Philosophy is created by belief!

[Eodnhoj7]

What is the solution to what you see as being a "problem"?

Don't ignore the Munchauseen trillema, nor the rest of the fallacies which are variations of it, use it as a foundation.

The trillema, in its form and function, is equivalent to the monad(s) which represent at base minimum the psychological state through which we measure reality.

Use fallacies as foundations, they cancel themselves out under there own logic. Each fallacy effectively negates the other.

Do you have any examples?

I still have no idea what the actual "problem" is that you say has its own 'solution'. What is the actual "problem" and what is the






All math problems contain the equation within them. The equation is strictly just a variation of the number.

For example 1+2=3 observes the the premise of 1 and 2 are inherent within 3. Simple enough. 3 however is composed of an infinite set of equations. Then equation therefore is just am inversion of the number (3 in this case) that exists within the number as a set of relations. 3 is just a variation of the many relations which exist between one and two.

Will provide further examples.

[Age]

Don't ignore the Munchauseen trillema, nor the rest of the fallacies which are variations of it, use it as a foundation.

The trillema, in its form and function, is equivalent to the monad(s) which represent at base minimum the psychological state through which we measure reality.

Use fallacies as foundations, they cancel themselves out under there own logic. Each fallacy effectively negates the other.

Do you have any examples?

I still have no idea what the actual "problem" is that you say has its own 'solution'. What is the actual "problem" and what is the 'solution'?

All math problems contain the equation within them. The equation is strictly just a variation of the number.

For example 1+2=3 observes the the premise of 1 and 2 are inherent within 3. Simple enough. 3 however is composed of an infinite set of equations. Then equation therefore is just am inversion of the number (3 in this case) that exists within the number as a set of relations. 3 is just a variation of the many relations which exist between one and two.

Will provide further examples.

That example means nothing at all to me as I still have no idea what "problem" you see.

I can not see a problem anywhere here.

What "problem" can you see here?

[Eodnhoj7]

Overly brief explanation, because I have to head to work.

The problem of justified true belief, where the belief is "justified" by its definition is no different than linear continuous and circularity self referencing definitions.

Belief and assumption are isomorphisms of eachother. Both project a reality. Both receive a reality.

Belief is the grounding for form, hence form is a will to power.

All the philosophers, from lucretious to Plato to neiztche are connected.

The schools of philosophy, as axiomatic assumptions in themselves, cycle through eachother and are branching variations of one core assumption.


The problem is all the philosophers are connected, and philosophy is to lopsided.

[Sculptor]

Yes, being an atheist myself it may sound strange, but I'm not necessarily talking about belief as in religion, rather I talk about belief like "believing in yourself", "believing in what you do", "believing in the virtue of x or the importance of y".

I've found that as I've been working on my philosophy of needs the real drive in me seems to be a belief and/or faith in the virtues of "need" that I can trace all the way back to my early childhood, a way of thinking that is encouraged in Norwegian society, taught by parents and school teachers, and yet not of course in the way I've done it, but the word "need", "human needs", "animals needs", "planet's needs", the needs of institutions and groups, have been such a recurring theme. People talk so much about what they need all the time to become something or to preserve something. In this sense I feel like a product of my time.

A couple of reactions.
I've noticed that when most people talk about need, what they really mean is want.
It is not clear how your assertion that belief generates philosophy.
For myself I tend to never use "belief" since that can be used to state sure knowledge and faith based assertions; this makes the meaning of the word ambiguous.
So people say I believe that Trump is president, I'd rather say I know Trump is president.
When people say I believe in equality, I prefer to say that I aspire to equality. Clearly the use of belief in these cases is utterly different. It is more honest to say that most beliefs are nothing more than wishes for things to be true. Whilst knowledge is an assertion of facts.
I have not basis for saying that I "believe" in justice, since no such thing exists without judgement, and judgement is always subjective. When I assert that justice has been done I know many people can justifiably disagree from their own POV.
All the "needs" you have listed are thoroughly subjective.
On a grand scale there is no need to earth, or any of its contents; just a pale blue dot when observed from the edge of the solar system.

[Skepdick]

The problem of justified true belief, where the belief is "justified" by its definition is no different than linear continuous and circularity self referencing definitions.

You have trapped yourself in the Logocentrist death-spiral.

Circularity is a property of language, because words define other words. It explodes with: Define "define".
For this reason you have to draw a distinction between beliefs and language.

Language is circular. Beliefs are not. Beliefs appear circular when expressed in language.

Belief is the grounding for form, hence form is a will to power.

What you are missing in your mental toolbox is the concept of expressive power.

Eexpressive power (also called expressiveness or expressivity) of a language is the breadth of ideas that can be represented and communicated in that language.

