Properly Basic Beliefs

[dms1972]

My thoughts on philosophy are that it should not raise unnecessary questions, lead to doubts, and make our everyday experience of the world seem suspect, or uncertain. If a philosophy does this it is in my view a poor philosophy.

A lot of philosophy just seem to me to be unsucessful attempts to escape from the conundrums that a previous philosopher generated.

A good deal of modern 'philosophy' is not genuine philosophy at all but can be argued to be in many cases psychological in origin.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My thoughts on philosophy are that it should not raise unnecessary questions, lead to doubts, and make our everyday experience of the world seem suspect. If a philosophy does this it is in my view a poor philosophy.

That sounds practical, dms, which I can appreciate, but then who decides what is ultimately necessary or unnecessary?

[You don't have to answer--it's more of a rhetorical question. ]

2PhiloVoid

 

[dms1972]

My thinking is that philosophy at times generates many of its difficult (epistemological) questions. They are not questions non-philosophers would be asking. They had, and have perhaps other questions, problems. Some philosophies therefore increases people burdens. This is wrong and not the purpose of philosophy which originally sought to say consoling and practical things about the causes of our greatest griefs as in Boethius - the consolation of philosophy.

That said without having read a lot of philosophy, my own thinking has lead led me on a rabbit trail (or down a rabbit hole!!). It depends a lot on the individual, some people are more prone to 'live in their head'.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My thinking is that philosophy at times generates many of its difficult (epistemological) questions. They are not questions non-philosophers would be asking. They had, and have perhaps other questions, problems. Some philosophies therefore increases people burdens. This is wrong and not the purpose of philosophy which originally sought to say consoling and practical things about the causes of our greatest griefs as in Boethius - the consolation of philosophy.

That said without having read a lot of philosophy, my own thinking has lead led me on a rabbit trail (or down a rabbit hole!!). It depends a lot on the individual, some people are more prone to 'live in their head'.

I can understand that too, but in my estimation, "to think for one's self" is not necessarily to think merely 'by' one's self. I find the latter is typically what gets people into trouble in their lives. This latter approach often goes by the more common name of 'ignorance.'

Then again, I say the above as someone who has been in the field of education.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[SkyWriting]

Write down the number. It can not be wrong. Don't trust yourself. Trust the number. That is BASIC.

Which part? The color, the word, the letters, the sound the letters make, this forum,
your knowledge, your sanity, my sanity, the numbering system you use....which parts are basic?

 

[juvenissun]

Which part? The color, the word, the letters, the sound the letters make, this forum,
your knowledge, your sanity, my sanity, the numbering system you use....which parts are basic?

It is kind of interesting. If we are trying to communicate with aliens over distance, then we should use the very basic type of expression, so it would minimize misinterpretation. If so, how do write the message? How do we say "blue" to them?

 

[SkyWriting]

It is kind of interesting. If we are trying to communicate with aliens over distance, then we should use the very basic type of expression, so it would minimize misinterpretation. If so, how do write the message? How do we say "blue" to them?

They used a hydrogen or helium atom with a picture of Adam and Eve.
No colors. Evidently it was sponsored by Direct TV.

 

[juvenissun]

They used a hydrogen or helium atom with a picture of Adam and Eve.
No colors. Evidently it was sponsored by Direct TV.

So this six pieces of information must be very basic.

 

[SkyWriting]

So this six pieces of information must be very basic.

I'd say they would qualify. Voyager 2 gave away
many more of our secrets for those wishing to invade
and enslave or eat humans. Odds are that alien life
would be hungry and consider themselves higher on
any food chain than us.

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/sceneearth.html

 

[dms1972]

I can understand that too, but in my estimation, "to think for one's self" is not necessarily to think merely 'by' one's self. I find the latter is typically what gets people into trouble in their lives. This latter approach often goes by the more common name of 'ignorance.'

Oh I agree, to think "by oneself" would be to read nothing, and listen to no-one. I probably err on the side of reading too much and somewhat arbitrarily granting authority to this writter and that one. Why do I do this? I suppose to avoid being told what to read, and what not to read (as has happened at least a few times in my life).

I find myself in a world with at least four, and perhaps as many as nine or ten religions (depends if we count things like jedi-knights! then we end up with maybe hundreds!) - but personally I don't and think something has to have been around a long time to count as a religion. Which begs the question why don't I live up-to-date? With regard to some things I do - for instance I have a mob phone - I don't send smoke signals. And thats ok - it impractical to send smoke signals.

