Why?

[SLushhYYY]

Is there a topic/subject for which a "why?" question does not exist?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Not that I'm aware of, though I do know that all "whys" lead to the same place if you keep asking long enough.

 

[snafupants]

That's basically the contention behind (the asinine and self-referential) foundationalism.

In philosophy, Foundationalism is any theory in epistemology (typically, theories of justification, but also of knowledge) that holds that beliefs are justified (known, etc.) based on basic beliefs (also commonly called foundational beliefs). Alternative views are usually called anti-foundationalism. This position is intended to resolve the infinite regress problem in epistemology. Basic beliefs are beliefs that give justificatory support to other beliefs, and more derivative beliefs are based on those more basic beliefs. The basic beliefs are said to enjoy a non-inferential warrant (or justification). This warrant can arise from properties of the belief (such as its being self-evident or self-justifying).

It doesn't take much to make some folks wave the white flag.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

That's basically the contention behind (the asinine and self-referential) foundationalism.

What if, at the end of the chain of "whys", there is no answer? Or more specifically, what if the chain is circular?

"Why?"
"Because you asked."

This then makes foundationalism and antifoundationalism equally valid (not mutually exclusive), at least when it comes to "whys".

 

[snafupants]

What if, at the end of the chain of "whys", there is no answer? Or more specifically, what if the chain is circular?

"Why?"
"Because you asked."

This then makes foundationalism and antifoundationalism equally valid (not mutually exclusive), at least when it comes to "whys".

Such an outcome would highlight the groundlessness and instability of foundationalism. I guess it hinges on where (from what authority?) the unanalyzed predicates - aka "basic beliefs" - in foundationalism spring forth from, yeah? It seems premature to say because you have a base for knowledge that it's the right or most accurate base available. I happen to feel science shoots itself in the foot by not analyzing the following postulate: why is sense perception taken as an infallible representation of part or all of reality? You need to analyze the predicates before you can call data bona fide fact, lest you brainlessly call smut fact.

 

[Emelina]

Why? What do you mean 'Why'? I'm your mother, mister, and you'll do as you're told!

Oh. Sorry. What was this about again?

 

[snafupants]

@thehabitatdoctor

Is what I'm saying here more Ti or Ni?

 

[snafupants]

Why? What do you mean 'Why'? I'm your mother, mister, and you'll do as you're told!

Oh. Sorry. What was this about again?

I'm not sure but I usually need to pay women to talk to me like that...

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Such an outcome would highlight the groundlessness and instability of foundationalism. I guess it hinges on where (from what authority?) the unanalyzed predicates - aka "basic beliefs" - in foundationalism spring forth from, yeah? It seems premature to say because you have a base for knowledge that it's the right or most accurate base available. I happen to feel science shoots itself in the foot by not analyzing the following postulate: why is sense perception taken as an infallible representation of part or all of reality? You need to analyze the predicates before you can call data bona fide fact, lest you brainlessly call smut fact.

What if foundationalism is grounded but the foundation can't be known, or at least not yet? (<-omniscience rears it's head again). If the universe is cyclical, how would one know if it's cyclical if their existence is only a tiny fraction of the time it takes to complete the cycle?

Is what I'm saying here more Ti or Ni?

Ni. Not Ne. Not Te either.

 

[snafupants]

What if foundationalism is grounded but the foundation can't be known, or at least not yet? (<-omniscience rears it's head again). If the universe is cyclical, how would one know if it's cyclical if their existence is only a tiny fraction of the time it takes to complete the cycle?

Ni. Not Ne. Not Te either.

Imagine eternal recurrence and the multiverse as a movie. You can ascertain some information about the movie from just three minutes of footage - time period, plot details, dialogue ratio, cameras used, field of vision, maybe genre, the actors involved; above all, you would understand that the movie is only one environment or modality. Well, on the foundationalism note, sure, a guy can throw a dart in a pitch black room and hit the bullseye. It's just not very likely and he wouldn't necessarily know it. He can't prove it. Does he deserve to hit it - absolutely not. I still contend it's stupid to claim "basic beliefs" as valid predicates without analysis or reason.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I still contend it's stupid to claim "basic beliefs" as valid predicates without analysis or reason.

Don't make me do actual reading to rectify this false dichotomy...

Hmmm... To hijack your past phraseology: Is it your contention that antifoundationalism is your foundational belief?

 

[snafupants]

Don't make me do actual reading to rectify this false dichotomy...

Hmmm... To hijack your past phraseology: Is it your contention that antifoundationalism is your foundational belief?

Honestly, such reasoning is silly. Like when people say nihilists subscribe to nihilism. It's really an impossibility, or at least an unlimbering stretch, because you still believe in very little, hence nihilism. That's such an ENTP comment though.

