The Mystery of Primal Ideas

Think Stop ^ | Unknown | Thnk Stop

[grist for the mill]

The Mystery of Ideas

"When we discern justice, when we discern truth, we do nothing of ourselves, but allow a passage to its beam." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Where do these ideas come from? Think about how you know what is true. Eventually you will go back to a few basic assumptions. Think about what you believe is beautiful. Where did this idea come from? Observing where the concept came from will guide you back to a sensation that probably sparked it. How about justice? What does it matter if a criminal gets two rather than three years? There are many ideas that we just can't find the sources of. These are the primal, the uncaused ideas. These are the ideas by which all other ideas form.

How do we know that we know the truth? How do we know that what we see is real? How do we know that logic conforms to reality? Where did logic come from in the first place? How do we know our memory is reliable?

I ask how we know anything at all. If you look about you and question the validity of what you see you will find within yourself no absolute certainty that what you see is real. Do it right now. Look around the room you are in and truly try to figure out a way to prove absolutely to yourself that what you are seeing is as real as your own existence. You have congruent memory about the past, yet those are just memories of perceptions. You have other people who say they see the same thing as you, but you don't know if their perception is correct either. There is the logical congruence of objects following certain laws and which can be predictable, yet we don't know if logic is valid. There is just a large possibility that our perception is correct, given many factors. All we can do is accept that our perception is valid, given that it is very probable that it is so. Our perception must be one of our basic axioms of reality if we are to claim to know reality at all. Even the absolute skeptic must accept some validity of perception. We can test the validity of our perception after making other assumptions.

One way to explain where these primal ideas came from is with Natural Selection and evolution.

Doesn't it seem memory would be useful to the primal hunter? Wouldn't logic be useful to the ancients in society and in their daily struggle to survive? It seems that the concept of truth would be needed to discern between lies and truth about a fire starting in the tribal village. And the concept of truth would be needed to decide if that object is a tree or a lion. To survive we needed a valid representation of reality within our minds.

Yet could these ideas come from some universal soul? Could they come from an all-knowing God?

[grist for the mill]

So, how do you know what you post to freerepublic is true? Did you independently determine that it is true, or is your reality generated from others without thinking about it yourself? Or, is there such a thing as godlike truth?

Grist for the Mill

[Exnihilo]

Wouldn't logic be useful to the ancients in society and in their daily struggle to survive?

Logic exists independantly of the human mind. Yet another testament to the existance of God.

[Eddeche]

Logic exists independantly of the human mind. Yet another testament to the existance of God.

I love religious non sequiturs.

"Boy, that ham is salty"

"Yet another testament to the existance of God !"

[Exnihilo]

I love pompous morons with nothing to contribute to a thread.

[Eddeche]

I love pompous morons with nothing to contribute to a thread.

So pat yourself on the back already.

[Exnihilo]

What for? You're the pompous moron contributing nothing to the thread. You come on and make a terribly ignorant, fully sarcastic remark, exposing your hostility towards anyone of a theistic persuasion. You declare mightily that my statement is a "non-sequitur" further betraying your ignorance of theology. It is a non-sequitur only insofar as you believe the conclusion not to follow from the premise, however it has been argued, quite well I might add, that logic as a non-material fact of the universe is an indicator of a supreme being, or higher order governing the universe. The fact that logic exists has been used effectively against atheists in debates for a very long time, especially given their inherantly materialistic view of the universe. So please, stop embarrasing yourself, and go troll another thread son.

[Exnihilo]

No, logic is strictly and entirely a process of the human mind.

No, logic exists even if no human minds exist to apply it. This is a well known fact and any philosopher, and even any scientist would readily concede as much. Your statement is along the lines of "If a tree falls and nobody hears it, it doesn't make a sound." Well, of course it does.

[Eddeche]

You're the pompous moron contributing nothing to the thread. You come on and make a terribly ignorant, fully sarcastic remark, exposing your hostility towards anyone of a theistic persuasion.

Who started the name calling ?
(btw, I liked my remark, and still do)

You declare mightily that my statement is a "non-sequitur" further betraying your ignorance of theology.

Ignorance is the heart and soul of theology.

It is a non-sequitur only insofar as you believe the conclusion not to follow from the premise, however it has been argued, quite well I might add, that logic as a non-material fact of the universe is an indicator of a supreme being, or higher order governing the universe.

It's also been argued that the earth is flat and Babs Streisand is good looking.

The fact that logic exists has been used effectively against atheists in debates for a very long time, especially given their inherantly materialistic view of the universe.

No it hasn't.

And your spelling is terrible.

So please, stop embarrasing yourself, and go troll another thread son.

Is this and order from you, or just more proof of god ?

[Exnihilo]

In other words, you have no substantive response, and a series of your own non-sequiturs. Interesting. Have a nice day, I won't be responding to any more of your junveile drivel.

[Grut]

"Boy, that ham is salty"

"Yet another testament to the existance of God !"

Not if you're Jewish.

[Eddeche]

Not if you're Jewish.

Got me there ! ;-)

[Eddeche]

In other words, you have no substantive response, and a series of your own non-sequiturs.

Care to point them out, or are decdicated to reasoning by assertion ?

Interesting. Have a nice day, I won't be responding to any more of your junveile drivel.

More proof of... never mind.

[gjenkins]

Existence isn't a logical system, so it doesn't suffer the same problems as logical systems. Existence is the basis for all proofs ... existence is proof. If you want more than that, you are going to have to step outside of existence to get it ... or make something up.

[Aurelius]

"To survive we needed a valid representation of reality within our minds."

To survive, we need a representation of reality within our minds that is adequate to our survival.

The "reality" that each individual knows is a representation within his own mind. Whether or not there is a single "objective reality" of which the individuals reality is a (necessarily imperfect) representation is a question which we are no more capable of answering than we are of answering whether there is life after death. For one who believes in an omniscient god, the existence of an "objective reality" would appear to be a corollary of that belief. Without the assumption of such a being, there would appear to be no subject for "objective reality" to be the object of.