So now I just try to find people who seem to be qualified to write on what they are talking about, not necessarily what everyone is reading, and not necessarily what other christians say I should read, and not necessarily what is up-to-date. Then I read others who can maybe show me if there is an imbalance in someone writtings. I pray because well I don't want to end up in a cult either and I need help to find whats best to read.

But the question remains - "how can I know for sure someone knows what they are talking about?" - "Who should I give attention to?"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh I agree, to think "by oneself" would be to read nothing, and listen to no-one. I probably err on the side of reading too much and somewhat arbitrarily granting authority to this writter and that one. Why do I do this? I suppose to avoid being told what to read, and what not to read (as has happened at least a few times in my life).

I find myself in a world with at least four, and perhaps as many as nine or ten religions (depends if we count things like jedi-knights! then we end up with maybe hundreds!) - but personally I don't and think something has to have been around a long time to count as a religion. Which begs the question why don't I live up-to-date? With regard to some things I do - for instance I have a mob phone - I don't send smoke signals. And thats ok - it impractical to send smoke signals.

So now I just try to find people who seem to be qualified to write on what they are talking about, not necessarily what everyone is reading, and not necessarily what other christians say I should read, and not necessarily what is up-to-date. I pray because well I don't want to end up in a cult either.

But the question remains - "how can I know for sure someone knows what they are talking about?" - "Who should I give attention to?"

I concur with your general openness to reading, and such an approach may indicate that you're not relying merely on your own steam to figure out the world. For other people, though, the problem is that if they read at all, they read only with the goal of reaching certainty, without the recognition that reading might only enable them to become informed at a human level as far as is humanly possible. There is a difference between logical certainty and one's being informed, as I'm sure you already know.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[dms1972]

For other people, though, the problem is that if they read at all, they read only with the goal of reaching certainty, without the recognition that reading might only enable them to become informed at a human level as far as is humanly possible. There is a difference between logical certainty and one's being informed, as I'm sure you already know.

Thats a good point. Very much agree.

I apologise if I derailed the discussion a bit.

My understanding of a properly basic belief is something that one can't marshall hard evidence for, but which is required for normal thought to continue. I don't think it means most basic. But something everyone normally holds to be the case. For instance

That there is a real past.
That there are other minds.


I suppose philosophically my position is I don't have one at least I am not sure what it is - I like to be able to move around a bit. I am something of a philosophical nomad.

Anyway a christian can always pray about these questions. Though I don't think we are promised answers to every question we pose. There are times we have to go without answers.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok elopez theres traditional foundationalism, and coherentism. Coherentism is more modern I think, up to date with empirical cognitive psychology. There are no basic beliefs, after all a basic belief is supported by auxilliary beliefs such as "I exist" or "language is meaningful" etc. The sense of self is dependent of our memories. There's always a context to our beliefs and statements that form them.

Foundationalism still makes sense in some respects so, especially in the sciences with empiricist leanings, but I am not sure about math and set theory etc, thats harder to grasp. But its not to be taken to extremes. We can know how to do addition aged 3 or 4, but not set theory. So its paradoxicel, we can have "knowledge" to some degree without knowing the foundations.

And the hardcore search for foundations is a bit odd, if we suppose we "know" in the first place (2+2=4 for instance), why do we need to ground this belief is it already counts as knowledge we are trying to ground? If not-F then not-K, this proposal cannot be true for we can have "K" (e.g I know 2+2=4) without a degree in philosophy.

Still, without all this struggle where would we be? In a cave somewhere hiding from tigers.

 

[elopez]

Basically in that the neural net is a living, growing, processing of information, a set of dynamics which I think should be considered as being included in the whole scheme of justification. In other words, justification should be more than 'just' the recognition of what seem to be logical connections of data.

Is this to say that there are related, relevant, beliefs "neighboring" one another? For example, on coherentism, a set of beliefs A, B, C, and D are considered coherent if all those beliefs are relevant to one another. So if A is my dog is happy, B is my dog loves me, C is my dog knows me, and D is there are too many rocks in my front yard, these set of beliefs are not coherent as D is irrelevant to the rest.