This is where abstract, formal reasoning shines. There are things you can express formally that you can't express in English.
The opposite is also true. There are things you can express in English that you cannot express formally.

That which you are observing as "form" is the grammar of a language. The Rules which give the language its structure.
The Chomsky hierarchy measures the "expressive power" of grammars. The most powerful grammars are recursive.

In so far as I can tell, you can't use recursion in a written language because of the missing dynamic/temporal of the medium being used. You can only mention recursion.

[Sculptor]

The problem of justified true belief, where the belief is "justified" by its definition is no different than linear continuous and circularity self referencing definitions.

You have trapped yourself in the Logocentrist death-spiral.

Circularity is a property of language, because words define other words. It explodes with: Define "define".
For this reason you have to draw a distinction between beliefs and language.

Language is circular. Beliefs are not.

Even many beliefs are circular. I'd say all faith based beliefs, such as the ontological "proof" of god.
Where belief is actually knowledge you find that we are having to refer to concrete at some point.
Another reason to jettison the word "belief" as utterly ambiguous and useless.

[Skepdick]

Even many beliefs are circular.

The beliefs in your head are not, and cannot be circular. They interact with each other. Cause and effect.
They form a positive or negative feedback loop, which leads to self-reinforcement or self-defeat.

They only appear circular when expressed in Language.

If you believe that God created the universe, then the more evidence you obtain for the Universe's existence, the more evidence you obtain for God by proxy!

Another reason to jettison the word "belief" as utterly ambiguous and useless.

All words are ambiguous. Even mathematical words. Again, this is a problem of language - in general, not words in particular.

Context-sensitive grammars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... 1_grammars

[Sculptor]

Even many beliefs are circular.

The beliefs in your head are not, and cannot be circular. They interact with each other. Cause and effect.

You are saying nothing since all beliefs inside the head. In which case ALL are circular.

They form a positive or negative feedback loop, which leads to self-reinforcement or self-defeat.

Yes, all circular

They only appear circular when expressed in Language.

You are contradicting yourself now.

If you believe that God created the universe, then the more evidence you obtain for the Universe's existence, the more evidence you obtain for God by proxy!

You mean circular

Another reason to jettison the word "belief" as utterly ambiguous and useless.

All words are ambiguous. Even mathematical words. Again, this is a problem of language - in general, not words in particular.

Wrong.
Some words are more ambiguous than others.

Context-sensitive grammars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... 1_grammars

Context works to eliminate ambiguity.

[commonsense]

Returning to the premise that philosophy is created by belief, there is an almost oxymoronic assumption that philosophy is not created by thought.

[I acknowledge the quasi-bastardization of the word, belief. I am using the word to mean a wish for something to be true, as something that is accepted recursively on faith, or as an assumption of truth without the application of reason or observation. I request only that you adopt my usage temporarily for an understanding of what follows:]

It would be ironic if the time we spend (searching for meaning, trying to get close to the truth of things, thinking about truth and meaning, thinking about thought, pondering philosophically, developing arguments and counter-arguments, and considering any of the fields of philosophy) were founded on belief rather than any cognitive function.

Responding to the Münchhausen-Trilemma with regression, recursion or assumption leaves us with much chagrined non-solutions. Without belief, without accepting on faith that something is true, any premise would remain ambiguous and useless.

I am entirely uncertain how a thought can be accepted as true on the basis of anything other than belief. So I am convinced, or rather I believe, that the foundation of philosophy is belief or faith rather than thought or reason.

(And still, I am an agnostic.)

[RCSaunders]

Yes, being an atheist myself it may sound strange, but I'm not necessarily talking about belief as in religion, rather I talk about belief like "believing in yourself", "believing in what you do", "believing in the virtue of x or the importance of y".

I've found that as I've been working on my philosophy of needs the real drive in me seems to be a belief and/or faith in the virtues of "need" that I can trace all the way back to my early childhood, a way of thinking that is encouraged in Norwegian society, taught by parents and school teachers, and yet not of course in the way I've done it, but the word "need", "human needs", "animals needs", "planet's needs", the needs of institutions and groups, have been such a recurring theme. People talk so much about what they need all the time to become something or to preserve something. In this sense I feel like a product of my time.

A "need" like any other value term is a term of relation. There are no independent needs. Before there can be a need there must first be an objective, a purpose, a goal for which something is needed to achieve or reach the objective or goal. Since you are treating "need" as if it were an independent thing, (which it cannot be) you are starting with a fallacy. If you begin with a fallacy, you end with a fallacy.

[Skepdick]

You are saying nothing since all beliefs inside the head. In which case ALL are circular.

The beliefs I express in language are not in my head. They are on your screen - you are reading them.

