How does a statement qualify as self-evident?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » How does a statement qualify as self-evident? » How does a statement qualify as self-evident?

How does a statement qualify as self-evident?

Page: 1 2 3

How does a statement qualify as self-evident?

Yamayama
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 12, 2004
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 55

Posted 02/13/04 - 01:14 PM:	#1
How does a statement qualify as self-evident? Some statements are demonstrably true. To rationalise our support for other statements, however, we are left with no argument other than to say that it is self-evident (At least I personally have found myself in that position on occasion). For example, is the following statement self-evident? Why/Why not? Whoever brings something into existence has the right to determine what is done with it. P.S. This is my first post. I hope people feel that I've posted in the right forum. Please forgive me if I haven't.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5417

Posted 02/13/04 - 01:20 PM:	#2
A statement is self-evident if and only if everyone who reads it agrees. Eminent authors are allowed the privilege of calling something self-evident without running a survey. The rest of us quote them.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Kalel
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: The Land of the Free
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 260

Posted 02/13/04 - 01:23 PM:	#3
Yamayama wrote: How does a statement qualify as self-evident? Some statements are demonstrably true. To rationalise our support for other statements, however, we are left with no argument other than to say that it is self-evident (At least I personally have found myself in that position on occasion). For example, is the following statement self-evident? Why/Why not? Whoever brings something into existence has the right to determine what is done with it. It's not a self-evident statement, for it it was, there would be no abortion debate. Then there's the matter of what you mean by bringing something into existence. A doctor brings a baby into existence, but doesn't own it. A father can conceive a child, but the state can take his right to see it away if he is abusive.
"God created man...or was it the other way around?"

Yamayama
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 12, 2004
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 55

Posted 02/13/04 - 02:32 PM:	#4
Well, the statement I gave as an example is a trick statement really. I say this because no person has ever brought something into existence entirely by themselves. They have merely rearranged pre-existing matter/energy. This is all a person is doing when they ‘build’ a table, or cast iron, or ‘make’ anything. The reason I enquired as to how a statement can qualify as self-evident is because: If nature (in this instance meaning the entire universe) has been purposefully brought into existence, then it falls under the applicable territory of the above statement (if it is true that is..and it seems to me that it is self-evident). Your reference to giving birth is a probing one. But…as I see it…because they neither created the matter/energy of which the baby is composed, nor designed the genetic program which governs its development, it is not the parents who are bringing the child into existence. It seems to me that they are merely inviting to take place that portion of the act which is left to take place – they do not carry out the act themselves. Of course, even if a parent could be considered as bringing a child into existence, it seems to me that (at least some) living things are quite likely eligible for exemption from the afore-mentioned principle.

muxol
yuletide

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1861

Posted 02/13/04 - 08:02 PM:	#5
no statement to be self-evidently true (including the one above)

Ethereal
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 12, 2003
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 507

Posted 02/13/04 - 11:38 PM:	#6
muxol wrote: no statement to be self-evidently true (including the one above) How about tautologies?

thaKillingToke
Philosopher Stoned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Location: Canada
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 132

Posted 02/14/04 - 12:50 AM:	#7
Id say tautologies are self-evident, but of course, trivial. Does creation confr rights? In the sense of creation ex nihlo, no because rights are not part of the natural universe. Rights are not natural laws--they are polictical tools and rules, inventd not discovrd. But a society might construct such a rule, for example, to protect intellectual proprty. Thus the artist has a right to determine what becomes of hesh work. True creation ex nihlo confrs responsibility, but rights have no meaning outside a political context, thus cant apply to universe building entities, imo. 8)
"In a place where something can be distinguished by signs, in that place there is deception. If you can see the signless nature of signs, then you can see the Tathagata" --Buddha, from Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra ('The Diamond That Cuts Through All Illusions' ) ~Homage and peace be to the Buddha of the Light of the King of Flame, illuminator of all Buddha Lands of the 10 Quarters, Amituofo~

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 02/14/04 - 01:18 AM:	#8
Yamayama wrote: How does a statement qualify as self-evident? Some statements are demonstrably true. To rationalise our support for other statements, however, we are left with no argument other than to say that it is self-evident (At least I personally have found myself in that position on occasion). For example, is the following statement self-evident? Why/Why not? Whoever brings something into existence has the right to determine what is done with it. P.S. This is my first post. I hope people feel that I've posted in the right forum. Please forgive me if I haven't. _________________________________________________ To call a statement self-evident (self-evidently true) is, despite the grammatical appearance of it, actually a negative judgement. It is to say of a particular statement that it requires no evidence to be seen to be true. (It can be known to be true without evidence.) The best examples are from plane geometry where the concept was born. For instance, the axiom, "Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other." To call it self-evident is to assert that we need no further reason or evidence for it, or in geometrical terms, it does not need to be (and perhaps cannot be) deduced from any other premises which are more certain than it, itself, is. Many propositions have been thought to be self-evident, when it turned out that they were not. Perhaps the most famous example is the parallel postulate in Euclidian geometry which was later on shown to be deducible from the other postulates. (This event began the discovery of non-Euclidian geometries) And this development brought the idea of self-evidence into doubt. We could no longer say that it was self-evident that particular propositions were-self-evident.

muxol
yuletide

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1861

Posted 02/14/04 - 02:13 AM:	#9
Ethereal wrote: How about tautologies? i often create models for counterexamples in which tautologies of classical propositional logic are invalid. i wonder how being a tautology and being self-evident are related...surely not by a biconditional or identity symbol. what say u ethereal?

Yamayama
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 12, 2004
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 55

Posted 02/14/04 - 03:53 AM:	#10
Thanks for your contributions. Gonna take some time to contemplate what's been said before I offer anything further myself (...if I have anything further to offer...).

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.