Does Philosophy Accept Self-Evident Truth?

[KingsOfKings]

Does philosophy accept self-evident truth? Such as "I exist" or "I Am". No one ( to my knowledge) goes around thinking in every moment "I Am" (as a noun and a verb). Looking at this intuitive (meaning it does not have to be considered by intellect or reasoning to be the case) self- knowledge, empirically (by observation), It's a fundamental "given" in every instant. There is no need to question it, it is to the subjective self, the most obvious and important beginning or ground, and a self-verifying certainty. It is also held socially to be so obvious that it is rarely (if ever) mentioned except perhaps at philosophical rave parties.The Eastern Transcendentalists (some) take this " I AM", self-evident certainty to be the obvious root truth. They then argue to its Transcendental position (usually without theism, but sometimes with, but never in the Abrahamic form). What position or status does it currently hold in philosophy?

I realize Descartes is famous for his, " I think therefore I am", statement but I never found him convincing or where he took it. He seemed to have missed the pre-verbal certainty of this knowledge or did he? What I mean by this is, there is no need to question it (why? Because it is a self-evident certainty) once you do question it, perhaps you get philosophy? Which seems to suggest its, (philosophy's) not-that-useful status and even redundancy, at least as far as metaphysics is concerned. I'm certain this would be disputed but on what grounds?

 

[Big Daddy]

I think questioning that fundamental certainty of "I am" or, "being", does open the door to "philosophizing" on that very said "certainty" or "truth", but, I don't think that it consequently gives philosophy a 'not-that-useful' status or redundancy.

Think about this, what if we didn't philosophize and ONLY accepted that which was certain to be true?

 

[Blaze500]

I think questioning that fundamental certainty of "I am" or, "being", does open the door to "philosophizing" on that very said "certainty" or "truth", but, I don't think that it consequently gives philosophy a 'not-that-useful' status or redundancy.

Think about this, what if we didn't philosophize and ONLY accepted that which was certain to be true?

interesting

 

[gho3st]

I realize Descartes is famous for his, " I think therefore I am", statement but I never found him convincing or where he took it.

The fact that he questioned his existence mean that he has a conscience. Or at the very least he existed in some form. As far as where he took it? His whole philosophy is based around that.

and you should have posted this in VMR's thread.

 

[KingsOfKings]

@VMR thoughts?

 

[Blaze500]

@VMR thoughts?

doesn't Kurt Godel disprove it or something....

 

[KingsOfKings]

doesn't Kurt Godel disprove it or something....

i honestly never read up on Godel so i couldnt tell you.

 

[KingsOfKings]

The reason I think Descartes' famous point can be critiqued (fairly) was because he linked it to a thought and thought in general., those who've taken a much more observational and empirical stance (not philosophers in that sense) suggest it is the priori we all share, but more as, "I exist" (un-thought perception) therefore " I AM" (utterly self-evident), no deduction required. That's its intrinsic self-evidence,. anyone who argues against this may be in the "ridiculous" position of debating his or her own existence. Well that may be what extreme skeptics do. To me that suggests a sort of self divided madness, To doubt your own existence does not seem reasonable.

 

[Namekian Maranantha]

Descartes is famous for the statement "I think, therefore i am."

I wonder what Descartes would say if he was asked..... "If you are not thinking (or identifying yourself with thought), are you there?"

 

[badhat]

Let's start with a Cartesian conception, cause that's a pretty well worn common ground, even if it's not immediately satisfactory.

What does it mean when you say "I AM"?

To whom is it directed?

 

[badhat]

Descartes is famous for the statement "I think, therefore i am."

I wonder what Descartes would say if he was asked..... "If you are not thinking (or identifying yourself with thought), are you there?"

Graham Harman has an excellent book on Heidegger, and his work Being and Time, if you were interested in more of a temporal conception of being/Being. I found it helpful with the links he made to Husserl and Hegel that wouldn't have been immediately obvious to me.

 

[Namekian Maranantha]

Let's start with a Cartesian conception, cause that's a pretty well worn common ground, even if it's not immediately satisfactory.

What does it mean when you say "I AM"?

To whom is it directed?

Exactly. That is indeed the question. If one honestly gives attention to such a question something very interesting takes place..

 

[KingsOfKings]

Let's start with a Cartesian conception, cause that's a pretty well worn common ground, even if it's not immediately satisfactory.

What does it mean when you say "I AM"?

To whom is it directed?

imo it is direct to yourself but also can be directed to others

 

[badhat]

imo it is direct to yourself but also can be directed to others

Okay, so let's unpack that a bit: you've got a verb (saying/declaring/announcing/whatever you want to call it), and when you've got a verb like that, you need a subject and an object. If you're saying "I AM" self-reflexively, you're working as both the subject and the object of the verb.

Let's assume that simple statements preserve truth value. You're not wrong in saying that the verbal concept can be questioned that way, but we'll put a pin in it for now. When you say "I AM" self-reflexively, who is the subject? Who is the object? If the answer is "self" for both of these questions, are they the same "self", or are we looking at two different things, mistakenly grouped together?

 

[KingsOfKings]

Okay, so let's unpack that a bit: you've got a verb (saying/declaring/announcing/whatever you want to call it), and when you've got a verb like that, you need a subject and an object. If you're saying "I AM" self-reflexively, you're working as both the subject and the object of the verb.

Let's assume that simple statements preserve truth value. You're not wrong in saying that the verbal concept can be questioned that way, but we'll put a pin in it for now. When you say "I AM" self-reflexively, who is the subject? Who is the object? If the answer is "self" for both of these questions, are they the same "self", or are we looking at two different things, mistakenly grouped together?

the latter