NEWBIE QUESTION: Can anything be self-evident?
Tommie...@yahoo.com
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Philosophy and political science aren’t my specialty, but I find this
“self-evident” statement troubling. Most people would agree with the
statement as a moral postulate, indeed the “we hold” perhaps indicates
the authors thought it possible someone might differ. I’m not
concerned with the moral truth of this statement, but more with the
assertion that it’s self-evident… Is morality self-evident?
Another example is O’Brien’s interrogation of Winston Smith in 1984.
O’Brien says to Winston “You do not exist”. Winston thought this a
self-evident absurdity. If I don’t exist then how could someone say
it to me… The self-evidence of this absurdity seems a little clearer,
Orwell illustrating doublethink… but still, Winston has trouble
refuting it…
My question is: can anything be self-evident and if so why? Does
self-evidence require a rationale? If so, then was is really self-
evident? If not, how could we judge whether it was self-evident or
not? Can the verity of any thought or statement be “stand alone”…
Must we reject the idea of self evidence completely? What about
stepping in front of a (moving) London bus? Is it self-evident I’m
going to be flattened?
Can anyone guide me here?
Mike
The Golden Rule usually provides moral self evidence. But as you say,
self evidence seems to apply to a group of people and not necessarily
to all men.
Bret Cahill
Yes.
> and if so why?
Because it is a great absurdity for anyone to try to deny a self
evident truth.
That's why GOP "market" economists will always dodge The Question:
> Does
> self-evidence require a rationale?
Actually no.
> If so, then was is really self-
> evident?
Good point.
> If not, how could we judge whether it was self-evident or
> not? Can the verity of any thought or statement be “stand alone”…
>
> Must we reject the idea of self evidence completely? What about
> stepping in front of a (moving) London bus? Is it self-evident I’m
> going to be flattened?
>
> Can anyone guide me here?
What did you think of my "Athiest of the Gods" post?
Bret Cahill
Sir Frederick
There are common evolved neural structures in your and every normal
person's brain, that at low neural network levels evaluates all
qualia (representations) as to 'reality' or not, hence 'self evident' attribute.
'Our' legacy then is in 'our' gene pool. That is self evident.
BOfL
The operative word here is 'self'. We each build up an accumulation of
experiences which reach , what I refer to, as psychic mutation.
Beliefs turn into knowing. Other interpretations really create
paradoxes. The term otherwise should be 'group evident'.
The conflict comes about, when what is self evident to one is not to
another.
May be thats why the political energy mutated into two cells, so they
could compare 'group evidence' from opposing views.(I see that is
being self evident :-).
BOfL
tgde...@earthlink.net
Sure, but you are not being clear in your question. A dictionary
definition would be "obvious", and that doesn't require much
philosophical thought. We pretty much know what it means to be
obvious; it relates to the idea of objectivity, and to common
experience.
If you are looking for a more poetic/spiritual meaning, then you have
to explain what you mean by 'a thought or statement standing alone'.
Do you count the experience of seeing a flower as 'a thought'? If so,
then we could say that a flower is self-evident.
-tg
ZerkonXXXX
I'll try.
The DOI was, in part, a statement of principles or held beliefs. This
should be kept in mind here. So the difference is what IS self-evident
and what is believed to be so. Winston Smith is a self-evident tangible,
moral belief is not.
The principles in the DOI are part of a moral history well understood in
Europe at the time particularly France and England. It's termed 'liberal
humanism' today. These principles were thought to be self-evident since
they were based upon ideas that dated back to Greece, were reflected in
Magna Carta and English Revolution, and at the center of the growing
terrible storm soon visit France. Jefferson did else little than to sum
them up, quiet brilliantly.
Using Orwell as an example in this is interesting. If I remember
correctly, the point in this exchange was existence as it relates to
'public knowledge of' or If no one knows about someone, even though they
really do exist, they do not. Winston's job was to readjust history which
is then said to be self-evident. Self-evidence is what 'The Party' says
is self-evident.
Yes there are self-evident things, both tangible and intangible, and no
'we' do not need to reject self-evidence completely. You reading this is
self-evident. Winston Smith, despite his trouble, was self-evident.
Everything that exists is self-evident. If there is a problem it is what
'we' make of it.
The thought seems to be that all this 'self-evidence' should lead to a
complete, unambiguous and uniform understanding and since there isn't,
nothing is self-evident. The real issue though is conclusions.
Blind men and the elephant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant
BOfL
>
> - Show quoted text -
Logcally, that means it is qualias view of genetic pool. No room for
"you' in that statement. We are all just a bundle of biochemical
interactions. Shame. I was so enjoying my sel...oops my qualia.
Who's qualia??? This takes some getting used to...
C'mon SirF , help me out here, or should that be "qualia some qualia
in this direction"....
BOfL
Rec Room
>Must we reject the idea of self evidence
> completely? What about stepping in
> front of a (moving) London bus? Is it
> self-evident I'm going to be flattened?
> Can anyone guide me here?
The innate templates of our cognitive system (mind, brain, etc) have
already provided us with the regularities of its phenomenal model of
"reality". As you said, step in front of a collection of qualitative
properties conceptualized as a thing called "bus", and you will either
die or be injured. So it's potentially irrelevent whether those
experiences are truly raw intuitions or simply the result of another
substrate of judgements themselves, since their "lawfulness" is
inescapeable.
The interpersonal systems that we were raised in (tribes, societies,
cultures) are variable to an extent and provide the more advanced
inferences, conceptual distinctions, and lingual classifications for how
to interpret the epistemic foundation (phenomenal experience). Language
is a "public" invention, an information medium of the interpersonal
system, not private. Thus humans are connected to each other (forget
solipsism). Quoting Daniel Dennett for a change instead of Wittgenstein,
*The Role of Language In Intelligence*:
"Comparing our brains with bird brains or dolphin brains is almost
beside the point, because our brains are in effect joined together into
a single cognitive system that dwarfs all others. They are joined by one
of the innovations that has invaded our brains and no others: language.
I am not making the foolish claim that all our brains are knit together
by language into one gigantic mind, thinking its transnational thoughts,
but rather that each individual human brain, thanks to its communicative
links, is the beneficiary of the cognitive labors of the others in a way
that gives it unprecedented powers."
posted by Ecce