First principles on faith
First principles on faith
The existence or non-existence of (a) God cannot be proven or disproven. Does this however mean that the explicit non-belief that such a God exists is the only possible alternatief to a belief in that God? Think not. There is the possibility of shrugging your shoulders and say "Hu? No idea..." In that case there is no action that expresses a belief nor the explicit rejection of its content. Hence, it would not make sense to claim that such non- action is also a statement of "faith".
If the above is sound, the next question is if it is possible to also passively shrug your shoulders and say "Hu? I don't know.." (nor even really care....) on something like the acclaimed first principle of faith/trust/belief or any other first principle stand-in. Is it?
If the above is sound, the next question is if it is possible to also passively shrug your shoulders and say "Hu? I don't know.." (nor even really care....) on something like the acclaimed first principle of faith/trust/belief or any other first principle stand-in. Is it?
Deep down I'm very superficial
Re: First principles on faith
A quick reply: No, I don't think it possible to cop the "God" question because where first things such as where did I come from, why am I here, etc. are concerned, there are only two possibilities—God or no God—and "Huh?" is simply to choose "no God" without the cojones to come right out and say so.Parodite wrote:The existence or non-existence of (a) God cannot be proven or disproven. Does this however mean that the explicit non-belief that such a God exists is the only possible alternatief to a belief in that God? Think not. There is the possibility of shrugging your shoulders and say "Hu? No idea..." In that case there is no action that expresses a belief nor the explicit rejection of its content. Hence, it would not make sense to claim that such non- action is also a statement of "faith".
If the above is sound, the next question is if it is possible to also passively shrug your shoulders and say "Hu? I don't know.." (nor even really care....) on something like the acclaimed first principle of faith/trust/belief or any other first principle stand-in. Is it?
We can go from there . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
- YMix
- Posts: 4631
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
- Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here
Re: First principles on faith
Why do you deny the existence of a third option? I came from my parents and I have no particular reason to be here. That's as far as I go in such matters and there are more interesting things to do than to ponder your "first things".Marcus wrote:A quick reply: No, I don't think it possible to cop the "God" question because where first things such as where did I come from, why am I here, etc. are concerned, there are only two possibilities—God or no God—and "Huh?" is simply to choose "no God" without the cojones to come right out and say so.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Re: First principles on faith
YMix wrote:Why do you deny the existence of a third option? I came from my parents and I have no particular reason to be here. That's as far as I go in such matters and there are more interesting things to do than to ponder your "first things".Marcus wrote:A quick reply: No, I don't think it possible to cop the "God" question because where first things such as where did I come from, why am I here, etc. are concerned, there are only two possibilities—God or no God—and "Huh?" is simply to choose "no God" without the cojones to come right out and say so.
This is why Marcus is clearly wrong on this subject. He tries to impose a false dichotomy, but in fact "I don't know" is a valid third option. In fact it's the honest answer to most questions, as per Hume.
Re: First principles on faith
I think the "where did I come from, why am I here, etc." are good questions. I remember the "why am I here" question that kind of struck me when I was 5 years old, just walking on the pavement on my way to school. Gave kind of an eerie feeling too. Or the "why am I the conscious self that is me, and not the conscious 'I' from somebody else" that more kids at one point ask themselves.Marcus wrote:A quick reply: No, I don't think it possible to cop the "God" question because where first things such as where did I come from, why am I here, etc. are concerned, there are only two possibilities—God or no God—and "Huh?" is simply to choose "no God" without the cojones to come right out and say so.Parodite wrote:The existence or non-existence of (a) God cannot be proven or disproven. Does this however mean that the explicit non-belief that such a God exists is the only possible alternatief to a belief in that God? Think not. There is the possibility of shrugging your shoulders and say "Hu? No idea..." In that case there is no action that expresses a belief nor the explicit rejection of its content. Hence, it would not make sense to claim that such non- action is also a statement of "faith".
If the above is sound, the next question is if it is possible to also passively shrug your shoulders and say "Hu? I don't know.." (nor even really care....) on something like the acclaimed first principle of faith/trust/belief or any other first principle stand-in. Is it?
We can go from there . .
Those types of questions that tend to remain unanswered or appear unanswerable are maybe "wrong" at some level? Perhaps they can be understood similar to something like "why are things the way they are?", i.e. the answer is in the question already because it is self-referential.
What happens when linear-causal thought finds itself in a dead end street? Well, thought is simply over and returns to questions and issues for which it seems better equipped, such as how to build a bridge or boil an egg.
When thought moved away from such unanswerable "1st order" questions, what happens? Do we slide into a state of 1st-order faith? Do we need some answer that at least provisionally fills the gap? I can't think of any reason why that should happen, nor is there much evidence that human beings always resort to faith-like statements when answers are not available.