 

[snafupants]

Also, anti-foundationalism, unlike foundationalism, doesn't posit basic beliefs, or nowhere near as dogmatic and static of basic beliefs. I contend anti-foundationalism, even belief in such haha, lives up to its claims. It's saying the practitioner is not going to rely on certain things (e.g., basic beliefs), and anti-foundationalism is itself too bottomless to accommodate much weight. I mean, if relying on cultural relativism and pasted together, dynamic histories is belief to you, then whatever. I'm just saying cultural relativism isn't a static thing, so can it therefore be called a belief?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Honestly, such reasoning is silly. Uh oh! I've got him daw-giiiiing!!! Like when people say nihilists subscribe to nihilism. It's really an impossibility, or at least an unlimbering stretch, because you still believe in very little, hence nihilism. That's such an ENTP comment though.

So you have a very little foundation? A teeny, tiny unifying core locus, labeled "antifoundationalism," where foundationalism and antifoundationalism intersect?

anti-foundationalism is itself too bottomless to accommodate much weight.

What if bottomlessness if a foundational axiom?

What if I told you...


Antifoundationalism is the foundation of foundationalism?

Spoiler

SAY UNCLE!!! NAO!!!!

*engages in premature celebratory dancing* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-DF_mzu6bQ#t=3m44s

Roll that head! Oh yeah!

 

[snafupants]

Antifoundationalism is the foundation of foundationalism?

I'm pretty sure that's not how the foundationalists parse things. But sure, you create, probably fabricate haha, something from nothing, but it's not really nothing because the drive towards meaning itself counts for something. If the drive towards meaning (or some cognitive/CNS/cosmic entelechy-like process) underlies the creation of basic beliefs in foundationalism, then in some sense foundationalism and anti-foundationalism share something. That's nonsense, though, because any human meaning is created by humans; so, all you are saying is humans undergird both ideologies or, in the case of anti-foundationalism, dynamic histories; so there (edit) you can say that each system is self-referential in that each involves human myth making and using those human myth making processes, in different manners, as bases for knowledge. They both are concerned with meaning but their respective practitioners extol different paths for achieving and chronicling pretty different ends. Phew, glad that post is over.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

the drive towards meaning itself counts for something.

any human meaning is created by humans

Foundational beliefs identified. "Quick! Call da choppa!"

They both are concerned with meaning but their respective practitioners extol different paths for achieving pretty different ends. Debating whether moving clockwise or counterclockwise is the better option doesn't disprove the clock.

I accept your admission of defeat. *goes back to eating his peanut butter BLT*

 

[snafupants]

Foundational beliefs identified. "Quick! Call da choppa!"

I accept your admission of defeat. *goes back to eating his peanut butter BLT*

I'm not trying to disprove existence, or the clock. The whole post is about analyzing the predicates of meaning or basic beliefs, which putatively inform foundationalist thought. Anyway, that sandwich sounds nasty.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Anyway, that sandwich sounds nasty.

Dood. I would crawl across a desert of broken glass for salty bacon + peanut butter. And/or for deep fried bacon-wrapped plantains. Don't knock it till you try it.

 

[snafupants]

Dood. I would crawl across a desert of broken glass for salty bacon + peanut butter. And/or for deep fried bacon-wrapped plantains. Don't knock it till you try it.

I'm probably not going to try that shit until I get cancer haha.

 

[BigApplePi]

Is there a topic/subject for which a "why?" question does not exist?

When I hold a knife to your throat and ask you for your money or your life.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

When I hold a knife to your throat and ask you for your money or your life.

Why?

 

[snafupants]

When I hold a knife to your throat and ask you for your money or your life.

That's pretty intense haha. I would probably knee the would-be bandit in the balls.

 

[BigApplePi]

That's pretty intense haha. I would probably knee the would-be bandit in the balls.

Why would you try that if his approach is to your behind? ... unless you have a trick knee.

 

[BigApplePi]

Why?

Cuz you cood be daid, that's why.

Why do you ask, lol? Oh well. If it's for science it must be worth it.

 

[SLushhYYY]

I knew it would be apart of some philosophy...

My general thought process at the time was trying to unveil some sort of hidden information...I guess if there is ever a god dicovered that could potentially eliminate the why question since we can just say god did it for everything, and you dont question god.

 

[Double_V]

Why not?








Sorry, that was my eternal optimism escaping again.

 

[Nezaros]

The only thing that can even be remotely relied on as a "basic belief" is what we pick up from our senses. Everything beyond is constructed from that information. It's the people that grab some of those derivatives, or a bastardization of such, and take those as foundational beliefs that screw things up for the rest of us. As for the why, everything can be questioned. So no.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

The only thing that can even be remotely relied on as a "basic belief" is what we pick up from our senses.

What if that mechanism is also a fictitious construct?

Basic belief = chaos.

Spoiler

^ @snafupants
Heil Eris!

 

[SLushhYYY]

If the why question diverges to infinite, there is no answer to anything.

The why question must converge to a point which would be the fundamental answer to any why.