Yes, all circular

You are confusing the expression of my beliefs (in language) for my actual beliefs (in my head).
The ones in language are circular.
The ones in my head are not.

You are contradicting yourself now.

No. I am not.

You mean circular

I mean recursive.

Context works to eliminate ambiguity.

Exactly the opposite. Contexts (plural) create ambiguity.

I went to the bank today.

If your brain comes up with more than one context in which the above sentence can be meaningfully interpreted, then you experience ambiguity.
if your brain comes up with a single context in which the above sentence can be meaningfully interpreted, then you don't experience ambiguity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word-sense_disambiguation

[Eodnhoj7]

The problem of justified true belief, where the belief is "justified" by its definition is no different than linear continuous and circularity self referencing definitions.

You have trapped yourself in the Logocentrist death-spiral.

Not really, because there are various types of spirals as well ranging to how the number line can be graphed, to organic substances such as DNA, to sea shell, galaxies, etc.
The spiral is a form which replicates itself.

Circularity is a property of language, because words define other words. It explodes with: Define "define".

Than any argument you list, as existing through language, is by default circular and your arguing (not just argument) alone contradicts itself by it's own standards.

Numbers define numbers as well. The number line is strictly all number looping through itself.
1 looping 1 results in 2 which loops to 1 as 3 which loops to 1 as 4...etc.


For this reason you have to draw a distinction between beliefs and language.

Actually I don't strictly because the symbolic nature of language is grounded in the receptive assumption of symbols. These symbols, passively assumed by the observer, are then projected to another observer, until a reciprocal loop forms allowing the language to exist as a connective bond.

Language is circular. Beliefs are not. Beliefs appear circular when expressed in language.

Beliefs are grounded in the assumption of axioms, 3rd law of the trillema states all axioms are circular. Belief requires the use of axioms as forms that effectively structure to the psyche. For example I believe giving food to the poor is good. It is am axiom I assume which molds my behavior. Because of this assumption, how I project my behavior is molded by these core principles where how I function (ie will or beleif) is directed and given form.

The subjective formless nature of the psyche as unactualized potential (considering the subjective self does exist through time hence has a potential state) is formed by the repetition of these assumptions. I keep giving to the poor I gain not just a habit, but a sense of identity...and vice versa.

Belief is the grounding for form, hence form is a will to power.

What you are missing in your mental toolbox is the concept of expressive power.

What you fail to realize is that the numbers these computers calculate are the purest of assumptions and the inherent binary code is just the recursion of these base assumptions.

Quantification is pure assumption, because it requires a strict localizing of one reality and connecting it (such as seeing 1 orange as a collection of traits) or separating it (such as seeing one orange out of x fruits). Each act of localizing a phenomenon is an assumption of that phenomenon for "what it is" and as such the number 1 (for example) is composed of infinite qualitative variables as well as quantitative under the assumption that 1= infinite number of equations.

Because each localization of an empirical or abstract phenomena is a point of observation quite literally through the act of assumption requiring a state of no-judgement akin to empty mind, each phenomenon is not only a point of awareness but a relative point amidst infinite points in reality.

All localized phenomenon, as self evident truths, are quite literally points with the point itself being conducive to the purest and most universal assumed axiom and axiom of assumption there is.



Eexpressive power (also called expressiveness or expressivity) of a language is the breadth of ideas that can be represented and communicated in that language.

This is where abstract, formal reasoning shines. There are things you can express formally that you can't express in English.

And vice versa, there are things expressed in English which cannot be expressed in other languages as well...as you say below.

Now pardon the following very long sentence, you may want to reread it:

However if you construct a universal language, which most likely would appear as heirogylyphic geometric forms (which you would see in a story about flying saucers and aliens...whether these stories are true are irrelevant for our discussion as they can be observes as metaphors of the pscyhe) because of there grounding in the qualitative and quantitative premise of the dot, that universal language is still a language.

It would have to have an inherent psychology behind it, and the most rational and universal aspect of the pscyhe is strictly the separation and connection of variables....ie points in space and time at it's most basic level.


The opposite is also true. There are things you can express in English that you cannot express formally.

That which you are observing as "form" is the grammar of a language. The Rules which give the language its structure.
The Chomsky hierarchy measures the "expressive power" of grammars. The most powerful grammars are recursive.

In so far as I can tell, you can't use recursion in a written language because of the missing dynamic/temporal of the medium being used. You can only mention recursion.

Actually recursion is used all the time in language:

Example:

Mammal -> lungs -> cat -> tiger -> Bengal tiger -> female Bengal tiger -> etc.

The order can be changed, considering recursion requires the repetition of a constant variable...but it does not eliminate the fact that the hierarchy still requires a constant variation of one variable into many.

