I stumbled upon this article and found this:
There are three truths which must be accepted at the beginning of any investigation into the problem of knowledge and truth:
- The First Fact: The fact of our existence. “I exist.”
- The First Principle: The principle of contradiction. “A thing cannot be and not-be at the same time in the same respect.”
- The First Condition: The essential capability of the mind to know truth. “My intellect can reason and discover truth.”
These primary truths cannot be “proved” by a positive demonstration because they are presupposed and involved in every demonstration. They are so evident that any attempt to doubt or deny them would already mean they have been affirmed and accepted. They are, therefore, fully grounded in reason and no reasonable person can dispute them consistently.
To some it might sound like circular reasoning, but these truths are indeed self-evident in any logical discussion. Let’s see:
- The First Fact: The fact of our existence. “I exist.”
The fact that we are able to read this proves the first fact. Now what more proof do we need in order to know that we are reading this indeed?
- The First Principle: The principle of contradiction. “A thing cannot be and not-be at the same time in the same respect.”
Of course. Otherwise, something can be both true and false at the same time in the same respect. If that’s the case, then there is no longer any point in logical discussions because anything can be right and wrong at the same time, so everybody is just wasting time. And this goes hand in hand with:
- The First Condition: The essential capability of the mind to know truth. “My intellect can reason and discover truth.”
And that’s why we are here at Filipino Freethinkers, to discover truth through Reason. (We appreciate theists who check their dogmas upon entering the site, because doctrine and ‘authority’ have no influence here. But those who don’t believe in reason are wasting their time here and it would be better spent praying for divine enlightenment.)
On the other hand, religion only subscribes to the First Fact (our existence), but not to the First Principle (contradiction) and the First Condition (intellect’s ability to discover truth). Religious dogmas have so many contradictions that are conveniently answered by “our minds are too finite to grasp God’s infinite wisdom”.
As freethinkers, we know that belief is no longer a matter of choice, but of conclusion; no matter how the religious (including our parents) try to proselytize, as long as what they preach is unscientific, illogical, or irrational, they cannot force us to believe. Well the most they could do is to make us (falsely) claim belief. We do not choose to be atheists, agnostics, or deists; we just become, most likely as a result of freethinking.
Now the question is, do we choose to become freethinkers? Is it a matter of choice when we base our beliefs on science, logic, and reason instead of authority, tradition, or dogma? Or is it a matter of conclusion (same with becoming atheists, agnostics, or deists)? I think it’s the latter, when we realize that science, logic, and reason are more reliable in terms of finding the truth than authority, tradition, or dogma, but I would like to hear other points of view. How do people become freethinkers in the first place?
And with this we invite everyone to write. We’ve been coming up with fewer articles lately but that’s probably because of the film fest, after which there will be a lot to write about. 🙂
The first flaw in Reason is the assumption that everything can be empirically proven with objective lenses. Much of where we are today is because of disagreements on subjective experiences of empirical phenomena. The second flaw is the limitation of reality to a static concept when in fact reality is dynamic. For instance, you say you are sick now but you don't have fever, but really you are sick because you think too much about it you are already having a fever. Or when we say that things are bad, we lose faith and make a good life bad by our attitude towards it.
I am all for empirical evidence, doubt, and skepticism, but only to the extent that it can empower us in criticizing realities and change them.
[For instance, you say you are sick now but you don't have fever, but really you are sick because you think too much about it you are already having a fever.]
Regarding the former, are you referring to Psychosomatic Diseases?
[Or when we say that things are bad, we lose faith and make a good life bad by our attitude towards it.]
There was actually a study regarding a possible correlation between luck positive thinking
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2622567.stm
The short version: People who think positively tend to be "luckier" because their attitude makes them more alert to their surroundings, and thus are more capable of turning situations around into something that favors them.
Just thought you might want to know 🙂
yeah, that's what i meant.
so. what you're saying is that our parents nor anyone can make us believe in something without proper reasoning or evidence?
@taxx:
Did you mean "our parents nor anyone CAN'T make us believe in something without proper reasoning or evidence"?
The first principle can be debunked.
One thing can be both ugly and beautiful depending on who is looking. One thing can be both evil and good depending on who is benefitting or is being damaged.
i think the word "be" refers to existence, and not qualities.
one either exists, or does not exist.
@Tet:
The first principle states that "A thing cannot be and not-be at the same time IN THE SAME RESPECT". Your are right in saying that "one thing can be both evil and good depending on who is benefiting or is being damaged", but that is no longer "in the same respect", because you are now talking of two different persons.
"in the same respect" means 2 different persons?
each person is a different respect? that seems too strong… in this case, nothing can be in the "same respect" — unless there is only 1 person in the world.
Gabby wrote: "in the same respect means 2 different persons?"
-"In the same respect" could mean a lot of things, and one of them is "in the same point of view". A thing cannot be both ugly and not ugly in the same point of view.
Tet wrote: "One thing can be both ugly and beautiful depending on who is looking. One thing can be both evil and good depending on who is benefitting or is being damaged."
-Here you have two points of view: from the one benefiting and from the one being damaged. So a thing can be good in respect to the one benefiting, but it can be evil in respect to the one being damaged.