All questions have a false basis

All questions have a false basis

‘ultimately, to ask specific questions, we must first make certain preconditions or pre-conceptions that have not yet been addressed’?

All questions are based upon supposed truths which form the basis of the question. For example if I ask; ‘is death evil‘, then I have presumed there is something to the meaning of the term ‘evil’ and even that I presume death is something, that it happens. If I then ask is evil, bad or wrong, then I am presuming there is such a thing as bad and wrong. In the end it seams that you can keep going forever, any question we ask are based on the given suppositions of which the questioning is based. Yet as we have no starting position of truth, we can only begin with questions based on such suppositions, thus all questions have a false basis?

When we ask a question then the first line of questioning to find the answer should surely accept the preconditions of the argument. Once that answer is found then we may proceed to the questioning its basis, which may in turn cast doubt upon the original result. Yet the line of questioning should surely find results as it proceeds even if we consider them to be half-truths. If not then can we actually answer anything without being swamped in ambiguity.

If you want to think about it only in terms of language, then, yes, all questions suppose preconditions that may or may not be true. Language is a human construct, and much of what language is meant to represent is abstract or subjective. However, at some point, paying that much attention to the abstraction of language becomes counterproductive. Is there truly any utility to responding to the question, “Is this a grape?” with, “Well, is there really such a thing as a ‘grape’?” As an exercise of theory it might have use, I suppose, but beyond that I see little.

However, I do think the idea of nonverbal questions, and whether they do or do not have a false basis, is an interesting one. I imagine that we all have experienced, or at least can imagine, a situation where someone close to you can illicit a response from you as effectively as if they had asked you something in words. Perhaps you were upset, and a friend came and sat next to you in complete silence but gave you a look such that you knew that he wanted to know what was wrong. Some things can be communicated without words; do those communications have a false basis? They surely make presumptions such as that certain behavior is indicative of a certain feeling, but that does not strike me as a false basis. Though that assumption may be incorrect, it is based on an established pattern, not a false basis.

rwdalpe

Indeed not, I quite agree.

Interesting point. Somehow I think there is that knowing look that I think by and large we somehow get right most of the time. I wont go into it too much now, but I think part of the consciousness is the very thing that ‘knows’, and that via the medium of our bodies an harmonic may form whereby two consciousnesses click ~ or work on the same frequency of something. Therefore just like harmonising magnetic forces brains can find such conjunctions.

I don’t think this problem is just about semantics, we could be asking questions about principles or even math, and we run into the same thing eventually at least. For example, in math we have to presume ‘1’ is a whole, and we take it exactly so, but if ’1’ is the idea of an object like say, a grape, and we cut it in half then is that half a grape or two whole objects. We have to assume with our basis; ‘that there are wholes that can be counted is true’ in order to form integer sequences, anf derive further truths.

Say as you said you ask is death evil? You have chosen to ask that over asking is it something else like continuous. This shows you have some idea of what evil is. You have chosen that word. Let’s take what one might see as evil. Different words may have different processes of understanding them so this is only one example but it may highlight how "one’ might come to a conclusion of what a word means. We could say evil is to do wrong; this is “slightly” different from what we might have “learned” evil means. We might have learned evil is a power in itself, something dark, a force perhaps in the universe. But the person who tries to define evil might reject this and say evil is to do wrong. This is a rejection of the learned notion as it suggests something else, it suggest evil is not a force but a morale choice, it presupposes freewill. So we have a notion of what evil is whether we reject the “learned’ notion or not. If we said evil was a force we would 'feel” this as we "imagine’ the darkness. What I am saying is that all our notions can be broken down to things imagined that have “sense” form or come from the senses or, feelings associated with those sense form. So then we could say that we do have a notion of what things are. When we ask is death evil we have a notion of what evil is even if we can’t define it. If we can’t put it “into words” or because we imagine that the notion of evil must have a “form” or structure that we haven’t given even though we have some idea of it. Perhaps that’s why we can’t put it into words. If we desire it to have a form or structure we feel goes more accurately with it can only be because we have some other notion of it already. What I mean here is say you have the notion evil is something dark but you want to put it in another form that you feel highlights it more for you such as by imagining it in certain actions. Like a man murdering he’s enemy. We have a notion of it but what to put into a form we like and this desire to do so only because we have some other notion of it already.

Of course you’ve assumed that the words are meaningful, but it doesn’t follow that you’ve assumed that the words denote objects or events unless you assume that meaning is denotation. Which I don’t.

Even so, the question could be rephrased: “If there are such things as death and evil, is death evil?”