Deep down I'm very superficial
- YMix
- Posts: 4631
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
- Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here
Re: First principles on faith
I don't remember asking myself such questions in my childhood.I think the "where did I come from, why am I here, etc." are good questions. I remember the "why am I here" question that kind of struck me when I was 5 years old, just walking on the pavement on my way to school. Gave kind of an eerie feeling too. Or the "why am I the conscious self that is me, and not the conscious 'I' from somebody else" that more kids at one point ask themselves.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Re: First principles on faith
Yes, we do indeed need the answers to such 1st Order questions . . just the nature of the beast so to speak (though a Calvinist would say it's our response to an inborn Sensus Divinitatus).Parodite wrote:. . When thought moved away from such unanswerable "1st order" questions, what happens? Do we slide into a state of 1st-order faith? Do we need some answer that at least provisionally fills the gap? I can't think of any reason why that should happen, nor is there much evidence that human beings always resort to faith-like statements when answers are not available.
And, yes, we always and inescapably must resort to faith/belief, because at the 1st Order of things, that's our only option. We assume some sort of 1st order and reason from there.
Can't, for the life of me, figure out why that should be a problem . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Re: First principles on faith
Marcus wrote:
And, yes, we always and inescapably must resort to faith/belief, because at the 1st Order of things, that's our only option. We assume some sort of 1st order and reason from there.
That is false. There is absolutely nothing forcing somebody to make this decision, and other options do exist. Numerous philosophers have provided alternatives from the Cartesian method to existentialism.
Re: First principles on faith
Well, to me 1st order of things is more like the fact of being. To ask questions.. of type a) b) c)...with answers available or none.. is secundary.Marcus wrote:Yes, we do indeed need the answers to such 1st Order questions . . just the nature of the beast so to speak (though a Calvinist would say it's our response to an inborn Sensus Divinitatus).Parodite wrote:. . When thought moved away from such unanswerable "1st order" questions, what happens? Do we slide into a state of 1st-order faith? Do we need some answer that at least provisionally fills the gap? I can't think of any reason why that should happen, nor is there much evidence that human beings always resort to faith-like statements when answers are not available.
And, yes, we always and inescapably must resort to faith/belief, because at the 1st Order of things, that's our only option. We assume some sort of 1st order and reason from there.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Re: First principles on faith
Lucky bird ? (Could be another interesting question... (oh no..!) ..why do some children and adults ask themselves certain questions.. and others never do...? )YMix wrote:I don't remember asking myself such questions in my childhood.I think the "where did I come from, why am I here, etc." are good questions. I remember the "why am I here" question that kind of struck me when I was 5 years old, just walking on the pavement on my way to school. Gave kind of an eerie feeling too. Or the "why am I the conscious self that is me, and not the conscious 'I' from somebody else" that more kids at one point ask themselves.
Marcus.. you hear that?? There are people who never bothered themselves with certain questions...
Deep down I'm very superficial
Re: First principles on faith
Yeah, I heard it and am surprised as well. Don't know that I started pondering such stuff at five years old but certainly by ten. But then my mother had us in Sunday School long before that. Maybe such questions come naturally to those raised with the transcendent?Parodite wrote:Marcus.. you hear that?? There are people who never bothered themselves with certain questions...
Dunno . . though I doubt our dogs are bothered with such stuff . . .
And while we're at it, Rhap, why are some people so hung up on or afraid of the word "faith"? It's not a particularly religious word . . like, you know, "I have faith in my investments" or "I have faith that if I plant a garden I'll reap a harvest." What's up with that? Now that's what shocks me . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
- Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
- Posts: 2160
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm
Re: First principles on faith
You grasp as a little monglet that life can turn up shitty and you want do-overs. Simple as that.......'>.......
She irons her jeans, she's evil.........
Re: First principles on faith
Then wouldn't everyone be a Buddhist?Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:You grasp as a little monglet that life can turn up shitty and you want do-overs. Simple as that.......'>.......
Say what?
Sorry, Liz, but you're as enigmatic as ever . . put it in plain English for me . . old age, y'know . .Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:You grasp as a little monglet that life can turn up shitty and you want do-overs. Simple as that.......'>.......
No, no . . the questions begin long, long before one finds out that life can suck bad enough to want another go-'round.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
- Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
- Posts: 2160
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm
Re: First principles on faith
No, that's the first bit for me and everything builds out from that. We may be working from entirely different maps, but that's how it works for me......
She irons her jeans, she's evil.........
Re: First principles on faith
Whatever flies your kite, Liz. That said, I think everyone's map is pretty much the same . . kind of a "given" if you will. What matters is where we start 'cause that defines where we expect (or hope) to end up.Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:No, that's the first bit for me and everything builds out from that. We may be working from entirely different maps, but that's how it works for me......
Cheer up . . .
All the bluster and conceit
All the hare-brained indiscreet
Obfuscations and obsessions,
All the ludicrous confessions,
Put them by now, put them by,
Clean them out before you die.
