Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[thrasymachus]

The Beast wrote
I am all for it. “What is” thought concerned with?
Language objectivity. I agree with “what is”. The axiom of “what is” (IMO) transcends language. However, it is formulated by language as ID and propositions (knowledge) to the understanding. It is what Kant said is the intuition of spacetime.
1.- Axiom of “what is.”

As soon as you deploy that "is", you are IN this space and time intuition. The "what is" is entirely bound empirical reality, and for Kant, nothing we can speak of transcends language. The pure forms of reason are evidence of transcendental noumena, but this is an extrapolation from what is witnessed, a "given the way things appear to us, such and such must be the case." But such and such, literally transcends anything meaningful outside of the mere positing or postulation.

But perhaps I missed your meaning.

[The Beast]

1.- Axiom of “what is” same as Axiom of identity same as Axiom of comprehension.
In some Kantian transcendental dialectics, the blank stare into space is defined as the absence of thought or the absence of desire. However, hunger moves the thought. The blank stare might be the norm and thought the contradiction.

[The Beast]

1.- Axiom of “what is” same as Axiom of identity same as Axiom of comprehension.
In some Kantian transcendental dialectics, the blank stare into space is defined as the absence of thought or the absence of desire. However, hunger moves the thought. The blank stare might be the norm and thought the contradiction.

The constructive existence proof has an existential conclusion. This conclusion contradicts or “contrasts” with nonconstructive existence proofs reducing to absurdity the supposition that everything fails to be A (there is something that is A)

[thrasymachus]

The Beast wrote

1.- Axiom of “what is” same as Axiom of identity same as Axiom of comprehension.
In some Kantian transcendental dialectics, the blank stare into space is defined as the absence of thought or the absence of desire. However, hunger moves the thought. The blank stare might be the norm and thought the contradiction.

What Kantian transcendental dialectics is this?

[Stoppelmann]

This topic concerns thought — serious and considered thought, wherever it occurs, and whatever it is applied to.
No other style or type of thinking is considered here.

Also, in this topic, "thought", "thinking", "reason" and "logic" are all effectively synonymous for our purposes here, and should be read as such.

[...]

I will end this first post by repeating the question that defines my search: what are the fundamental axioms of thought?

I got this from reading up in several books because your question intrigued me. I come from a background of problem-solving, rather than thinking, much less talking about how I solved problems, so it is an important question.

An axiom is an unprovable rule or first principle that is accepted as true because it is self-evident or useful. It is a universally recognized truth or a valid truth that does not need proof. The fundamental axioms of reason and thought can vary depending on the philosophical or logical framework one adopts. However, there are a number of commonly recognized principles that form the basis of rational thinking and reasoning.

Principle of Identity: This principle states that a thing is itself and not something else. It asserts that every entity or concept has a distinct identity, and it remains the same throughout its existence. For example, a cat is a cat, and it cannot be simultaneously something else.

Principle of Non-Contradiction: According to this principle, contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. It states that it is impossible for something to be both true and false simultaneously. For instance, a cat cannot be both black and not black at the same time.

Principle of Excluded Middle: This principle states that for any proposition, it must either be true or false, without any middle ground or third option. In other words, there is no middle state between true and false. For example, a cat is either asleep or not asleep.

Principle of Sufficient Reason: This principle asserts that everything must have a reason or cause. It suggests that nothing happens without a cause or explanation. It forms the basis for understanding and explaining events in terms of causes and effects.

Principle of Rational Inference: This principle involves the use of logical reasoning to draw conclusions based on available evidence or premises. It includes principles of deductive and inductive reasoning, such as the law of modus ponens, modus tollens, and various forms of logical inference.

Principle of Occam's Razor: This principle, attributed to the philosopher William of Ockham, states that when there are multiple explanations or hypotheses for a phenomenon, the simplest one is usually the correct or preferred explanation. It favours explanations that require fewer assumptions or entities.

When you read them, it seems just self-evident, but I had to name what is self-evident, which is another thing. These axioms provide a foundation for rational thinking and logical reasoning and seem to be widely accepted and employed in philosophy, mathematics, science, and everyday decision-making processes.

Does this help in any way?

[Pattern-chaser]

I am all for it. “What is” thought concerned with?
Language objectivity. I agree with “what is”. The axiom of “what is” (IMO) transcends language. However, it is formulated by language as ID and propositions (knowledge) to the understanding. It is what Kant said is the intuition of spacetime.
1.- Axiom of “what is.”

I just need to check my understanding here. Are you offering "what is" as an Objective observation? Are you suggesting that Objective Reality is something we could base our thoughts and thinking upon? Or did you mean to refer to something different?

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser wrote
I think there is only one place where thought cannot go, and that is the place where the 'rules of thought' are so incomprehensible to humans that our thoughts simply cannot follow. Otherwise, all venues are possible and acceptable, no?

There are many who hold that truth is made, not discovered. They don't bother to question where thought cannot go. They instead tell us that where it CAN go is really not "going" anywhere. They resist the idea that there is a "beyond" out of which reason doesn't apply. Rather, it is simply impossible to conceive of such a thing, and to try to do so is in the same league as uttering pure nonsense.

So when you are walking along and registering tree here, cloud there, this idea that you have some grasp of what something is outside of the conditions outside the conditions of propositional truth is just wrong. I am a thing. The cloud is a thing. The knowing is over here, my knowing, and the cloud "out there" is only an out there vis a vis me. Remove truth conditions, and there is simply nothing to say.

OK, this topic is about serious and considered thought. It's not really about the boundaries of possible thought, or the aims we might pursue, using our (serious and considered) thought as a tool. I simply wonder what are the axioms, the assumptions, upon which our thinking rests? What are the most fundamental guidelines that our (serious and considered) thoughts and thinking follow?

[Pattern-chaser]

1.- Axiom of “what is” same as Axiom of identity same as Axiom of comprehension.

OK, could you describe these axioms, please, for those (like me) to whom they are not known, or even obvious? Thanks.

[Pattern-chaser]

Does this help in any way?

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that I think you have mapped the direction which this topic must take, for practical reasons. But no, in the sense that I'm not seeking the rules, laws or guidelines, but the axioms (assumptions) upon which these guidelines are constructed.

However, my computer is sited in a conservatory, and the temperature is rising fast. My local time is 13:48, and it's getting very hot — 34° C. Survivable, of course, but not really conducive to serious and considered thought. So I'll try to pick this up tomorrow, before it gets too hot. There is definitely more to say about what you've written here; thanks for taking the trouble.

[The Beast]

1.- Axiom of “what is” same as Axiom of identity same as Axiom of comprehension.

OK, could you describe these axioms, please, for those (like me) to whom they are not known, or even obvious? Thanks.

Obviously. But it is not what you are looking for. Perhaps metarules like:
Axiom 1.- You are what you eat.
Ultimately it is all energy and thought is the translation of energy by the inherited (DNA) methods. The energy provided by good food might have a logical mood in a metasyllogism in contradiction with that of a bad food and by extension drugs and environmental variables. I am suggesting essentialism as the basis for the metaprinciples if so.

[thrasymachus]

Pattern-chaser wrote
OK, this topic is about serious and considered thought. It's not really about the boundaries of possible thought, or the aims we might pursue, using our (serious and considered) thought as a tool. I simply wonder what are the axioms, the assumptions, upon which our thinking rests? What are the most fundamental guidelines that our (serious and considered) thoughts and thinking follow?

Guidelines suggests principles, but I think you are looking for the true bottom line for making an affirmative judgment at all about the world. So you would have to ask what the world is to make sense of this. Is there something foundational and beyond doubt upon which, as you say, "our thinking rests" that assures us that our thinking is really about something?

Look to Husserl. He was an absolutist on the matter of the pure intuitive presence of existence/phenomena. I may be able to doubt that this letter is really from my uncle as it claims, or that it is a letter all (might be a hallucination). But I cannot doubt that there is an event and content laid out before me. "Something" is laid out before me. I call it a letter, merely.

Of course, there are issues in this. But no epistemic assurances, then no "true" thought. The true goal of philosophy is to bring epistemology and ontology to absolute agreement: the knowledge IS also the IS of the tree I see. This would be God's pov....no: POV!

[Leontiskos]

Does this help in any way?

It decisively answers the question of the OP. Good post.

[Sy Borg]

Does this help in any way?

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that I think you have mapped the direction which this topic must take, for practical reasons. But no, in the sense that I'm not seeking the rules, laws or guidelines, but the axioms (assumptions) upon which these guidelines are constructed.

However, my computer is sited in a conservatory, and the temperature is rising fast. My local time is 13:48, and it's getting very hot — 34° C. Survivable, of course, but not really conducive to serious and considered thought. So I'll try to pick this up tomorrow, before it gets too hot. There is definitely more to say about what you've written here; thanks for taking the trouble.

