Metaphysics - Idealism without woo-woo

[Mandibil]

Heya all

I have prepared a youtube video on my metaphysics. I would love to hear you fine people's opinions about it.

[Cleric K]

Thanks Mandibil,

I'd like to invite you to go even deeper

When you say "there's no way for the mind to experience the black external world, the 'thing in itself'", this is an assertion. Not only that a separate world is postulated but also the impossibility of access to that world is postulated.
But then how do we know at all that such a world exists? If by definition it can't be known?
I understand that experiences meet us as something independent, clearly we don't have control over them. But what exactly in the experiences/perceptions themselves gives us the motivation to postulate a hidden world behind them that is by definition inaccessible?

You have rightly called it an axiom. We simply decide to believe that it is so.

Now the question is at what point point this belief becomes certainty? How can we be absolutely certain that there really is a world where the thing in itself is active and that we are forever stuck on "our side"? Even if by definition we can't know if such a world exists?


PS: Just to save a few posts, I'll say upfront, that the fact that we don't control the perceptions does not in itself prove that there's a separate and inaccessible world. The most it proves is that we don't know (from our current perspective) the causes of perceptions but this does not exclude the possibility that these causes can be found at some other point within the world of perceptions.

[Mandibil]

Thanks for checking it out and replying.. i'll comment:

I'd like to invite you to go even deeper

"Like" is not a good argument in philosophy. "Going deeper" is exactly the temptation I am warning about and - I believe - is mostly the source of human suffering.

"there's no way for the mind to experience the black external world, the 'thing in itself'", this is an assertion.

No - assertions I would say are appeals to experience, not to inaccessibility to experience

But then how do we know at all that such a world exists?

That is what I argue. There must be a world (axiomatically from the void in the center of experience) but it is exactly inaccessible as the first principle for any insight is experience. Otherwise I am violating my own axioms.

what exactly in the experiences/perceptions themselves gives us the motivation to postulate a hidden world behind them that is by definition inaccessible?

it is not the experience that points to a "hidden" world, it is the presence of a "void" circumferenced by experience, that points to that

You have rightly called it an axiom. We simply decide to believe that it is so.

No, it is just an inaccessible void, just accept it. There is no need for belief, it just follows from the first axiom as a necessity imho.

Now the question is at what point point this belief becomes certainty? How can we be absolutely certain that there really is a world where the thing in itself is active and that we are forever stuck on "our side"? Even if by definition we can't know if such a world exists?

I cannot argue for certainty. That would need a reference for experience and that is not available

[Cleric K]

No, it is just an inaccessible void, just accept it.

OK. I accept it

Let's go deeper - not in the void but into what is accessible to experience.
My goal will be to clear the ground a little more.

How does one arrive at an axiom? What is an axiom?
It is a thought expressing certain idea.
Where does that thought come from? From thinking.

Why one speaks at all about a World? For simplicity, let's imagine a state of being, as much free from any preconceived ideas, axioms, etc., as possible. To make it easier - disregard the contents of the senses, as long as we imagine a physical world associated with them.

We are faced by a World of experiences or perceptions - colors, tones, smells, tastes, feelings, etc. A great unknown. We don't know what causes the perceptions. But still, we experience ourselves as something that is having these perceptions. As soon as I think about a perception I split the World into two - the perception itself and my concept, the meaning I connect to that perception through the thought.

Now this peculiarity of thinking leads to all kinds of splits known in philosophy - I/World, I/not-I, object/subject, self/other, mind/matter, being/non-being, etc., etc.
What is the common thing between all these? It is that they are all the result of thinking. Neither of these is an apriori fact of existence. The only absolutely certain thing is that there's a thinking process which produces thoughts as these.

So thinking produces the axioms. How? Either by producing thoughts about perceptions or by producing purely abstract thoughts - in other words thinking perceives itself. This is what abstract thinking is - we are engaged in perceiving our own thoughts.