Even though you can’t undo
All the mess that makes up you,
Find a modicum of quiet;
Quash the long uncivil riot
That goes on inside your heart;
Clear the drunks out, make a start.
—Dick Davis
(printed in First Things magazine some years back)
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
- YMix
- Posts: 4631
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
- Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here
Re: First principles on faith
The first time I seriously faced the "mysteries of life" was around the age of 14, when I read Twain's "Mysterious Stranger", which made quite an impression on me. But even then the question was "why do people do what they do?", not "why am I here?".Marcus wrote:Yeah, I heard it and am surprised as well. Don't know that I started pondering such stuff at five years old but certainly by ten. But then my mother had us in Sunday School long before that. Maybe such questions come naturally to those raised with the transcendent?Parodite wrote:Marcus.. you hear that?? There are people who never bothered themselves with certain questions...
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Re: First principles on faith
If one endeavors to speak in terms that are irrefutable and to make no statement that is not rooted in certainty, the following is the only "first principle" that can be maintained:
There exist in this universe 3 elementary cognitions.
Of these, 2 are dual forms, such that one could just as well state that there are 5 elementary cognitions, it makes no difference (0=2, after all).
The first elementary cognition is that of the Interior and the Exterior.
The second elementary cognition is that of Identical and the Different.
The third elementary cognition is the Name.
The singular form of the Name mediates between between the dual forms, such that:
{Interior/Exterior} <> Name <> {Identity/Difference}
These are the universal axioms of all that is cognizable. All else, "Human," "God," "Space," "Time," "Matter," "Energy," "Faith," etc., are Names for complexes of form. They are all reducible to sets consisting of nothing but the elementary cognitions.
There exist in this universe 3 elementary cognitions.
Of these, 2 are dual forms, such that one could just as well state that there are 5 elementary cognitions, it makes no difference (0=2, after all).
The first elementary cognition is that of the Interior and the Exterior.
The second elementary cognition is that of Identical and the Different.
The third elementary cognition is the Name.
The singular form of the Name mediates between between the dual forms, such that:
{Interior/Exterior} <> Name <> {Identity/Difference}
These are the universal axioms of all that is cognizable. All else, "Human," "God," "Space," "Time," "Matter," "Energy," "Faith," etc., are Names for complexes of form. They are all reducible to sets consisting of nothing but the elementary cognitions.
Re: First principles on faith
. . all Greek to me . . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Re: First principles on faith
i suspect he was getting atthe core primitives which is a materialist understanding of human heads and their thinking.
aka his first principles are that we like to categorise things and give them properties and names.
their are things which humans give names to which in themselves may or may not exist as discrete entities.. they could be complex side effects of many other smaller aspects.. like "society" which is the complex side effect of lots of individuals interacting.
is god an entity or is it a concept...your stance on this issue tends to leave you theist or atheist...im in the latter, i consider god a metaphorical concept for reality (physical,emotional ...the whole shebang)
aka his first principles are that we like to categorise things and give them properties and names.
their are things which humans give names to which in themselves may or may not exist as discrete entities.. they could be complex side effects of many other smaller aspects.. like "society" which is the complex side effect of lots of individuals interacting.
is god an entity or is it a concept...your stance on this issue tends to leave you theist or atheist...im in the latter, i consider god a metaphorical concept for reality (physical,emotional ...the whole shebang)
ultracrepidarian
Re: First principles on faith
Dunno . . pretty sparse lacking further perspective from whatever background material he's drawing on . . Aristotelian perhaps . . maybe he'll come back and fill us in . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Re: First principles on faith
Think this is a pretty good model of cognition. We identify similar differences and different similarities (i.e. differences) "in here" within the confines of our bodies and "out there" in the world around us.Dioscuri wrote:The singular form of the Name mediates between between the dual forms, such that:
{Interior/Exterior} <> Name <> {Identity/Difference}
<>Name<> is the "subtitler" that not only labels sense perceptions such as objects, feeling, thoughts... but can also on its own construct imaginary worlds of {interior/exterior <>name<>differences}.
Deep down I'm very superficial
- Miss_Faucie_Fishtits
- Posts: 2160
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:58 pm
Re: First principles on faith
I take that "{Interior/Exterior}" is contextually related to "{Self/Other}", which is the duality I more commonly encounter.....
She irons her jeans, she's evil.........
Re: First principles on faith
And to end up under each others skin? The whole thing messes up.Miss_Faucie_Fishtits wrote:I take that "{Interior/Exterior}" is contextually related to "{Self/Other}", which is the duality I more commonly encounter.....
Deep down I'm very superficial
Re: First principles on faith
So far, the guy's post has elicited an "I suspect," a "Dunno," an " think," and an "I take it."
Clear as mud . . .
Clear as mud . . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin