MetaMetaphilosophy

@BrightNoon,

So that's the philosophy of the philosophy of what philosopy is about - the why of why do we ask why? I think it's funny...in a :perplexed: sort of way.

@iconoclast,

Brightnoon,

Does any philosophical solution depend on someone making an unfounded assumption? Sometimes. But that's not a philosophy, that's opinionated statement. But in that lies a problem with philosophy? that it's taken more as a "well (as a matter of fact) in my opinion" rather than "my supposition is this and can be supported by." The uninformed but opinionated person is an immensely problematic person.

I think that those less acquainted with philosophy tend to make very axiomatic statements, but as people become more familiar with the concepts and practice, they gradually infer with better knowledge on the subject and make more intelligent and well rounded suppositions.

But I think you strike at an ontological issue rather than an essential problem. Where does it all start? If you say that the ontological origins of philosophy lie in the axiomatic statements of people, I'm sure there would be some huge paradoxes made. I'm not inclined to accept that.

@VideCorSpoon,

Videcorspoon:

Does any philosophical solution depend on someone making an unfounded assumption? Sometimes. But that's not a philosophy, that's opinionated statement.

The only difference between a philosophy and an 'opinionated statement' as you say, is that the former contains more complex, though no more valid, arguments. Whether or not falsehood (statements of truth) is deep or superficial makes no difference as to its falsehood.

I think that those less acquainted with philosophy tend to make very axiomatic statements, but as people become more familiar with the concepts and practice, they gradually infer with better knowledge on the subject and make more intelligent and well rounded suppositions.

I agree, but only as 'intelligent' and 'well-rounded' mean more complex. The logical foundation of the finest philosopher is not any better than that of the meanest forum flamer, just more persuasive (usually).

But I think you strike at an ontological issue rather than an essential problem. Where does it all start? If you say that the ontological origins of philosophy lie in the axiomatic statements of people, I'm sure there would be some huge paradoxes made. I'm not inclined to accept that.

I don't see what you mean? Isn't an ontological issue, which is insoluble and omnipresent a rather essential problem? Maybe you mean that this does not have to be an obstacle for philosophizing. That is true, but consider this; logic is not a requirement of thought. In other words, philosophy that denies the problem, philosophy that beleives in truth, is bad philosophy, in my opinion; it is hypocritical. Of course, there are alternatives to denial that allow one to continue.

@BrightNoon,

I have to disagree with you on your comment on the difference between philosophy and an opinionated statement. Opinionated statements are immensely more complicated than philosophical notions simply because of personal bias, uneducated assumptions, etc. which are all underline factors. Validity has barely any relevance though. You notions on "falsehood" assume that there is some definite definition of false. It fails to both account for relativistic interpretations of truth and falsity and the functioning of truth functional logical sub-systems.

That you agree about the "axiom" statement but only so far as "intelligent" and "well rounded" means more complex, thats agreeable. But complexity seems a problematic attribute. When complexity becomes part of the equation, it infers some sort of grasp of a subject beyond the average understanding and requires a good deal more to comprehend it. Personally I think complexity in a statement usually means that something could not be explained in simple and casual terms, or the writer want to express some form of epideictic display (flourished demonstrations of writing). But then look at the term I just used? epideictic. As to logical foundations, that's an interesting way of thinking about it. Does this mean that a more informed person is just more persuasive and not factually correct most of the time?

As to the ontological comment, the context of the ontological origins of philosophy was in my mind? like ontological metaphysics ontological (primacy of substance, origin of being, etc.) As to the logical connotations, I don't follow your suppositions.

@VideCorSpoon,

I have to disagree with you on your comment on the difference between philosophy and an opinionated statement. Opinionated statements are immensely more complicated than philosophical notions simply because of personal bias, uneducated assumptions, etc. which are all underline factors.

