The Axioms of Your Life

[Birdjaguar]

So far all of the axioms mentioned have been either metaphysical or epistemological, but it strikes me that axioms of ethics should also be given equal weight. Some ethics can be justified though observing nature, but at other-times this can be a flimsy backbone.

To that end I add the following axiom:
In a world with multiple agents with moral perception, one should strive to behave by the moral rules of the consensus of all such agents.

Of course I expect many people do not agree with this axiom. For instance, many people believe morality should come from God.

i like an ethics one, but how would what you proposed work in RL?

Ii would not expect agreement on all of these.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't think so - I think that reason can be derived from first principles without having to bring in an explicit axiom to cover it.

Then again you probably mean something else when you say 'reason' than me.

Reason: the application of inductive and deductive processes (built into our brains) on what our senses respond to. If you divorce those processes from our sensory apparatus, you end up with mathematics.

How do you get from "I exist" to reason?

 

[Kyriakos]

Im not sure if the "real world" exists at all, since it seems at least more plausible to guess than only a finite number of percieved worlds exists (a human world for humans, alien for alien etc).
This doesnt mean that the outside world is not important though, since inevitably "man is the meter of all things", or at least you can have that view, nomatter that it is an axiom(a) and not something purely logical.

As for my axiomata, they all have to do with the mental world i have. I have decided that i am 90% introverted, and my relations in the world will not dissallow that ever. However even a 10% is enough for all external experiences

 

[Birdjaguar]

Without an "I", "self", "atman" or other sort personal reference point, the experiences and musing usually tied to those points have little meaning.

And the question you raise is a good one: How much can I trust my senses? There is ample evidence for choice here. This is where we begin to choose our axioms.

Does our ability to think improve or diminish our trust in our senses?

 

[Fifty]

I just don't fundamentally get this weird methodological posture that laypeople (i.e. people who aren't educated in the relevant sub-fields of philosophy [yes birdjag i know that philosophy is just word games that you understand completely and is no better nor worse than pulling your views from a hat etc. etc.]) take towards stating "a worldview", that somehow it should follow an (extremely logically and proof-theoretically naive) model of a proof.

I guess this thread is for people "stating their axioms" though, not seriously considering what on earth this exercise has to do with anything at all.

Kudos to Perfy though for his usual incisiveness and insightfulness, managing to put in one short sentence one of the major reasons this exercise makes no sense.

 

[Narz]

Ok everyone, Fifty has pulled the "haha, I am more educated than you fools, watch me sneer" card, I think it's time we all go home now & stop trying to think about life. Only people with a $50K undergrad degree are qualified to do that.

Re : Perf's post. I don't agree that "I (we) don't operate on consciously accessible axioms."

Perhaps some of our axioms aren't ever consciously accessible but certainly some of them are, probably even most.

If the exercise isn't useful to you why post in it? Maybe it's useful to some people. Maybe it's just a waste of time. But anyone with more than 1,000 posts on an Internet forum has no business reprimanding others about wasting time.

Speaking of wasting time I wonder which is the better phrasing, "anyone with more than 1,000 posts on an Internet forum has no business" or "no one with more than 1,000 posts on an Internet forum has any business". I think the latter sounds a little better.

 

[Narz]

Without an "I", "self", "atman" or other sort personal reference point, the experiences and musing usually tied to those points have little meaning.

I guess "I exist" is so basic an axiom I didn't even think to mention it. How could I not exist & still experience?

Does our ability to think improve or diminish our trust in our senses?

Probably diminishes. Take many people making extreme dietary changes for instance. They often trust a philosophy of diet laid out in some book over their actual physical responses to the changes. Thought also allows one to ignore physical sensation almost completely for a long time. I mean, if someone told me to sit in a chair for 5-10 hours a day & focus on my sense I think I'd go a bit insane. But throw a computer with internet access on that table & all of a sudden I barely notice my back hurting or other sensations until they became fairly intense.

I suppose ideally our ability to think can enhance our sensory experience of life, letting us contemplate & cultivate certain sensations. I can't imagine an animal enjoys food or sex for example as richly as a human.

Overall thinking definitely diminishes trust of our senses though. I mean, non-thinking creatures don't have a choice, they must obey. Humans can question our senses/instincts which is both good & bad.

 

[Fifty]

Ok everyone, Fifty has pulled the "haha, I am more educated than you fools, watch me sneer" card, I think it's time we all go home now & stop trying to think about life. Only people with a $50K undergrad degree are qualified to do that.

Look, obviously for a given academic subject, there will be a difference between how those who are educated in it and those who don't approach it. I didn't say anywhere that people who aren't educated in philosophy have no business thinking about it, all I said is that I've noticed that they tend to unreflectively adopt this methodological posture that I think is weird and without any rationale that I can discern.

If the exercise isn't useful to you why post in it?

Because some people in this thread (though, of course, not all!) might want to consider, to themselves, whether this exercise makes any sense.

 

[Narz]

Look, obviously for a given academic subject, there will be a difference between how those who are educated in it and those who don't approach it. I didn't say anywhere that people who aren't educated in philosophy have no business thinking about it, all I said is that I've noticed that they tend to unreflectively adopt this methodological posture that I think is weird and without any rationale that I can discern.

Can you state exactly what you find wrong with the OP's question? I mean what possible harm could come from people contemplated upon & then stating what they think their axioms are?

Because some people in this thread (though, of course, not all!) might want to consider, to themselves, whether this exercise makes any sense.

If you "don't think it makes sense" why don't you just come out & say why it doesn't rather than beating around the bush?

 

[Narz]

BTW, shouldn't this topic be in Off Topic? I don't see what it has to do with either science or technology (except maybe relating to a discussion of artificial intelligence or something).