The question can be changed, even more:
What do I imagine with the word “death”, and then “evil”?
What are the lists of idea/concept/image/feeling I associate with these words?
Are there common elements to both?
If so, from the perspective of these common elements, “death” and “evil” might be related (for me).
What kind of relation do they seem to have on each elements?
Are there relation that can be seen as “is a”, “having property of”, “a member of”, etc that is expressed with “is”?
If so, on the specific element in my mind, “death is evil”. But for other perspective, it may not be so.

Questions are often formed with unexamined presumptions. But I guess we can make well grounded very specific question, if you consider what you association/imagination/feeling/etc you have with the word as the sufficient ground, though.
In other words, if the question is logical/rational/reasoning type of question, it always depends on the arbitrary and hypothetical basis.
If you desire and expect to have some sort of “absolute” basis, hypothetical basis may appear as “false” basis, indeed.

Perhaps, I considered it so that any basis has its own questions inherent in its meaning. So we look at a given question by its components, then each of those aspects need answering, we then find ourselves back with the same problem when we investigate a component ~ each aspect becomes a question which also has components, then perhaps it goes on and on in an eternal loop.

There may be certain self sustaining questions built on objective meaning, but even physicist don’t usually see truths as absolute [usually]. In philosophy surely meaning is even more fragmented/fractured [for want of a better term], which is why one tends to not believe in ‘truths’.

Hi Q … yeah, like when you think you know, how do you know? Then it becomes: how did you come to know that you knew? Then, how did you arrive at theknowledge that you knew you knew? Etc.

Hi mate, yea just like that, also I find that to answer one fundamental question I end up trying to answer them all just to arrive at an answer for the former question. I usually end up at infinity and the absolute and get tied up in knots, because neither of then include anything bar themselves. Perhaps the most difficult question [for me anyways] is; ‘what is everythingness’, which is a good example of a question that needs a whole lot of things answered before we can attempt an answer. The answer is 42, but what’s the question ~ that kinda stuff.

quetzalcoatl

Can you explain what you mean with particular reference to the question “If there are such things as death and evil, is death evil?”?

Remster

You don’t even know that you are thinking. Do you know that you are thinking now? It’s an automatic thing. You don’t even know that you are thinking and so why this sudden interest in wanting to find out why you are thinking? I don’t even know that I am talking. You don’t even know that you are talking. When you asked your questions, “Am I thinking?” you would say, “Yes”. That “yes” also is an automatic thing.

The whole thing is on automatic. Whatever is put in there, when you are stimulated, it comes out. In the jargon of computer language, the input has to be there. So, this has been going on and on and on and on. When there is stimulation, it comes out. If it’s not there thinking stops. So that’s the reason why you go on, acquiring this knowledge, feeding it all the time.

So, what do you know? You know a lot. You have gathered all this knowledge from various sources and filled it up. Most of it is not necessary. You know a lot and you want to know more and more and more – to use it. Of course. There’s no such thing as knowledge for the sake of knowledge. It gives you power. Knowledge is power. “I know; you don’t know.” That gives you power. You may not even be conscious that your knowing more than the other gives you power. In that sense, knowledge is power. To acquire more and more knowledge, more than the knowledge that is essential for the survival of the living organism, is to acquire more and more power over others.

What value has this knowledge for you? To know more about something which you really do not know.

We are always talking about thought and thinking. What is thought? Have you ever looked at thought, let along controlling thought; let alone manipulating thought; let alone using that thought for achieving something material or otherwise? You cannot look at your thought, because you cannot separate yourself from thought and look at it. There is no thought apart from the knowledge you have about those thoughts – the definitions you have. So if somebody asks you the question, “what is thought?” any answer you have is the answer that is put in there – the answers that others have already given.

There may or may not be death ~ if there is an after life ~ if consciousness is not material. There may or may not be evil ~ if everything is relative ~ and if there is death.

Knowing as performed by that which knows, is done in conjunction with linear time [for us but not for e.g. an infinite being], it’s a process of receiving, calculating and storing, we don’t know until the moment has past and the info ascertained. However we can know instantly if we can connect to the source instantly, we do this when two minds ‘click’ like when you look at each other and instantly know something without speaking it. Or when we attain info directly ~ intuitively or with inspiration.

True, though we do reach a certain level similar to ‘Spartan equals’ but in terms of knowledgeable power rather than warrior prowess.

I think we do know even if the particulars are somewhat ambiguous. You can know a thing that isn’t true.

If you made a perfect replica of yourself, your thoughts would be someone else’s. we are the actor, our personalities the roles we play. All the things we think are thought, when separated in such a way, are merely the mechanisms of thought, the brain and its neurons are there to serve us.
Pure thought then is what is left, what is not mechanistic.
Yet it is equally true that thought is everything other than pure thought, when we are thinking with our brains.