One such axiom could be "thinking exists". It is something that is absolutely certain - as long as we think. Even if we try to prove "thinking does not exist" we'll be formulating thoughts about it and in this very act we are contradicting what we've set out to prove.

I hope that so far it is clear that thinking is the starting point for any philosophical knowledge of the World. Before object/subject, inner/outer, there's thinking - even before thinking conceptualizes itself.

There is no need for belief, it just follows from the first axiom as a necessity imho.

Now that's circular logic. We already established that the axiom is already a product of thinking. It is one of the countless possible thought-fruits that thinking can produce. To make this more visible consider: "'God exists' is an axiom. Then it is no longer a question of belief because it follows directly from this first axiom as necessity". I suppose you won't agree with the above axiom. Just in the same way, anyone can say that "the void is inaccessible" is exactly as arbitrary as "God exists".

So the question is whether the thoughts we produce reflect self-evident truths or we are choosing (even if unconsciously) that certain thought will be the fundament of our thinking experience, while disregarding all other alternatives.

It was for this reason that I wanted first to direct the conversation towards thinking itself. Because both "God exists" and "the void is inaccessible" are products of thinking. Thinking is the only certain thing underlying both axioms. This is something that I wanted to point attention too - that there's (often quite unclear) thinking activity even before we choose an axiom as foundation. If we are able to experience our activity at that point, we are in position to examine the palette of all possible axioms and trace how we landed exactly on the one we chose.

So do we agree so far that at the root of our existence as knowers is the thinking process?
I wanted to clarify these things in order to avoid oscillating around the central point, while being confused about the source of the problem.

Now that hopefully we've cleared the ground a little more, can I paraphrase your conjecture like this:
"Forgetting about axioms and philosophical trains of thought - just as a description of direct experience, we simply can't trace how thoughts pop into existence. So I experience something akin to a void from where thoughts emerge. I perceive the thoughts that emerge from the thinking process but when I try to follow these thoughts back from where they came, I face only oblivion. And further, I think that this same void contains the causes for all other perceptions."

With our more fundamental understanding about the centrality of thinking, would you express yourself in the above way?

I just wanted to synchronize our understanding before going further.

[Soul_of_Shu]

FYI ...The presentation from Matt Segall that I just posted separately, also seems to pertain to the further explication of this thread.

[AshvinP]

Good discussion. This is a central dispute among idealist worldviews. Is the 'thing-in-itself' inaccessible, in principle, to our experience? Or can we trace our perceptions and thoughts back to their Ground and know that Ground in its fullness?

Now the question is at what point point this belief becomes certainty? How can we be absolutely certain that there really is a world where the thing in itself is active and that we are forever stuck on "our side"? Even if by definition we can't know if such a world exists?

I am weary about "absolute certainty" with regards to anything.

Cleric, would you say that it is very likely we can directly know the Ground? Would you leave open the possibility that, whatever realms of supra-conscious experience and knowledge we may reach, there is some possibility of ideation 'left over' which will eternally remain "unconscious" ("unconscious" being the realm of contents which are both sub-conscious and supra-conscious)?

[RehabDoc]

I would strongly suggest that consideration be given to the architectonic philosophical system of Charles Sanders Peirce and recognize the deep dangers of Nominalism that suggest that an individual has access to the full truth. The truth is actually only asymptotically approachable and it is only approachable through the interactional efforts of a community of inquirers who work together to zero in on the truth. In fact, Peirce provides a clear means of approaching the nature of reality through a scientific evolutionary process metaphysics.

