On Valid Thoughts

[CommieBastard]

This is sort of a follow on from the previous threads 'On Language', 'On Reality and Self', 'On Falsity, Conjecture and Truth' and 'On Functionality'.

What makes for valid thought? How can we be sure that we are thinking coherently, and not putting faith in false concepts?

We have many beliefs, and there are many different reasons why we hold the different beliefs we do. However, they all have one thing in common, and that is that they are rooted in some way in our experience.

Some beliefs we have reached upon after careful and rational introspection, or research.

Other beliefs have been placed in our minds by others, usually by means of strength of physical force, social position, wealth of resources or some kind of psychological technique.

Parents and schools try their best to make children believe in obedience, and they arent trying to convince them.

The problem with concepts such as these is, though they may be valid, it is not the case that they have been confirmed as such. We just hold on to them for fear of the consequences.

So what makes for valid thought?

well, basically i outlined what i thought of this in 'Reasonableness, Authority and Anarchism'. The previous threads have been a kind of attempt to put more foundation into what i was saying there.

[Rage Against the Right]

I do not think thoughts can have validity outside of yourself. It seems there is no possible device by which to compare our thoughs that would make them valid. What makes any one person more right than other? I think you can rationalize yourself to an acceptably valid position on most things, but what does that prove? We don't live in a rational world, and if humanking is not soley responsible for that then rationalizing doesn't really seem rational, does it? I think it's impossible, because we all have different lenses through which we view the world, and therefore cannot validize our thoughts without them being in unaminous alignment with the global population. Phew.

[CommieBastard]

I nowhere said they had to be in alignment with the global population, in fact the very thing i'm talking about is thoughts valid unto the self. You see, I think there is a measure we can apply to our own thoughts to make sure that we have a valid world view.

[Rage Against the Right]

So in that sense everything would be valid? Because if it does not require anything but your own view, then everything would be valid as soon as it came into your mind. If you went through life always putting faith in the same flase concepts, you would never be able to measure your validity.

[Theodore Bone]

Nothing is truley valid, then again who can judge the validity of thought when to just think of a thought to be valid in itself makes room to question the validity of validity. Thus making philosophy a meaningless, futile thing to read about, learn about. I do not "think" that any thought is valid, because we don't truly know.

[CommieBastard]

So in that sense everything would be valid? Because if it does not require anything but your own view, then everything would be valid as soon as it came into your mind. If you went through life always putting faith in the same flase concepts, you would never be able to measure your validity.

I don't see how any of this follows?
Just because the kind of validity i am talking about is unto the self does not make everything valid. We cannot, for example, validly talk about another person's experiences, though we may talk of experiences of that type which we have had. Also, my point is that when talking about our own experiences there are valid and invalid ways of referring to them. Insofar as some ways actually refer to something, and others do not.
As i say, the only concepts that are worthy of having faith put into them is those concepts which we use to measure the validity of other concepts.

[CommieBastard]

Originally posted by Theodore [email protected] 21 2005, 10:27 AM
Nothing is truley valid, then again who can judge the validity of thought when to just think of a thought to be valid in itself makes room to question the validity of validity. Thus making philosophy a meaningless, futile thing to read about, learn about. I do not "think" that any thought is valid, because we don't truly know.
I have already made my reply to this position, i would appreciate if you read and replied to that instead of just reiterating the position.

[Rage Against the Right]

As i say, the only concepts that are worthy of having faith put into them is those concepts which we use to measure the validity of other concepts.

But how do you measure the validity of the thought that your measuring the validity of thoughts with? Doesn't it create and endless cycle? I undersand our position pretty well, and if the measuring stick could be proved valid, I'd join the bandwagon. :redstar2000:

[CommieBastard]

I believe that the measuring stick does prove valid, I mention my other posts in which i expound my reasons why. If you think they are wrong then you can reply to them specifically within the posts.

[Rage Against the Right]

What threads are the other posts on?

[CommieBastard]

This is sort of a follow on from the previous threads 'On Language', 'On Reality and Self', 'On Falsity, Conjecture and Truth' and 'On Functionality'.

[Trissy]

We have many beliefs, and there are many different reasons why we hold the different beliefs we do. However, they all have one thing in common, and that is that they are rooted in some way in our experience.
Well some people would disagree with you there. Many of the Rationalist philosophers such as Descartes and Leibniz argued for the existence of innate ideas (such as God) that existed in our minds prior to birth. I personally don't believe in the existence of innate ideas and have a similar view of the mind that Locke had, namely that it is a blank slate when we are born.

[CommieBastard]

Whilst we cannot disprove innate ideas, this does not prevent these ideas being rooted in experience.
The holding of a belief is in and of itself an experience.
If we root our beliefs only in other beliefs, they are still rooted in the experience of those beliefs having sprung into the mind, whether from the source of God or computers running our reality or great flying arse-monkeys

[Trissy]

Whilst we cannot disprove innate ideas, this does not prevent these ideas being rooted in experience.

Well the understanding of use of the word 'innate' tends to prevent these ideas being rooted in experience...


The holding of a belief is in and of itself an experience.

Holding a belief and possessing a concept are not necessarily the same, and so it is possible to possess an innate idea without having experienced it. This is what led Rationalists like Descartes to believe that they possessed the idea of God. They had not experienced God but they had an idea of God, and as such this is different from the experience of the having the idea of God in their minds.


If we root our beliefs only in other beliefs, they are still rooted in the experience of those beliefs having sprung into the mind, whether from the source of God or computers running our reality or great flying arse-monkeys
As I have said this is still a debateable issue. Rationalist could argue that having ideas is very much different from having beliefs because it is fair to say that atheists have an idea of God but at the same time do not believe in any God or Gods.