RE: Justification for Foundational Belief
July 26, 2012 at 4:51 pm
(This post was last modified: July 26, 2012 at 5:11 pm by Whateverist.)
I wonder how far back we can go and still find a human being who can make sense of your question about foundational beliefs. (I think I finally got it, thanks to the subsequent discussion.) At some point, it would become impossible to translate or make sense of. As one more animal in the natural world, we have evolved the capacity to integrate sensory input and with cognitive functioning in useful ways. That obviously would have to come first, long before we could ever make sense of the concept of a "belief". Clearly we had perceptual/cognitive functioning on par with any other mammal long before we even had the capacity for our modern use of language.
Our enhanced capacities for the use of symbolic language, analysis and logic did not develop in a vacuum and they are not self supporting. They are adjunct to our pre-existing mammalian brain and its perceptual/cognitive functioning.
Structurally, I would question whether it makes sense to look for a purely symbolic basis for cognition. What we believe was never built up on any foundational beliefs to begin with. Recognizing the beliefs which are implied by our values, desires and actions is a secondary function. It is wise to do it of course. Perhaps this sort of self knowledge even feeds back into our values, desires and actions but that would need arguing for. After all, the beliefs we recognized as operative in us through reflection were never built up through any act of reasoning to start with. They were the product of our mammalian brains doing that thing they've been doing for millions of years.
I guess my question would be what is the purpose of this search for foundational beliefs? Are we hoping to turn the functioning of our mammalian brains into consciously endorsed pathways? Surely we would not want our conscious minds making every micro decision, every moment of the day. That would have to become tedious. I suppose the effort stems from a desire to be accountable, to take responsibility for ones actions. Laudable reasons but I suppose one could also make a case for pushing societal norms to accommodate our full animal/human natures.
Our enhanced capacities for the use of symbolic language, analysis and logic did not develop in a vacuum and they are not self supporting. They are adjunct to our pre-existing mammalian brain and its perceptual/cognitive functioning.
Structurally, I would question whether it makes sense to look for a purely symbolic basis for cognition. What we believe was never built up on any foundational beliefs to begin with. Recognizing the beliefs which are implied by our values, desires and actions is a secondary function. It is wise to do it of course. Perhaps this sort of self knowledge even feeds back into our values, desires and actions but that would need arguing for. After all, the beliefs we recognized as operative in us through reflection were never built up through any act of reasoning to start with. They were the product of our mammalian brains doing that thing they've been doing for millions of years.
I guess my question would be what is the purpose of this search for foundational beliefs? Are we hoping to turn the functioning of our mammalian brains into consciously endorsed pathways? Surely we would not want our conscious minds making every micro decision, every moment of the day. That would have to become tedious. I suppose the effort stems from a desire to be accountable, to take responsibility for ones actions. Laudable reasons but I suppose one could also make a case for pushing societal norms to accommodate our full animal/human natures.
