You might ask, if all beliefs are justified by other beliefs, then where do the first beliefs come from?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You might ask, if all beliefs are justified by other beliefs, then where do the first beliefs come from?I'm not a fan.
I think ideas are justified via a subordinate relationship to physical realities not interrelationships between ideas.
I beg to differ with you; Ideas can be justified by interrelationships between ideas. It all depends on the ideas that give forth justification to a greater idea. Perhaps an example on why ideas an idea cannot be justified by the interrelationship between ideas is called for?I'm not a fan.
I think ideas are justified via a subordinate relationship to physical realities not interrelationships between ideas.
You might ask, if all beliefs are justified by other beliefs, then where do the first beliefs come from?
To each his own reality!
For our brains see not, hear not, feel not, but the electrical signals it has LEARNED to interpret in order to make sense of the physical world!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJmP34WRFKUNo, there is only one reality, and that is the one we live in.
We see, therefore we are blind. We hear, therefore we are deaf.
I largely blame Kant for this nonsense, especially for his idea of things-in-themselves that we can never really know for what they are.
Just because we have a causal means for perceiving the world, that doesn't mean that we don't actually see, hear, or feel what is really there. We might not have instant, effortless, complete knowledge about what we see, hear, or feel, but observation does tell us something about the world, and intepreting this information doesn't mean that we can't be objective.
eudaimonia,
Mark
I beg to differ with you; Ideas can be justified by interrelationships between ideas. It all depends on the ideas that give forth justification to a greater idea. Perhaps an example on why ideas an idea cannot be justified by the interrelationship between ideas is called for?
Philosophy is not bound by the strict rules of empirical science.
Which is exactly what is happening now. Show me where physical reality enters when discussing this idea: I have this idea that that God is a non existent being that lives in our physical world!I am not saying you can't justify an idea with an idea, I am saying that the idea you use to justify an idea must be justified with it's relationship to some physical reality (eventually down the line ideas are about physical reality and justified via that).
Otherwise we can just posit absurd yet mutually consistent systems of ideas to justify themselves.
Did you watch the videos? PLEASE WATCH IT ALL! (pay attention to the part starting at around 4:46): Is Seeing Believing -Part1-BBC Horizon - YouTubemzungu, I am well aware that our power of vision "massages" visual data. That doesn't mean that what we see is so different from reality that we are incapable of objectivity.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Actually you are partly right. The brain does not process every thing the eye sends in electrical signals because it would require too much processing power. So the Brain fills in what it thinks should be there. This leads to many changes going unnoticed by the brain.mzungu you seem to be arguing that because our visual perceptions are misleading some of the time they are misleading all of the time.
But do you believe in evolution? The argument I am hinting at is that people (and other creatures) have visual systems. Such visual systems have survival value (otherwise they would not have evolved). If they have survival they must convey information to the animal about the external world, and generally lead rather than (or as well as sometimes) mislead. Therefore the conclusion "our visual perceptions are misleading all of the time" is false.
mzungu you seem to be arguing that because our visual perceptions are misleading some of the time they are misleading all of the time.
But do you believe in evolution? The argument I am hinting at is that people (and other creatures) have visual systems. Such visual systems have survival value (otherwise they would not have evolved). If they have survival they must convey information to the animal about the external world, and generally lead rather than (or as well as sometimes) mislead. Therefore the conclusion "our visual perceptions are misleading all of the time" is false.
In my opinion it´s enough that perception and interpretation are the LEADING part. I wouldn´t even work with the distinction "correctly leading" vs. "misleading". The whole process is interest-driven (and that´s a good thing).mzungu you seem to be arguing that because our visual perceptions are misleading some of the time they are misleading all of the time.
Nice one! I´m not sure "illusion" is the correct term here, though.Enjoy:
As I see it a problem with pargmatism (theories are 'true' if they work, rather than true because they correspond to facts) seems to be that the utility of theories needs explaining. IOW why would germ theory work if it were not true (factual) that there are germs?At the moment I am toying with the idea to replace "right/objective vs. wrong" by "working/useful vs. not working/useless" as the main criteria of epistemology.
You don´t get the point, GS. It´s always the same problem: You superimpose your paradigms upon other views. I am not saying "they are unreliable".Ok there are optical illusions I we all know that. But next time you cross a busy road I sincerely recommend you do not say to yourself "that means my visual perceptions are all unreliable". In the evolution of ideas, that ones a dodo.
Hang on there - "true" is not part of my idea, it is the framework of yours.As I see it a problem with pargmatism (theories are 'true' if they work, rather than true because they correspond to facts)
Because it corresponds to our concepts.seems to be that the utility of theories needs explaining. IOW why would germ theory work if it were not true (factual) that there are germs?
You missed my point entirely. I am trying to convey to you that what the brain perceives to be reality is nothing more than an interpretation that allows the brain to interact with its surroundings and stimuli.mzungu you seem to be arguing that because our visual perceptions are misleading some of the time they are misleading all of the time.
But do you believe in evolution? The argument I am hinting at is that people (and other creatures) have visual systems. Such visual systems have survival value (otherwise they would not have evolved). If they have survival they must convey information to the animal about the external world, and generally lead rather than (or as well as sometimes) mislead. Therefore the conclusion "our visual perceptions are misleading all of the time" is false.
Enjoy:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?