P-C, why is your computer is a conservatory? I can't see the heat and humidity doing you or your computer any favours.

The fundamental basis for at least some of those axioms is probably empathy. You know what life seems like to you and, during formative years, you watch how others operate, compare notes and notice pattens. Then you extrapolate from your own experiences. Hence all the arguments. While we humans are all much more like each other than we are like representatives of other species, there are obviously differences in how we view the world because our species relies on pluralism. Getting all members of the "hive" to acknowledge the worth of those with different roles bizarrely seems to be beyond human capabilities.

Identity: We know what it is like to be us so we extrapolate that notion to others. Failure to do this results in seeing others as objects or philosophical zombies.

Sufficient reason: This stems from being human, and having an enhanced capability to discern cause and effect. Making rational inferences is an extension of this. For babies, life is much more chaotic, unable to understand why things happen. As children, more in understood and, often, that which is not understood is treated like magic. The failure to apply sufficient reason manifests in a failure to move on from black boxing the unknown as magical.

As for non-contradiction, this entirely depends on language and how individuals interpret semantics. Most paradoxes strike me as just being word games.

The excluded middle also has issues, often misapplied by painting graded situations as black & white.

Occam's razor is a practical tool to avoid over-attachment to speculative ideas, but it's not to be taken too much to heart. Reality is often insanely complex and the simplest solution is not necessarily the correct one.

[Stoppelmann]

The fundamental basis for at least some of those axioms is probably empathy. You know what life seems like to you and, during formative years, you watch how others operate, compare notes and notice pattens. Then you extrapolate from your own experiences. Hence all the arguments. While we humans are all much more like each other than we are like representatives of other species, there are obviously differences in how we view the world because our species relies on pluralism. Getting all members of the "hive" to acknowledge the worth of those with different roles bizarrely seems to be beyond human capabilities.

Identity: We know what it is like to be us so we extrapolate that notion to others. Failure to do this results in seeing others as objects or philosophical zombies.

Sufficient reason: This stems from being human, and having an enhanced capability to discern cause and effect. Making rational inferences is an extension of this. For babies, life is much more chaotic, unable to understand why things happen. As children, more in understood and, often, that which is not understood is treated like magic. The failure to apply sufficient reason manifests in a failure to move on from black boxing the unknown as magical.

As for non-contradiction, this entirely depends on language and how individuals interpret semantics. Most paradoxes strike me as just being word games.

The excluded middle also has issues, often misapplied by painting graded situations as black & white.

Occam's razor is a practical tool to avoid over-attachment to speculative ideas, but it's not to be taken too much to heart. Reality is often insanely complex and the simplest solution is not necessarily the correct one.

This does explain why, as a problem solver, I wasn’t able to explain what basic thoughts I was assuming when I was solving problems, because empathy is usually a necessity when nursing, but so too is the distance between the patient and the nurse, which involves differentiation and knowing you are not the sufferer. Evidence based medicine is sufficient reason for a nurse to go by and stating clear observations that do not contradict the reality being passed on, and do not have an inherent contradiction is important. The excluded middle is especially important when you approach emergences, where you have to decide on a course of action and can’t dilly-dally with indecisiveness.

Especially when dealing with psychiatric illnesses, there can be multiple explanations or hypotheses for an observed phenomenon, but the simplest one is usually taken as the preferred explanation, until more evidence contradicts that preference. So, all in all, I was acting on fundamental axioms of thought without realising, as we all do to some degree. It is when you sit down to think about what you do or how you think that these axioms become helpful.

[Sy Borg]

... empathy is usually a necessity when nursing, but so too is the distance between the patient and the nurse, which involves differentiation and knowing you are not the sufferer. Evidence based medicine is sufficient reason for a nurse to go by and stating clear observations that do not contradict the reality being passed on, and do not have an inherent contradiction is important.

That's an example of where one might see a paradox - that nurses need to be both empathetic and maintain distance - but it's just a balance. If a nurse was to operate without empathy, evidence based medicine would only cover part of the job but perhaps neglect psychological factors, eg. reassurance, gentleness, understanding.

I was acting on fundamental axioms of thought without realising, as we all do to some degree. It is when you sit down to think about what you do or how you think that these axioms become helpful.

You are using them as mental tools that allow you to probe areas you might not have examined so closely.