[RehabDoc]

Be wary of any claim that access to the full truth is obtainable purely through individual understanding. That is about the best way of recognizing ego gone awry and the dangers of dogmatic claims. Yes, this may be one way of 'fixating belief' (which include the way of tenacity, the way of imposed authority, the way of 'that sounds good to me' or a priori, and the way of science)--clinging to dogma with tenacity or because some powerful authority (eg. the state) says it is so. But it is not generalizable because its applicability is restricted to the private domain of the individual and it is not considered to be falsifiable through a process of examination by a community of inquirers, as is the case in the way of science.

https://waysofknowing.info/lecsite/peircelec.html

http://thespaceofreasons.blogspot.com/2 ... elief.html

[Cleric K]

OK, my bad, probably the word 'absolute' is inappropriate. To be honest, I have no idea how exactly it is used in strictly philosophical context

I had something fairly simple in mind.
Think of the words "thinking exists". Not just as something external but the actual experience of pronouncing the words in the mind. Now the question is, is there any way I can produce this thought such that its meaning is experienced as false?

There is such a way as long as one imagines the 'thinking' in 'thinking exists' as something external. For example, if I my thought has meaning of the sort of 'some spooky activity exists', it is completely natural to doubt that I'm expressing something certain. But when 'thinking' in 'thinking exists' does not point to something external but back to the very thinking process which produces the verbal experience in my mind, there's no way that this can be false. The thought itself is a testimony for the livingly experienced thinking process.

Of course, one must have the good will to observe his own thinking while producing this thought. Because it is truly possible to repel any feeling for responsibility for the thoughts. For example, one can say 'the brain thinks, I don't know if thinking exists as such'. But this is simply avoiding the facts that can be experience, as long as one wants to. We are not assigning some mystical, metaphysical status to thinking - just its living experience when we say "I think" or any other thought.

Cleric, would you say that it is very likely we can directly know the Ground? Would you leave open the possibility that, whatever realms of supra-conscious experience and knowledge we may reach, there is some possibility of ideation 'left over' which will eternally remain "unconscious" ("unconscious" being the realm of contents which are both sub-conscious and supra-conscious)?

In short - as long as a being experiences evolution in time - yes, there's always something left over. The reason is that every state of being along the stream of evolution can be considered a "frame" of existence. As such, it has only relative existence to all past and future "frames", plus the "frames" of all other beings. I have some additional ideas in this direction but I'll let them ripen a little more.

[Mandibil]

How does one arrive at an axiom? What is an axiom?

An important aspect, I should point out more clearly in the presentation. My definition would be:

"An aspect of my experience I have never found not to be the case"

It is a thought expressing certain idea.
Where does that thought come from? From thinking.

I don't understand, can you elaborate plz ?

Why one speaks at all about a World? For simplicity, let's imagine a state of being, as much free from any preconceived ideas, axioms, etc., as possible. To make it easier - disregard the contents of the senses, as long as we imagine a physical world associated with them.

Maybe I am a bit slow, but I don't understand what you are trying to say ? Disregard. the senses does not sound philosophical to me. You needed to use your senses to read my message, to type on your keyboard etc...

We are faced by a World of experiences or perceptions - colors, tones, smells, tastes, feelings, etc. A great unknown. We don't know what causes the perceptions. But still, we experience ourselves as something that is having these perceptions. As soon as I think about a perception I split the World into two - the perception itself and my concept, the meaning I connect to that perception through the thought.

Meaning is not experienced but a subjective judgment ... meaning would be a part of epistemology or further down the line, not metaphysics


So thinking produces the axioms. How? Either by producing thoughts about perceptions or by producing purely abstract thoughts - in other words thinking perceives itself. This is what abstract thinking is - we are engaged in perceiving our own thoughts.

Thoughts are not perceived, they are in consciousness or meta-consciousness ... based on perception/cognition

One such axiom could be "thinking exists". It is something that is absolutely certain - as long as we think. Even if we try to prove "thinking does not exist" we'll be formulating thoughts about it and in this very act we are contradicting what we've set out to prove.

You are equivocating the terms mate. Thinking cannot exist. Ontology of existence must be based on sense data / concepts

The rest is a bit confusing and circular sounding, so i'll leave it at that, if u don't mind