Draft I Part XI

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Draft I Part XI

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

What is self-evident is rarely put to question as what is self-evident is accepted for what it is based off of intuition. However to question intuition is to question self-evidence given the two share a relationship with each other. It is intuitive, thus self-evident, that we can question anything including intuition and from this a contradiction occurs. This contradiction occurs in the respect that in questioning intuition we do not know what it is and yet we rely on this very same intuition that we do not understand in the presentation of the answer and in the act of questioning itself. Intuition, however it is defined, becomes definable in one respect and not defined in another. This is given because we rely on something undefined to defined itself and we end in a regressive circle that alternates between the extremes of ‘intuition existing’ and ‘intuition not existing’ depending upon where the chain of justifications is chosen to end. “Chosen” is a key word here considering there is no rule to where a justification begins or ends considering the multiplicity of phenomena, from which to chose, which are observed in reality. The ability to ‘chose’ introduces an element of randomness within observation thus setting the foundations in defining any one thing, in this case ‘intuition’ and the corresponding ‘self-evidence’ connected with it, at minimum in an indefinite state or in other terms a void. This is because we do not understand choice except as self-evident but this is put into question when self-evidence is put into question. The argument thus results in a circle.

To question intuition leaves intuition unintuitive except for the justifications which follow and are in turn accepted as intuitive thus leaving the question of intuition ever present as it references itself. In other terms to question intuition results in a justification which is accepted as intuitive but if we question intuition we must question the justification of intuition with it as the justification is assumed as intuitive. This circularity occurs in the question of self-evidence considering their connection. So what is self-evident? That which requires no justification? If that is the case then we contradict ourselves, as the absence of justification needed is paradoxically a justification albeit a negative one. Self-evidence is justified by the fact it does not need justified, it is justified in its self-sustenance. And yet the nature of self-sustenance is questionable as well given the ‘self-ness’ of ‘self-evidence’ and ‘self-sustenance’ is strictly assumed without any question. That which is ‘unquestionable’ is questionable as there is no reason why it is unquestionable. It is strictly assumed and yet we can assume to question anything including the act of question itself.

This nature of questioning and self-evidence can be expressed fully in Descartes’s ‘doubt’. He assumed that the fact that one cannot doubt that one doubts means the “I” is the center point of all axiomatic knowledge. The “I” exists because of a relationship to the action, or rather phenomenon, of doubt. The relationship necessitates both phenomenon as existing considering a relationship cannot occur unless there are first and foremost phenomena through which it, i.e. the relationship, exists. The nature of relationship is taken at first glance the foundation for being to occur and yet the phenomenon of ‘relationship’ is assumed. This leads us to a set of problems. The ‘I’ is assumed because ‘doubt’ is assumed and the corresponding ‘relationship’ between ‘I’ and ‘doubt’ is assumed. There are three assumptions here all of which rely on the phenomenon of ‘self-evidence’, therefore ‘intuition’, to be assumed as well.

But can the act of doubt, which necessitates the ‘I’ in Descartes’s case, be doubted? Why not if it is dependent upon so many assumptions? If doubt is to be doubted then doubt is no longer self-evident and requires a chain of justifications to fall back on if it is to reclaim its original state of self-evidence. This is contradictory though as to doubt ‘doubt’ leaves the act of doubting undefined while the predicate which receives all the doubt, ‘doubt’ in this case, becomes defined. ‘Doubt’ becomes both defined and undefined and enters a contradictory state. This contradiction is self-evident but if we question self-evidence, and we can, than the question of contradiction being “bad” occurs as well. Under these terms even contradiction can be justified by the very nature of its self-evidence. The self-evidence of contradiction necessitates it as a truth, by self-evidence alone, and the question of contradiction leads to further contradiction which in turn justifies contradiction as inevitable. Either way we end on contradiction upon a deeper analysis.

Now to revert back to the nature of Descartes’s argument when put to question. The justifications of doubt justify doubt and yet these justifications can be doubted as necessary, even though paradoxically they are necessary, given they require an infinite regress which results in an indefinite state thus leaving ‘doubt’ doubtable. On the other hand, to go without justifying doubt and yet to doubt ‘doubt’ results in doubt defining itself in one respect while in another it takes away definition from itself. ‘Doubt’ enters a contradictory state and with it the nature of self-evidence given the necessary relationship between it and the ‘I’.

The ‘I’ is justified by a relationship to an action which follows from it thus resulting in further contradiction when other axioms of Descartes’s are questioned. Take for example the intuitive statement of Descartes’s “I think therefore I am”. The nature of the “I” is taken as self-evident given there is a relationship of this phenomenon to the action, i.e phenomenon, of “thinking”. There cannot be something that is not something if that something has a relationship given the nature of relationship necessitates a connection and this connection can only occur if two or more phenomenon, i.e. “I” and “think”, exists. The nature of ‘relationship’ and ‘connection’, however, again are strictly assumed as self-evident because they exist. It is this nature of existence, which at first glance results in Descartes’s argument as seemingly flawless, however this can be put to question given the nature of questioning exists as well. Existence contradicts its self-evident state on these terms. To question existence is to exist however to question existence means existence as doubtable thus making the ‘questioning of existence’ as doubtable as well as it corresponds with ‘existence’. This necessitates existence as both ‘doubtable’ and ‘not doubtable’ and with it self-evidence as both ‘existing’ and ‘not-existing’ at the same time in the same respects. This is a contradiction in terms.

The primary factor of there being a relationship between the ‘I’ and ‘thought’ necessitates the ‘relationship’ being the first and foremost justification of there being anything existing at all. Under these terms ‘relationship’ is existence. Yet this has its problems as well given the correspondence of ‘I’ and ‘thought/doubt’ ends in a revolving circle, between the very same ‘I’ and ‘thought/doubt’, where neither are fully defined as only they defined eachother. There is nothing beyond them and because of this there are no foundations for them and any pointing to a relationship is futile. Because of this they can mean just about everything thus nothing. There is an assumption here, in the very act of a relationship existing, in that the relationship is a justification in itself and yet ‘relationship’ needs further ‘relationships’ if it is to be defined. The spiraling regress is never-ending thus leaving the relationship between the ‘I’ and whatever action occurs from it as assumed when relationship is assumed as self-evident.

It can be said that ‘self-evidence’ is ‘relationship(s)’ but this ends in a spiral as well given ‘relationship(s)’ is self-evident thus ‘self-evidence’ is self-evident as ‘relationship’ is self-evident. Thus to speak of self-evidence is to fundamentally speak of nothing at all considering the multiple dimensions of circular thinking in which it entails. Under these terms it may be said, due to this circularity and self-referentiality, that “only the circle” exists. However this argument has no beginning or end and as such becomes an exercise in futility. Self-evidence is founded upon circles within circles with the only comparison being that of one set of circular thinking compared to another.

In conclusion, it may be argued that self-evidence is not self-evident and from this intuition as well. From this it make be implied that any further analysis of the latter is preposterous in its conclusions but this paradoxically is self-evident in itself thus resulting in the self-negation of reasoning being the final conclusion of any rational endeavor. Under these terms reality can be accepted for any and everything in which it is.
Post Reply