Truth.. and what you know

[MindForgedManacle]

Why call "basic" those philosophical positions on which all other ideas rest, and from which many of our other beliefs unfold?

Because that's what a properly basic belief IS. That's like asking why one would call a congruent quadrilateral polygon a square.

Here you are doing exactly what I said people should not do. You've called and important philosophical belief, like that about the nature of sensation, "basic," and then unfolded a system of ideas that not only depend on, but follow from, that assumption.

That is not what I did. Read my post again. I said things like "Reasoming's validity, generally the reliability of our senses, and the existence of other minds" are properly basic beliefs, not the nature of sensation.

You keep saying this about idealism, but you need to explain why you say this. Believing that all experiences are intrinsically mental has nothing to do with whether there are other minds, also experiencing, or with whether or not they are related to each other in a larger framework.

This is a little more complex, so I'll get into it later after the properly basic stuff.

There are no basic assumptions, except for those you want taken as true without having to provide evidence for them. When one of those assumptions is in fact about the NATURE of evidence, that is most certainly a circle.

No, there are things that cannot even be proven to be true, BECAUSE they are the assumptions we make in all cases. The one thing presuppositionalists get right is that you cannot justify your reasoning by using your reasoning, as it's circular. What they fail to realize us why this isn't a problem.

Because the entire "properly basic" foundational system is a bullshit charade to backdoor complex irrational beliefs such as "God" in as fundamental, when they aren't.

No it isn't. People like Plantinga can claim belief in God is properly basic, but they are demonstrably bullshitting, as that belief rests on other basic beliefs.

---

I realize now that I read "properly basic" as English words, and not as a philosophical term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_belief makes me immediately congratulate myself for correctly identifying the process by which assumptions are transformed in the mind into facts upon which world views (and reflection back to those original assumptions) can be formed. Specifically, "In reformed epistemology, beliefs are held to be properly basic if they are reasonable and consistent with a sensible world view." I think whoever believes this is actively redefining both the words basic and proper.

You do realize that Reformed Epistemology is not synonymous with the view that there are properly basic beliefs, right? REs simply include belief in God as a properly basic belief, and claim that only the Christian worldview is consistent and reasonable (they are a form of Presuppositionalism after all).