What is an unbiased statement, or a biased statement; the difference between the two is an arbitrary convention. The opinionated statement seems less complex than the reasoned argument, the philosophy, simply because it may rest on itself, or on perhaps a few other premises. The premise of any argunment is ultimately invalid (without provable validity), but philosophies hide this in their length and complexity. E.g: compare the statement "chinese people are smart" to the philosophic system espoused in A Critique of Pure Reason.

Validity has barely any relevance though. You notions on "falsehood" assume that there is some definite definition of false. It fails to both account for relativistic interpretations of truth and falsity and the functioning of truth functional logical sub-systems.

Let me respond by quoting myself, "The only difference between a philosophy and an 'opinionated statement' as you say, is that the former contains more complex, though no more valid, arguments. Whether or not falsehood (statements of truth) is deep or superficial makes no difference as to its falsehood." Indeed, validity has no relevance because there is no such thing as validity, precisely because of the relativity of everything. My original post was in response to your statement that opinionated statements were distinguished from philosophy by their reliance on 'unfounded assumptions'; as there is no validity, all assumptions are unfounded; some are just more elaborate and conplex than others.

@VideCorSpoon,

Mr. Bentham has the opinion that only sentient life forms with the ability to experience pain and pleasure should be included in the moral calculation. Mr. Kant has the opinion that rational life forms should be included in the moral calculation. The Aesthete has the opinion that the unbridled pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of boredom precludes any need for a moral calculation.

Their opinions, utilitarian, deontological, and hedonism are all found in the philosophical literature; but they are based from an unfounded assumption. Each start from a different assumption (rationality/nonrationality, pain/pleasure receptors, happiness/boredom) and they argue their points from there, but who's to say that Bentham, Kant, or the Aesthete's starting points are any less "founded" than the others.

@BrightNoon,

Brightnoon,

But opinions never really rely solely on themselves. There are influences that effect those opinions that are unknown to the other person. At least when it comes to philosophical notions, there is some common grounding there. As to your notions on logic, that in itself is axiomatic. Truth functional logic does not require provable validity, only implied? and even then that is stretching it. Logic is a closed system. But interestingly enough, your comment on comparing the statement "Chinese people are smart" to Kant's treatise Pure Reason is problematic because that relationship is understood personally rather than academically.

That you infer from an axiomatic statement to begin with is not enough to suppose that there is "no such thing as validity." Is this not an unfounded assumption in itself? Also, the "relativity of everything" does not negate the possibility of validity.

The reiteration of your point at the end is again a point that seems very problematic.

BrightNoon wrote:

My original post was in response to your statement that opinionated statements were distinguished from philosophy by their reliance on 'unfounded assumptions'; as there is no validity, all assumptions are unfounded; some are just more elaborate and conplex than others.

I don't know... this seems the text book example of an axiomatic statement. Though whats up in the air is what you practice.

@VideCorSpoon,

Victor Eremita: I agree, that is exactly my point.

videcorspoon: 'there is no such thing as absolute truth/validity' is not an axiomatic statement, because it asserts nothing, though it appears to. It is a negative statement; as nothing can be proven true in absolute terms, the appelation 'true' has no meaning; hence, there is no such thing as truth, except as that very (meaningless) idea.

I belive we are in agreement, we've just had a misunderstanding. Otherwise, according to you, there could be no statements which are not axiomatic, including yours admonishing mine. An axiomatic statement, as I understand it, is one which asserts that 'this is so and so'. I am merely saying that 'this is not so and so', without any implication as to what 'this' in fact is in light of it's no being 'so and so'. It is purely negative.

@Victor Eremita,

Victor Eremita wrote:

Mr. Bentham has the opinion that only sentient life forms with the ability to experience pain and pleasure should be included in the moral calculation. Mr. Kant has the opinion that rational life forms should be included in the moral calculation. The Aesthete has the opinion that the unbridled pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of boredom precludes any need for a moral calculation.

Their opinions, utilitarian, deontological, and hedonism are all found in the philosophical literature; but they are based from an unfounded assumption. Each start from a different assumption (rationality/nonrationality, pain/pleasure receptors, happiness/boredom) and they argue their points from there, but who's to say that Bentham, Kant, or the Aesthete's starting points are any less "founded" than the others.

