I'm asking this question because I'm genuinely curious about what people think. Is anything Self-Evident? I suppose this calls for a defintion of Self-Evident which I take to mean any proposition that is beyond doubt. Feel free to offer any definitions deemed appropriate to the subject. It seems that anything could be doubted. Is a Self-Evident propostion beyond doubt or perhaps beyond reasonable doubt?

Good question!
For me the answer is 'yes' - yes there is a self evident proposition.
The detailed answer is that this proposition is;
'there is awareness of something'

It will be really interesting to see what people think about the answer to your question, which is one we should all come to if we enquire deeply enough.

If nothing is self evident, then it must be doubted that we could know with any certainty that nothing is self evident.

However, it it clear that we can doubt anything - whether such doubts are justified or not.

But presumably what is really meant is whether there is any knowledge that cannot be seriously challanged with the application of critical thinking. The problem I think arises in maths, there are basic axioms that must be accepted - but once these are in place it is quite easy to produce unchallangable proofs. It is only therefore at the level of challanging the axioms that any significant doubt is possible - and none of these challanges could presently be regarded as serious - just muzings.

I don't think there really is anything that is absolutely self-evident in what people tend to say they observe to be the universe around them. There are just provisional truths and some very basic axioms that either must be rejected or accepted on philosophical grounds. Most crucially this last involves the assumption (or not) of the factual, objective existence of something independent of your consciousness. Based on what axioms you adopt, some provisional truths then become more likely to be true (or at least better approximations of what is true) than some others.

Glad to see you started with definition, however, we still will probably get stuck on beyond doubt. Since I do not have a better one, I will stick to it.

The answer to the question is a task to find one self-evident proposition.

tuco wrote:Glad to see you started with definition, however, we still will probably get stuck on beyond doubt. Since I do not have a better one, I will stick to it.

The answer to the question is a task to find one self-evident proposition.

I suggest 'beyond doubt' is uncontradictable, which means to contradict the proposition one must adopt a position which is wrong, i.e. clearly in error - clearly in error could include being self contraditory, illogical and so on.

Pebble wrote:If nothing is self evident, then it must be doubted that we could know with any certainty that nothing is self evident.

However, it it clear that we can doubt anything - whether such doubts are justified or not.

But presumably what is really meant is whether there is any knowledge that cannot be seriously challanged with the application of critical thinking. The problem I think arises in maths, there are basic axioms that must be accepted - but once these are in place it is quite easy to produce unchallangable proofs. It is only therefore at the level of challanging the axioms that any significant doubt is possible - and none of these challanges could presently be regarded as serious - just muzings.

It seems that there are some things that don't even make sense to doubt like....

"Am I asking a question or Am I experiencing something"

To doubt these things seems like a failure to grasp their meanings.

Perhaps to be cognitively conscious is to be cognizant of meanings that serve as a foundation for conscious apprehension.

One could doubt such meanings, but such doubt would be self-destructive to organic consciousness.

...just musing for the moment...

Will you doubt that Earth is not flat? Because I am not sure why to make it so complicated.

tuco wrote:Will you doubt that Earth is not flat? Because I am not sure why to make it so complicated.

Given the right sort of experiences and some unreasoning uncertainty, perhaps I could be brought to doubt the truth of such an obvious assertion.

An observation: Doubt is a feeling not a thought

tuco wrote:Will you doubt that Earth is not flat? Because I am not sure why to make it so complicated.

First you have to show that the earth exists! If as is argued by some, our observations do not reflect reality and are really projections of a shared consciousness - then firstly the earth may not exist, second it could adopt any shape that our shared consciousness agrees on.

DrWho wrote:An observation: Doubt is a feeling not a thought

Is distrust not the feeling and doubt the thought?

Pebble wrote:

tuco wrote:Will you doubt that Earth is not flat? Because I am not sure why to make it so complicated.

First you have to show that the earth exists! If as is argued by some, our observations do not reflect reality and are really projections of a shared consciousness - then firstly the earth may not exist, second it could adopt any shape that our shared consciousness agrees on.

Hi Pebble, just a quick note:

on the "Reason is a Matter of Faith Thread" on page 18, I replied to a post you made. You never responded, so I wondered if you saw it: end note

Pebble wrote:

DrWho wrote:An observation: Doubt is a feeling not a thought

Is distrust not the feeling and doubt the thought?

It does not seem that way to me. It seems that I have streams of thought that produce feelings of doubt or certainty.

I have to show that Earth exists? In that case forget I said anything. I am going to check Does the Earth spin/rotate about it's axis? thread.

tuco wrote:I have to show that Earth exists? In that case forget I said anything. I am going to check Does the Earth spin/rotate about it's axis? thread.

The question of doubt seems like a personal question to me. A mathematician may feel that his propositions are self-evident, but to me they may be doubtful.

Perhaps an unbalanced mind can doubt the most obvious assertions.

Philosophers seem to accept the existence of self as a cognitive being as the only unquestionable fact and work from there. All sorts of trouble start from this point - once you deny all external reality, then standard proofs become meaningless and only ones internal thoughts are held to be incontrovertable - this is obviously nonsense - but starts with the premise that the self is the only thing that cannot be doubted.

I wonder if this is the crux of the problem - there is no proof that I exist. I may simply be a projection of another entity - in essence part of anothers dream or mental construct, indeed not necessarily a being's construct - I could simply be a character within a computer program. So how can I assert without a shadow of a doubt that I exist?

Pebble wrote:

tuco wrote:Will you doubt that Earth is not flat? Because I am not sure why to make it so complicated.

First you have to show that the earth exists! If as is argued by some, our observations do not reflect reality and are really projections of a shared consciousness - then firstly the earth may not exist, second it could adopt any shape that our shared consciousness agrees on.

Hrmm?
No idealist here would say the earth doesnt exist, as far as I know. What we do say the earth exists as an idea in consciousness, and we say that this (mental) earth is roughly spherical in shape.

If I kick a rock, I kick a rock. I experience kicking a rock as an event, experience or idea in consciousness, which does not mean the rock doesnt exist. The rock exists as an idea in consciousness, and kicking it does not refute idealism.

Lets not get distracted into a 'idealism is woo' argument.

Pebble wrote:Philosophers seem to accept the existence of self as a cognitive being as the only unquestionable fact and work from there. All sorts of trouble start from this point - once you deny all external reality, then standard proofs become meaningless and only ones internal thoughts are held to be incontrovertable - this is obviously nonsense - but starts with the premise that the self is the only thing that cannot be doubted.

I wonder if this is the crux of the problem - there is no proof that I exist. I may simply be a projection of another entity - in essence part of anothers dream or mental construct, indeed not necessarily a being's construct - I could simply be a character within a computer program. So how can I assert without a shadow of a doubt that I exist?

You cant assert that the self exists without doubt.
Thats why I didnt include 'self' or I in my proposition, I said 'there is awareness of something' rather than 'I am aware of something' for this very reason.

Little Idiot wrote:You cant assert that the self exists without doubt.
Thats why I didnt include 'self' or I in my proposition, I said 'there is awareness of something' rather than 'I am aware of something' for this very reason.

How do you know there is awareness? Any awareness could be an 'illusion' within a model.