Recursion operates simultaneously

1. as a connective loop where the variable, mammal in this case, is successfully repeated amidst various localities of time and space (considering the the mammal does exist as a space time entity).

2. Linear progressive variation, where the variable continually variates into different variables.

3. Assumed Point in space/time where the variable quite literally is just a point of origin.

Thus we are left with the Munchauseen trillema as a pure platonic form which is present in all of being...with this universal platonic form being the ⊙ which is akin to the basic point, line and circle the trillema represents and exists as a variation of.

[Sculptor]

You are saying nothing since all beliefs inside the head. In which case ALL are circular.

The beliefs I express in language are not in my head. They are on your screen - you are reading them.

LOL. No text contains ideas. A person typing tries to communicate and idea, then a different person reads it and gets a different idea, based on their POV and personal experience.

Yes, all circular

You are confusing the expression of my beliefs (in language) for my actual beliefs (in my head).
The ones in language are circular.
The ones in my head are not.

Rubbish. The ideas that might be in text are never communicated exactly
The ones in your head are mostly circular since they have to comply with a series of other ideas. If there were not circular then you would be all confused and in a state of contradiction

You are contradicting yourself now.

No. I am not.

You mean circular

I mean recursive.

You have not shown this.
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/recursive
Recursive you mean circular

Context works to eliminate ambiguity.

Exactly the opposite. Contexts (plural) create ambiguity.

RUbbish!

Example. "Eats, Shoots and leaves"
Is ambiguous.
However. In the context of a Panda it means he eats shoots and leaves for food.
OR
In the context of a gangster in a restaurant; "He eats, shoots and leaves", means something else.

I went to the bank today.


If your brain comes up with more than one context in which the above sentence can be meaningfully interpreted, then you experience ambiguity.
if your brain comes up with a single context in which the above sentence can be meaningfully interpreted, then you don't experience ambiguity.

Seriously I think you are a bit stupid.
If you went to the bank today. The word "bank" looses its ambiguity when you supply the context of a river, or a high street.
Try and THINK.
Maybe you do not understand the meaning of CONTEXT.
Since you are so clever with looking up shit on WIKI you should try CONTEXT

[Skepdick]

LOL. No text contains ideas. A person typing tries to communicate and idea, then a different person reads it and gets a different idea, based on their POV and personal experience.

Hence - the dualism of text. The meaning which I intend to encode; and the meaning which you extract.

Rubbish. The ideas that might be in text are never communicated exactly.

Exactly. So when you accused me of contradicting myself did you consider the alternative hypothesis?

Your interpretation of my text was contradictory.
The meaning of my text wasn't.

You have not shown this.
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/recursive
Recursive you mean circular

How do you want me to show you recursion?

If you go to Google and type "recursion". You will arrive at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion ... r_science)

Seriously I think you are a bit stupid.
If you went to the bank today. The word "bank" looses its ambiguity when you supply the context of a river, or a high street.

Thanks for making my point, dumbass. In your head, right now the phrase "I went to the bank" has two interpretations.

1. A river bank.
2. A money bank.

Since you don't know which context I had in mind the meaning of the word "bank" (as intended by me) is currently ambiguous to you.

Because you have two interpretative contexts to CHOOSE from.

Since you are so clever with looking up shit on WIKI you should try CONTEXT

I know what a context is. I am trying to explain it to your ignorant ass.

There is a wiki page indeed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_(computing)

[Sculptor]

LOL. No text contains ideas. A person typing tries to communicate and idea, then a different person reads it and gets a different idea, based on their POV and personal experience.

Hence - the dualism of text. The meaning which I intend to encode; and the meaning which you extract.

This is not dualism in any sense. The meaning are multitudinous. There can be as many meanings as there are readers. But the more context you have to less meanings you get.

Rubbish. The ideas that might be in text are never communicated exactly.

Exactly. So when you accused me of contradicting myself did you consider the alternative hypothesis?

Your interpretation of my text was contradictory.
The meaning of my text wasn't.

People are often in a state of self contradiction.

You have not shown this.
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/recursive
Recursive you mean circular

How do you want me to show you recursion?

Seriously I think you are a bit stupid.
If you went to the bank today. The word "bank" looses its ambiguity when you supply the context of a river, or a high street.

Thanks for making my point, dumbass. In your head, right now the phrase "I went to the bank" has two interpretations.

1. A river bank.
2. A money bank.

But the ambiguity disappears when you have a context you total moronic fuckwited twat.

Since I haven't told you which context I meant, the word "bank" hasn't lost its ambiguity and is currently ambiguous.

Because you have two interpretative contexts to CHOOSE from.

As I said when you have a context the ambiguity is less.
Now fu/ck off you idiot. Is that ambiguous enough for you?