from not being a theoretical physicist, I'm also far from a maths genius, which pretty much relegates me to nodding my head like I have a clue about this stuff.

However, I believe the broad gist of it is they keep theorizing smaller and smaller divisions and causes of matter, so that the components of matter will soon be indistinguishable from a mental concept (if it already isn't)!

Upon which it may be argued that the whole universe came about through what we currently call thought/mind (now don't jump on me God people, I didn't say who's).

Aren't Philosophy and Physics two interesting rabbit holes?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Apart from not being a theoretical physicist, I'm also far from a maths genius, which pretty much relegates me to nodding my head like I have a clue about this stuff.

However, I believe the broad gist of it is they keep theorizing smaller and smaller divisions and causes of matter, so that the components of matter will soon be indistinguishable from a mental concept (if it already isn't)!

Upon which it may be argued that the whole universe came about through what we currently call thought/mind (now don't jump on me God people, I didn't say who's).

Aren't Philosophy and Physics two interesting rabbit holes?

Interesting mountains to move

Neat things particle colliders have found: The matter we are made of is compose of the lightest type of quarks the universe can make stable.

There are 2 heavier types of matter and 3 types of antimatter that the universe can support.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Existence and consciousness make good metaphysical axioms for me, but I'd say that I'm a human being living a human life while not quite axiomatic nevertheless functions as a philosophical premise for me on which a great deal of my knowledge rests. It is perhaps to a small extent an inductive conclusion from my life experience, but functions much like a foundation, since so much other knowledge rests on this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ViaCrucis]

Most of how I engage with matters of my faith and in that relate to the world around me is theological, not philosophical. As my intro to philosophy instructor put it (well, paraphrasing), theology is based on revealed knowledge, it assumes a revelation of some sort; philosophy is inquiring of knowledge. Theology presumes, philosophy inquires.

As such the foundational presupposition for how I engage the world around me is a theological one. It begins with the presumption of God and that this God has been made known, in particular, through the person of Jesus of Nazareth, confessed to be the Christ. Etc.

Which isn't to say that I don't "philosophize", I do that plenty. Getting into the how and why of what I believe is as much philosophical as it is theological.

So for example I'm not particularly convinced by philosophical "proofs" of God. While I find certain arguments interesting, for example the Ontological and Cosmological Arguments, they are less groundwork for believing and more interesting things to think about. And as such I'm more likely to think of my how/why of faith in the Kierkegaardian (and no, I'm not particularly knowledgeable of Kierkegaard's body of work) language of a "leap to faith", that faith fundamentally can't be found in reason, that faith isn't rational; it is a non rational leap.

I'm less likely therefore to think in Scholastic terms of the interplay of reason and faith. And more likely to think of reason and faith as independent; reason addresses the world that I can know rationally and empirically, faith addresses the world I can't know empirically or rationally, and which may not exist at all. So calling faith unreasonable, irrational or (as I prefer) non or trans-rational isn't bothersome to me.

It's why I'm a stickler for being exceedingly rational in my approach to matters such as science, history, etc; and simultaneously believe in those things pertaining to my religion even though there is a recognizable absence of empirical data by which to verify that such things are, in fact, objectively true.

I understand that some would call that cognitive dissonance. And maybe it is.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Resha Caner]

So then, define "God"

ViaCrucis provided some good thoughts in post #39 that you might want to read, for I'm in much the same camp as he.

Asking to define "God" (a person - or rather, 3 persons in one essence) is, for the most part, a meaningless question to me. I can see defining a "god" (a class of being), and I would use Luther's definition from the large catechism: "A god means that from which we are to expect all good and to which we are to take refuge in all distress."

For instance: Does Goes have any kind of physical material existence?

I see "physical" and "material" as two different things. The first asks if God can interact with us, and the answer is yes. The second asks if God has become incarnate, and again the answer is yes, per Jesus.