No, I wouldn't say that justification is 'based' on 'mere' evidence; especially since evidence is a multi-faceted concept and rather difficult to pin down at an ontological level. No, I think that knowledge emerges from our mentally formulated (and evolving) categories of mental understanding, as Kant might put it.

As far as self-deception is concerned, I agree that there is a risk if justification is all internal, which I don't think Coherence has to be. In fact, I think part of the problem is to think of justification as dichotomous between Internal or External, when in fact the actual dynamics of human learning (and resulting bodies of knowledge) are likely involved with a bit of both.

Well so far you haven't explained how justification could be external, only how it is internal. Even appealing to appealing to knowledge as coming from mentally formulated categories of mindsets is strictly an internalist view. Though this was something I was thinking as well, that it may be a matter of false dichotomy when we seem to use both.

If "knowledge emerges from our mentally formulated (and evolving) categories of mental understanding", then the justification for a claim of knowledge of this sort just seems to mean it is the mental states of the individual. A type of 'mental internalism'. Refering to this mental internalism is why I was asking if justification is based on mere evidence, for if it is not, then of course that begs the question of what justification exactly may be, yet it also suggests that justification is mere evidence as it is the mere mental states one has that constitute as justification.

But going back to your previous inquiry, I would affirm that a 'web' is a nice, but generic and abstract, model for human knowledge. But even with that, there is always going to be a risk that we can be deceived, if not by our own selves, then by an externally malevolent Cartesian Deceiver who has captured the power of our brains...etc. In the end, it will all depend on whether we decide to take the Red Pill or the Blue Pill.

And so, which did you take?

 

[dms1972]

.

 

[dms1972]

.
sorry trying not to interupt the conversation with my comments.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That wold be ratonaism, I think.

Empiricism would hold that sensory beliefs are basic, I think.

I may habve it wrong.

 

[dms1972]

There may be a bit of confusion in the first post, or its combining several notions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

="elopez, post: 68601494, member: 270546"]Is this to say that there are related, relevant, beliefs "neighboring" one another? For example, on coherentism, a set of beliefs A, B, C, and D are considered coherent if all those beliefs are relevant to one another. So if A is my dog is happy, B is my dog loves me, C is my dog knows me, and D is there are too many rocks in my front yard, these set of beliefs are not coherent as D is irrelevant to the rest.

I think this is a good, basic description you've given, elopez; however, the coherency of the system could be affected by lower level considerations that are rationally present but not empirically present, such as perhaps your supposing E) that your dog thinks you like rocks [something you probably couldn't prove as a stand alone premise, but yet seems to cohere as a rational possibility]. Although we would be tempted to say that D seems incoherent on an empirical level, we could claim that it is coherent at a lower level, if a rational supposition is present in the system, because in a system of Coherence the relationships between beliefs can be acknowledged as also having a "degree" of Coherence (Baergen, p. 68). Some beliefs will cohere at high levels, some at lower levels. If we think some idea or proposition has nothing to commend it and or contextualize it, then it is very likely "incoherent."

Reference
Baergen, Ralph. (1995). Contemporary Epistemology. Harcourt Brace College Publishers: Fort Worth, TX.

Well so far you haven't explained how justification could be external, only how it is internal. Even appealing to appealing to knowledge as coming from mentally formulated categories of mindsets is strictly an internalist view. Though this was something I was thinking as well, that it may be a matter of false dichotomy when we seem to use both.

I think in the case of Coherence, the external aspects comes into play if a person has within the system some data taken from the outside world and accompanying propositions that explain the coherence. However, I don't think one's personal system of Coherence requires that the system be fully convincing to another person.

If "knowledge emerges from our mentally formulated (and evolving) categories of mental understanding", then the justification for a claim of knowledge of this sort just seems to mean it is the mental states of the individual. A type of 'mental internalism'. Refering to this mental internalism is why I was asking if justification is based on mere evidence, for if it is not, then of course that begs the question of what justification exactly may be, yet it also suggests that justification is mere evidence as it is the mere mental states one has that constitute as justification.

No, I think Coherence would require at the least some data connections in the system that another person could perceive have some kind of ontological presence, whether sensed or not. (This may sound contradictory to what I've said above, but I don't think it's context is the same.)

And so, which did you take?

That would depend on whether or not you think I'm color blind. I assume, otherwise, that it was the the Red Pill I consumed when it was offered to me. And do you think we can trust Morpheus?

2PhiloVoid

 

[dms1972]

.