 

[warpus]

So far all of the axioms mentioned have been either metaphysical or epistemological, but it strikes me that axioms of ethics should also be given equal weight. Some ethics can be justified though observing nature, but at other-times this can be a flimsy backbone.

IMO ethical considerations stem from axioms (like everything else), but aren't themselves axioms.

 

[warpus]

Reason: the application of inductive and deductive processes (built into our brains) on what our senses respond to. If you divorce those processes from our sensory apparatus, you end up with mathematics.

How do you get from "I exist" to reason?

You could figure out deductive reasoning by examining the world, and building a case that certain things hold true, time and time again.

I'm not exactly sure what historical events lead to somebody laying the framework for deductive reasoning, but I would point to that, if I had more time.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I just don't fundamentally get this weird methodological posture that laypeople (i.e. people who aren't educated in the relevant sub-fields of philosophy) take towards stating "a worldview", that somehow it should follow an (extremely logically and proof-theoretically naive) model of a proof.

The purpose is actually simple: we all have individual world views and those world views are rooted in fundamental beliefs that cannot be proven. My goal is a discussion about those axioms that we hold as "true enough" to build upon. If you had actually read the OP you wouldn't have made the error bolded above. I have not made any statement that world views are logical or provable. I said that they are build upon some number of axioms. i choose my words quite carefully. For one so well skilled in the philosophical arts, I would have thought your attention to the details of language would have kept you from such an obvious error.

**A worldview is the sum total of everything that one “knows” about the Universe – all your instincts, memories, thoughts, inferences and deductions, true or false or in between. A worldview is necessarily personal
and subjective. Mine will almost certainly not be the same as yours even if we have points of congruency.

You are welcome to participate constructively in this thread, but if your only additions are going to be negative, combative and non constructive, please do not post.

 

[Gogf]

My goal is a discussion about those axioms that we hold as "true enough" to build upon.

Uh... what? I see three huge problems with this as the premise for a thread:

1. That's not what "axiom" means.
2. Even if that was what axiom meant, or if you were to use some other made-up word instead of axiom so that you could still talk about what you wanted to talk about, how is this event a remotely coherent concept? How can we possibly ever evaluate whether or not a first principle is true, let alone "true enough" (whatever that means).
3. How can we possibly have a discussion about our first principles? I really don't see how this can progress beyond just stating what they are.

 

[Bill3000]

I mean there must be certain conditions necessary for it to occur & probably certain non-random things about it (I'm just guessing, I don't know anything about it). I'm not sure if I really believe in true randomness.

Nope, they're truly random; hidden variable theories have been empirically proven false through experiment. Sorry dude, but atoms don't spontaneously decay for a reason.

For that matter, your "axiom" doesn't prevent magical thinking at all - it endorses it. Magical thinking is done precisely through that type of thinking of "everything happens for a reason." Magical thinking is the causal reasoning that looks for correlation between acts or utterances and certain events - e.g. since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one. Absolutely no scientific reasoning involved.

 

[warpus]

3. How can we possibly have a discussion about our first principles? I really don't see how this can progress beyond just stating what they are.

I thought the point was to list "ours" so that we can then compare them, much like a 6th grade class might compare body parts on a school trip out to the woods.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Uh... what? I see three huge problems with this as the premise for a thread:

1. That's not what "axiom" means.
2. Even if that was what axiom meant, or if you were to use some other made-up word instead of axiom so that you could still talk about what you wanted to talk about, how is this event a remotely coherent concept? How can we possibly ever evaluate whether or not a first principle is true, let alone "true enough" (whatever that means).
3. How can we possibly have a discussion about our first principles? I really don't see how this can progress beyond just stating what they are.

You may have a problem with this as a premise for a thread, but the thread does exist in spite of your objection.

1. Your definition please.
2. I am not advocating a discussion about what is true or proving that any of these axioms are true. I am only advocating a discussion of what fundamental principles or axioms people use as the basis for their world view. Proving such things seems beyond the scope of CFC.
3. That's exactly what I asked for in the OP

But once those have been posted, why couldn't they be discussed. I could ask you why you have A on your list and you could then respond.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I thought the point was to list "ours" so that we can then compare them, much like a 6th grade class might compare body parts on a school trip out to the woods.

Yes, and body parts tend to provoke discussion.

 

[Gogf]

1. Your definition please.

A premise which is accepted without justification.

2. I am not advocating a discussion about what is true or proving that any of these axioms are true. I am only advocating a discussion of what fundamental principles or axioms people use as the basis for their world view. Proving such things seems beyond the scope of CFC.

You're misunderstanding. The point is that it doesn't make any sense whatsoever for an axiom to be "true enough," because if we had some way of evaluating whether or not an axiom was true it wouldn't be an axiom.

So of course proving such things is beyond the scope of CFC. Proving such things is beyond the scope of activities that make any sense whatsoever.

3. That's exactly what I asked for in the OP

You want people to just list beliefs they have? I would hope that most threads are about encouraging some sort of intellectual interaction, but this is basically equivalent to asking "what is your political compass score?" and then yelling at anybody who tries to discuss anything other than what their specific score is because that's "off topic." What kind of discussion, exactly, do you expect to arise from such a thread?

But once those have been posted, why couldn't they be discussed. I could ask you why you have A on your list and you could then respond.

Because that kind of conversation doesn't make any sense at all. Axioms don't have justifications, because if they did, they wouldn't be axioms. How can we possibly have a discussion about why we believe things that we believe without justification?

 

[Souron]

I thought the point was to list "ours" so that we can then compare them, much like a 6th grade class might compare body parts on a school trip out to the woods.

I need a double take emoticon.

What kind of 6th grade school field trips did you go on?

PS: I also object to the suggestion that this is a contest.