Things We Can Know Without The Authority Of Science

[MindOverMatter2]

There are things that we can know as self evident; and there are truths that follow necessarily from self evident facts.

Assuming nothing at all, we begin with the mind.

1. I think therefore i am.

2. My thoughts proceed from a regression of past thoughts; therefore there is change.

3. I perceive knowledge that was not always in my knowledge. My knowledge is not infinite, and thus such knowledge could not have all been a product of my knowledge, imagination, or freewill. Therefore there is an objective reality outside of my imagination and freewill, which is giving me knowledge (proof of objectivity or sub-realism).

4. I perceive things that were not always things; as in they were not always real. I perceive a difference between imagination and the reality that is imposed on my senses.
My knowledge of these things present to me the difference between objective reality and non-objective reality. I also comprehend that things have beginnings and endings; and in sensing these changes, i realize that they were not always objectively real. When describing the end of something, we say that it is now nothing, and this only means that something is no-longer present in objective reality.

5. In seeing that my knowledge requires me to admit that my existence is necessarily the object of that knowledge, i am forced to realize the principle of non-contradiction. I cannot both cease to exist and have knowledge of that fact at the same time.

6. In realizing that my knowledge requires my existence, i also come to realize that out nothing comes nothing, since there is no truth, reality, or knowledge, that can be attained out of nothing. Nothing is empty of things and is the opposite of objective truth, and thus only nothing can come from it, since there is no truth or thing in it. It would be a contradiction if things could come from nothing, because it would presuppose that nothing does contain things and is an objective “thing” rather then just an expression “no-things”. Therefore realities come from others realities, including my self. I have to exist first before i can know anything.

7. We have learned that out of nothing comes nothing. Thus existence must precede the knowledge and being of my reality. In understanding this, i also understand that any being that exists for a limited time are in fact not identical with existence. This means that existence is not a necessary expression of their nature and thus the existential cause of their reality and my reality cannot be found in a limited being, since that too requires an existential cause; because out of nothing comes nothing.

8. Thus the reason for reality cannot be found in any nature or thing that is existentially limited. Neither can we explain reality by an infinite regression of beginnings and changes, because this is nothing more than a chain of dependent realities and therefore the existence of that chain has not been accounted for because none of the beings in that chain can explain why there is a chain in first place. Therefore there must be an existentially unlimited, unchanging, un-caused being, that is existence by nature, from which and through which all other limited natures are manifested.

9. There can be no accidents in an “existential cause”, since out of nothing comes nothing. No realities precede that which is existence by nature. A complex entity requires events in order to make an effect since its causality is ultimately an expression of the unity of its parts, and none of the parts can give an ultimate explanation of the motion or the change involved. This is because the parts require the existence and the potentiality of change and motion before those parts can have any explanatory value worth considering.

10. The cause therefore must be very simple, as in, its act cannot be the out come of chance or an accident. It has to be immaterial; since the natural motion of parts first require possibility and potentiality before they can have an effect. Thus we must ask what is the cause of that potentiality and possibility. An existential act must be changeless with out chance or precedent environmental influences. Therefore the act must be a perfect expression of its being, and identical with its being, since its act cannot happen in time; given that it is the cause of time. So, if out of nothing comes nothing, and its act cannot be the product of natural events, then its actions have to be intentional; and this is to say that its act is personal.

To be Continued…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

11. This act, being the cause of all contingent realities, cannot be indifferent or be a product of self preserving desires for something outside of that act such as a desire to eat food or have sex, security, glory or happiness. All self preserving desires presuppose a lack of something that can only be obtain by the pre-existence of objective influences and states being, in which there is possible fulfillment. But there is nothing outside of, or precedent to, an existential cause, since it is necessarily the root cause of all potential beings and all the qualities we perceive in them; such as a desire for sex, security, happiness and glory. Thus such a desire cannot be found in an existential cause or be the motivation for such an act, since it is the cause of such desires. Therefore self preservation, whether physical or psychological, is meaningless to a being that is existence by nature.

The root of all existence cannot lack any perfections that is true of existence; and this is to say that an existential cause cannot create something more then what it is. It is necessarily greater then its effect and is therefore the provider of its fulfillment and nature. The existential cause is necessarily identical with its personal act, and thus its personal nature exists to a perfect degree in comparison to what we understand in ourselves. Thus an existential cause, being the cause of all fulfillment, cannot possibly lack fulfillment; since it exists to a perfect degree. Similarly, an indifferent act cannot give motivation to a timeless personal cause since it would be devoid of all intention to create something which does not already exist. There would be no desire that would justify any reason for our contingent existence. Therefore the only act that can efficiently explain the existence of me, you, and the physical universe, is that the existential cause is pure existential love; and this is to say that, that which exists by nature is love to a perfect degree and thus selflessly shares its reality. It is not motivated by self preserving desires. That would efficiently explain why contingent realities exist. This basically the being the God that is understood by Catholic Church.