Exactly. I'm going to have to side with you and Bright on this one. As Bright noted: "The only difference between a philosophy and an 'opinionated statement' as you say, is that the former contains more complex, though no more valid, arguments. Whether or not falsehood (statements of truth) is deep or superficial makes no difference as to its falsehood".

If we were to presumptuously state that a person's opinion is less valid than one with philosophical understanding, we would be committing an ad hominem fallacy.

However, I do see where Vide is coming from. Because the notion is backed by supposition, it gives the impression it is more thought out (and perhaps more valid). At least we can make a better judgment of the value of the notion if we are given an explanation. Whereas, with a flat opinion, we aren't given the thought pattern of the one making the notion. It is natural to want to see what is 'operating in the back' so to say, so I'm sure most would rather the opinion backed with philosophical understanding.

@Zetherin,

Brightnoon,

An axiom is basically a statement taken to be true without any evidence to support it. Like a Spinozian self evident truth. So when you say "there is no such thing as absolute truth/validity," you are supposing as an axiomatic statement. It asserts exactly what it says. The following support you give are themselves axiomatic and lend no weight towards that support. But there is nothing wrong with axiomatic assertions, it's only problematic in philosophical discussions.

That you believe we are in agreement, there may be some misunderstanding. Though some of what you say follows, I do not agree with some of the underline points you suppose. But this is just the nature of discourse. It's the finer points that I'm interested in as well as the encapsulating topic.

I do not suppose that there "could be no axiomatic statements which are not axiomatic." I would not suppose it that way? that statement says "axiomatic statements are axiomatic statements." An axiom is an axiom. That seems epideictic.

But I do agree with your definition of an axiom, that "this is so and so." Your reasoning is? albeit? a bit problematic. What I gather is that because you flip the truth value, it does not qualify as an axiomatic statement. Again, there is some epideictics at play here.

@VideCorSpoon,

An axiom is basically a statement taken to be true without any evidence to support it.

What statement has evidence to support it, which evidence itself does not require evidence and so on ad infinitum? Therefore, as I said, all statements would be axiomatic.

I do not suppose that there "could be no axiomatic statements which are not axiomatic." I would not suppose it that way? that statement says "axiomatic statements are axiomatic statements." An axiom is an axiom. That seems epideictic.

That would be epideictic, however, that is not at all what I said. I said "...according to you, there could be no statements which are not axiomatic..."

But I do agree with your definition of an axiom, that "this is so and so." Your reasoning is? albeit? a bit problematic. What I gather is that because you flip the truth value, it does not qualify as an axiomatic statement. Again, there is some epideictics at play here.

My point is simply this. The idea of truth requires proof. The burden of proof lies in the positive, not in the negative. No such proof can ever be found. To negate a statement does not assert a reality, it merely asserts that there is no such reality. If you like to call that axiomatic, very well, but then I say your 'axiomatic' has no meaning at all. You might as wel call it a flibberglaster statement.

I suppose you could imagine that when I said "there is no truth", I actaully meant, "there is no truth, pending evidence to the contrary."

@BrightNoon,

The finer points of an axiom have to do with the inclusion of any statements within the confines of a given argument/statement/paper/thesis/etc. that deal with the issue. Take Spinoza Ethics as an example. Before he delves into his treatise, he underlines definitions and axioms developed in earlier work. You point out that an axiom requires evidence which would require evidence. But there is a correct and intricate nature in the use of philosophical axioms. Spinoza's use of axioms (i.e. All things that are, are either in themselves or in something else) are axioms because they are delivered in the context of the treatise without any proper support for those suppositions. Therefore, all statements are not axioms.

I also agree that previously mentioned statements in post #11 are epideictic. Hence the problem. The problem may be in the original phrasing.