I don’t think so. We can answer some questions completely. Say you ask what a human is? You have an idea what a human is. And therefore you are able to apply it in language. Of course you could further your definition of what a human is and how you further it would depend on what your definition of a human already is. This would have to be the case as were furthering it on knowledge of it at least.
Your idea of what a human is could be that he’s has a particular physical type of body. Of course you could go further in your definition by saying what the internal make up of such a being is.
Now you could ask what the physical aspects of a human are? What makes them up but regardless of this you still have some “knowledge” of what a human is. You can imagine their form. As long as you have some knowledge of what something is regardless of how “deep” it is you are able to answer a question such as what a human is.
Why because this tells us when we ask is a human good say the purpose of the question is to be answered on the basis of a “certain” amount of deepness of knowledge of what a human is? We can still answer the question with that certain amount of deepness, why, because what have of the concept counts as knowledge.
We “may not” need to go deeper to answer the question. So if I was to ask are humans good I would delve deep enough into the concept to see what their behavior is? If I see it’s behavior which I have counted as good based on the “limited” knowledge I “do” have of goodness then I am able to answer the question.
Basically we call things what they are based on limited knowledge of things. So when we ask are they those things we can successfully answer the question as our limited “labeling” is all we need.

Saying you don’t even know your thinking depends on what you say knowing is or what is knowing, but I agree with you there is a certain type of knowing we don’t have of thinking when we usually do so.
If you were to ask yourself are you thinking the immediate answer would be yes. So we have the pre-idea of what thinking is but then the question is why don’t’ we apply this knowledge the moment we see ourselves thinking and say that’s thinking.
This tells us the mind works in a way we don’t always apply knowledge to know what something is when we perceive it.
This makes sense as if you were to look an elephant. If someone were to ask you what an elephant is you might not remember all you know of elephants but that part you don’t remember is somewhere there in your brain.
However the question is do we apply the rest of our knowledge to an elephant of an elephant when we see it?
If suddenly the elephant charges at you might remember how an elephant killed a man who chose the option to stand and stare down the elephant. So you choose to run instead. This shows particular knowledge comes up of a particular concept in particular situations. Perhaps it is too much for the human mind to deal with all the knowledge of something at one time.
So do you know your thinking? I’d say your subconscious knows but your surface consciousness doesn’t know unless you ask are you thinking which is a situation where that particular knowledge of that concept comes up.

Okay. Isn’t that analogous to the way computers basically function? In the event that there’s no input to handle a specific question, then there will definitely be nothing found as the result of a search.

So then according to your process of coming to know something, if there is no initial receiving of data, there will obviously be nothing to calculate, store or retrieve. Hence, there would be nothing to know later. Therefore while all questions are born from answers that are already there, if there is no data there, there can be no question. They go together.

People who are always repeating the knowledge they have been given, using it in their thinking all the time are practically blind, in the sense that they have never looked at anything. When we mentally ’look’, we project acquired knowledge on what we are looking at. So, in exactly the same way, reality is something which cannot be experienced at all, or known at all unless you use the knowledge you have about the reality of things. There can’t be any pure perception. So, these are all theories.

I don’t think that’s true. In my last post I said that certain information comes to mind on a something we perceive it depending on the situation. However that doesn’t mean we cannot know something the first time we see it.
We have a limited understanding of it when first see it. We apply the knowledge we know of other things that we know in greater depth to it. So if you knew what eyes were from a tiger when you see an elephant for the first time you know those thing it has are eyes. That they have part of that definition.
However say you have never seen anything before and you’re encountering your very first thing when you see it you are stilling knowing something of it because your intelligence is able to process what it sees.
It recognizes what you see as maybe curved, soft and so on. You may not know the opposite of soft but you still now know soft. You’d have to. It’s not like you need to know hard to soft or vice versa. That would suggest you’d only know them if they happened for you at the same time.
So what I’m saying is that we do know something without pre-existing knowledge to an extent.

That’s right, but it’s not a response to my request. The reformulated question doesn’t make those presumptions, because it begins with the conditional clause “if there are such things as death and evil”. So what presumptions are you finding in there?

We live according to the presumptions we have of things. We use the presumptions. We are the presumptions.

It’s simple, it’s consciousness. I become conscious of something only when I use the presumptions I have, otherwise what is consciousness?

Yes, I agree with your analysis of the presuppositions we must hold to in posing our questions, but I don’t see that it follows from this that those presuppositions are necessarily false. If I were to ask “Who killed JFK?” I am presupposing that there was a man we call JFK, that he was killed, and that there is (or was) a man responsible for the killing. If we find out one day that it was Lee H. Oswald, then which of these suppositions (if not all) do we learn were false?