 

[Magnanimity]

There are things that we can know as self evident; and there are truths that follow necessarily from self evident facts.

Assuming nothing at all, we begin with the mind.

1. I think therefore i am.

I agree with the first statement above. But, as regards your preamble to #1 and #1 itself, I have to say no way! It’s a shame, really, that the basic battle between idealism and realism never seems to come to a halt with any decent resolution. Nominalism & idealism just seem to abound these days. And here, we have you taking idealism for granted, as if everyone will so easily jump on board.

Etienne Gilson once said, “There is more than one reason for being a Descartes, but there is no reason whatsoever for being a Cartesian.” (or something to that effect) What you’ve outlined in the very beginning above is little more than Cartesianism.

‘Assuming nothing at all’ will by no means obviously get you to the mind as your starting point. The more pre-philosophical starting point, if anything, is the world you observe around you. It is only through introspection anyway that you would ever come to see yourself as separate and distinct and to reflect upon self, etc. To reflect and introspect are mature processes for minds that have some level of experience with the world. Wouldn’t you agree?

“I think therefore I am” is the line that Descartes reduces himself to only after the extensive and laborious (and heavily philosophical) process of “the general overthrow of all [his] former opinions.”

Start with the mind and that’s exactly where you’re probably going to end up–in the mind. I don’t know how many times this lesson has been repeated through the history of philosophy. See here for an excellent exploration of this tendency in philosophical history.

What’s worse is that you had quite a few interesting things to say after #1, but as St Thomas quotes Aristotle in the beginning of On Being and Essence, “A small mistake in the beginning is a big one in the end, according to the Philosopher,” I can’t even get off the ground with you here.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I agree with the first statement above. But, as regards your preamble to #1 and #1 itself, I have to say no way! It’s a shame, really, that the basic battle between idealism and realism never seems to come to a halt with any decent resolution. Nominalism & idealism just seem to abound these days. And here, we have you taking idealism for granted, as if everyone will so easily jump on board.

It depends on what kind of knowledge you are talking about. I am not promoting idealism. I am starting from the mind not as an idealist, but rather as somebody trying to see what we can know as self evident from the position of the mind. Of course, we build up all our conceptual ideas from our senses; and i don’t deny realism. But that is irrelevant, as we are not dealing with scientific truths, but rather self evident truths; since scientific truths are not self evident. In fact it was part of my argument to prove at least a sub-realism from a position of pure epistemology; but there really is no need to consider whether or not there is an objective universe as we perceive it with the senses, because i can prove Gods existence without realism. It is true that it is through being aware of reality that i am aware of my self. So it would seem that starting from the senses is the best place to start. But again, my motive is not scientific, but instead purely epistemic. The fact is, metaphysically speaking, I have to affirm the necessary self evident fact of my existence as a mind before moving on to other knowledge because my knowledge of anything at all is dependent on my existence as a mind. I have knowledge as a mind; and thus i am presented with the first self evident principle of my knowledge and existence. With out self evident knowledge of my own existence, i cannot presume to think that any knowledge i obtain without the mind is real. Thus the mind is the metaphysical starting position in terms of self evident truths, since all other knowledge cannot be obtained without first considering the existence of my mind. From the undeniable existence of the mind, other necessary truths must follow. The advantage with my argument is that a person cannot claim that i must first assume realism or rely on science before my arguments holds any validity.

I would have rather that you made an actual argument instead of arguing from authority and jumping conclusions. But thanks anyway.

 

[Magnanimity]

“I would have rather that you made an actual argument instead of arguing from authority and jumping conclusions. But thanks anyway.”

Ouch. Take it easy there. Maybe I get a little excited when thinking about idealism, so my apologies for being overly general in my critique.

Don’t get me wrong, I completely support your intentions here, and I also agree with where you end up in your conclusions. The problem is just that Descartes can’t get you there.

But, since you’re requesting specific arguments, let me just bring up two non sequiturs which I believe undermine your argument.

The first, and weaker, objection you’ve probably heard before. The knee jerk reaction to Descartes’ ‘indubitable’ axiom is that he makes an unwarranted leap. Where does he get the “I” - the single subject, a separate and distinct mental entity to be distinguished from…, well, anything really? At best, so this classic criticism goes, Descartes may have as his indubitable axiom, “Thinking is going on.”

It may be though that there’s a successful Cartesian reply here, so let me move on to what i take to be the more serious charge. It’s with your #3. You seem to make a gigantic leap. Up until your “therefore” of #3, it seems to me that Spinoza or any other type of pantheist could generally affirm your propositions.

Iow, how exactly have you ruled out a modal or emanational pantheism? It just looks like an enormous gap in the reasoning because up until the very moment that you conclude that there is an objective reality outside your mind, you’ve not in any serious way separated yourself from a pantheistic ontology.