Thanks for your efforts here, but although you seem to be asserting that there are "basic beliefs" which are dependent on language for their genesis, you still haven't given an example of one.

Also, note that I disagree with Plantinga about God being a basic belief for the simple reason that I think beliefs that qualify as basic beliefs should be pre-reflectively and cross-culturally held by everyone; in other words the sorts of things that are believed on the basis of embodied human existence, and that most everyone would think you crazy for questioning.

I also think that the set of basic beliefs, as something like Collingwood's "absolute presuppositions" or Wittgenstein's "hinge propositions", would form the grounds upon which all other reason-based beliefs and knowledge are founded.

Beliefs which may be universally held in some cultures would not be "properly basic" if they have been culturally inculcated, because such beliefs often seem to come about through linguistic reification, and do not find their genesis simply in embodied experience.

Not sure what point you want to make here?

Not sure what point you want to make here? — Janus

Philosophy has roots in an anti-Dionysian stance. A philosopher likes to have rational grounds, and incorporating this attitude into other avenues of life has practical benefits to medicine, science, engineering, etc.

Freud was warning that taking this to an extreme can result in delusion. This is one of the starting points for surrealism. The part I was particularly interested in that Freud suggested that love of a theory is love of the Self. Unenlightened's comparison of God to the Self opened up a bunch of fruitful pondering for me.

Anyway, your belief that "This is a hand" is not held irrationally. It's still grounded in something irrational: perception. Right?

Philosophy has roots in an anti-Dionysian stance. A philosopher likes to have rational grounds, and incorporating this attitude into other avenues of life has practical benefits to medicine, science, engineering, etc.

Freud was warning that taking this to an extreme can result in delusion. — frank

I'm don't know what work(s) you have in mind. Would Freud say the delusion consists in having, or aspiring to have, rational grounds for all beliefs, or in thinking that one does have rational grounds for all beliefs?

Anyway, your belief that "This is a hand" is not held irrationally. It's still grounded in something irrational: perception. Right? — frank

Did you mean to write "not held rationally"?

I agree that "This is a hand" originates in perception or, perhaps better, embodied existence.

Would Freud say the delusion consists in having, or aspiring to have, rational grounds for all beliefs, or in thinking that one does have rational grounds for all beliefs? — Janus

No, it's that theory-building philosophers fall so deeply in love with their projects that they don't notice that they've become disconnected as if in a dream.

Did you mean to write "not held rationally"? — Janus

It's held rationally, but grounded in something irrational.

I agree that "This is a hand" originates in perception or, perhaps better, embodied existence. — Janus

What is "embodied existence"?

No, it's that theory-building philosophers fall so deeply in love with their projects that they don't notice that they've become disconnected as if in a dream. — frank

But would that not be the same as to say that they are delusional insofar as they believe they have rational grounds (as opposed to merely emotional attachment) for their beliefs (their theory-building projects)?

It's held rationally, but grounded in something irrational. — frank

How can a rational belief be (rationally) grounded in something irrational? Perhaps you mean "caused by" or "originating in"?

What is "embodied existence"? — frank

Existence as a body.

But would that not be the same as to say that they are delusional insofar as they believe they have rational grounds (as opposed to merely emotional attachment) for their beliefs (their theory-building projects)? — Janus

No. He meant that they get lost in the realm of the intellect. Rationality doesn't necessarily get you closer to the truth, that's the point.

How can a rational belief be (rationally) grounded in something irrational? Perhaps you mean "caused by" or "originating in"? — Janus

I meant "grounded" in the way it's used in the essay.

What is "embodied existence"?
— frank

Existence as a body. — Janus

As opposed to what?

No. He meant that they get lost in the realm of the intellect. Rationality doesn't necessarily get you closer to the truth, that's the point. — frank

So, what according to you does Freud say would get us closer to the truth than rationality? Which of his works are you citing?

I meant "grounded" in the way it's used in the essay. — frank

And what sense of "grounded" do you take that to be?

As opposed to what? — frank

Right, I should have specified sentient body.

Thanks for your efforts here, but although you seem to be asserting that there are "basic beliefs" which are dependent on language for their genesis, you still haven't given an example of one. — Janus

Thanks. You too. You missed it, so I'll repeat it here...

Learning the names of things is as basic as basic can be if basic belief is held to have propositional content and/or allowed to be existentially dependent upon language.

I think beliefs that qualify as basic beliefs should be pre-reflectively and cross-culturally held by everyone; in other words the sorts of things that are believed on the basis of embodied human existence, and that most everyone would think you crazy for questioning. — Janus

There are pre-reflective beliefs that are prior to language and pre-reflective beliefs that are not. That becomes a pretty nuanced path. It's enlightening, but it's not the easiest one to understand. Asking for universally held beliefs is probably an unattainable criterion however. I mean especially with philosophers... Some things are true of everyone, but I highly doubt you'll find that everyone shares the same basic belief, especially if it's based upon language use.

I also think that the set of basic beliefs, as something like Collingwood's "absolute presuppositions" or Wittgenstein's "hinge propositions", would form the grounds upon which all other reason-based beliefs and knowledge are founded. — Janus

I've nothing against either idea. However, due to the sheer breadth of belief content... what's it about... unless every subject matter shares some common denominator, we will inevitably end up with a set of basic beliefs that have little to do with one another. The common thread would be language use.

Naming comes first.

That's the best I can do at the moment.

Cheers!

:smile:

Which of his works are you citing? — Janus

Why? Were you planning to launch into a Freud phase?

I have read some of Freud many years ago, but I am not thinking about revisiting his work at the moment. It would be helpful to understanding what exactly you are claiming to know where you are getting your interpretations of Freud from, is all.

Oh. This particular info on Freud came by way of reading about surrealism. Does that help?

Still not really seeing the connection.

a discussion of "basic" and "foundational" seem to put the cart before the horse if we don't know what God is. — Hanover

True.