As to your response and "the idea of truth requires proof," though I agree with that, I don't believe that that view is supported in your previous comments. In fact, you attribute truth as "bad philosophy" and "hypocritical" (Brightnoon #4) Simply, it does not follow. If you wish to amend your views, I see no problems with that because this is a continuing discussion that evolves conceptually.

@VideCorSpoon,

Philosophies which claim to be true are hypocritical because they conveniently forget the criterion for truth (there mission), which ensures that truth cannot ever be found. This view of mine is unchanged. you are dodging the issue; an axiom is a statement which is assumed to be true, analagous to Kant's practical reason. The truth of any statement, whether it rests on others or not, ultimately rests on the same assumption. In other words, dudeuctive reasoning is ultimately based on intuitive reason.

I also agree that previously mentioned statements in post #11 are epideictic. Hence the problem. The problem may be in the original phrasing.

Your misquotation generated the epideictic problem, not my statement. Whose phrasing are you talking about?

@BrightNoon,

Perhaps the problem lies in that you are not catching the ironic twist in your own statement. I'll leave it at that. Good stuff though.

@BrightNoon,

I believe the term at use here is redundant, because I define philosophical methodology as a way to refine our most fundamental questions, rather than a means to find answers. If you ask a geologist to define her discipline, you should receive a very clear-cut response. Ask the same of a philosopher, and you're in for quite a wavy oration.

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;24561 wrote:

I just wanted to post this thread, titled as it is, to demonstrate the essential problem with all philosophy, logic, etc. Any 'solution' ultimately depends on someone making unfounded assumptions.

There are never (but as religious 'beliefs') any 'solutions', no once-and-for-all answers.
Philosophy appears to be, more than anything, 'critical thought'.
It is a way to examine concepts/existence and perhaps 'beyond'. Understanding and wisdom are a continually unfolding process of enquery, inquiry and the application of 'creative critical thought'.
So, being built on illusions and smoke is not a problem with "all" philosophy (it is locally pragmatic at times), just 'poor' philosophy that is ego driven.

@zefloid13,

zefloid13 wrote:

I believe the term at use here is redundant, because I define philosophical methodology as a way to refine our most fundamental questions, rather than a means to find answers. If you ask a geologist to define her discipline, you should receive a very clear-cut response. Ask the same of a philosopher, and you're in for quite a wavy oration.

A philosopher is a lover of truth.
There is nothing wavy or uncertain about it.
Truth simply and clearly is!

[CENTER]TRUTH
TRUTH IS[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Truth is life without uncertain difference.
Truth is the foundation of all equations.
Truth is more simple than thought.
Truth is the light of a new dawn.
Truth is equal, united and free.
Truth is Grand Unification.
Truth is absolute certainty.
Truth is hidden by theory.
Truth is clouded by faith.
Truth is black and white.
Truth is what we seek.
Truth is the solution.
Truth is self-evident.
Truth is everything.
Truth is up to you.
Truth is oneness.
Truth is the cure.
Truth is justice.
Truth is good.
Truth is right.
Truth is =.
Truth is.
Truth.
=
MJA[/CENTER]

@VideCorSpoon,

All philosophy rests on the assumption that causality exists.

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

I suppose you could imagine that when I said "there is no truth", I actaully meant, "there is no truth, pending evidence to the contrary."

This is what gets me... You assume the universal truth of the nonexistence of universal truth. If no statement is true throughout the entirety of existence, then the first clause of this sentence is not true somewhere, hence something is universally true. Or, rather, you start with an axiom that assumes its own negation.

I also find it strange that you appeal to possible "evidence to the contrary," perhaps to make your absurd statement more mild. Evidence, by its very nature, assumes the validity of empirical observances and axioms assuming its universal validity, which the first part of your statement negates any such truth.

Finally, I find it ironic that, in assuming the nonexistence of truth in general, you disqualify the absolute validity of truth statements generated by logic. Yet, in arguing the results of your philosophy, you use logic liberally.

Philosophy Forum

MetaMetaphilosophy

Quick Links

My Account

able2know