[QUOTE=davar55;316122]
I know for certain that my philosophy is not circular, but is hierarchical.
[/QUOTE]
What supports the top (or bottom) of the hierarchy? I've asked this question in various guises.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;316133]What supports the top (or bottom) of the hierarchy? I've asked this question in various guises.[/QUOTE]

Well, the ultimate basis for all knowledge is sense perception.
Then reason is the process of integrating perception into concepts,
and concepts into wider and wider concepts.
When you get to philosophical questions, you have to reach down
to the basic concept and axioms of existence, which were and are
implicit in every percept anyway, which is why these axioms can
be validated.

Theism for the prolixic
 

beware the pilot of the Sopwith Camel

[QUOTE=davar55;316164]Well, the ultimate basis for all knowledge is sense perception.[/QUOTE]

So then you take on faith that your senses sense things correctly? (I certainly do!)

[QUOTE=Dubslow;316201]So then you take on faith that your senses sense things correctly? (I certainly do!)[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't use the word faith to describe the reliance one has on
one's senses. But faith means (to me) without reason, argumentation,
or evidence, and the successful consequences derived from relying
confidently on the efficacy of one's senses and sense perception
provide validation of their "correctness". If you insist on reducing
knowledge to being faith at base then either you have a different
definition of faith that doesn't disvalue it, or you're willing to live
with an ungrounded philosophy (i.e. grounded in faith).

[QUOTE=Dubslow;316201]So then you take on faith that your senses sense things correctly? (I certainly do!)[/QUOTE]

here is the real revelation (my opinion) either sense perception tells us about the world or it doesn't.

if it does then we can learn about the world.
if it doesn't then we can't learn about the world.

Doesn't really matter which answer is Capital T Truth--rationally, we have to act like the former is correct. Nothing can be gained from the second path.

[QUOTE=chappy;316206]here is the real revelation (my opinion) either sense perception tells us about the world or it doesn't.

if it does then we can learn about the world.
if it doesn't then we can't learn about the world.

Doesn't really matter which answer is Capital T Truth--rationally, we have to act like the former is correct. Nothing can be gained from the second path.[/QUOTE]

By the contrapositive of (2), since we can, it does.

there is no contrapositive of a P v -P statement :) (or it is it's own contrapositive)

Do you mean to imply that because we believe that we can explain the world, we actually create the world? (obviously I exaggerate here--but no more so than your assumption that the world is real because we sense it.)

Yet, you deny that faith is a valid term to use?

Don't get me wrong. I believe the physical world exists, and that our perceptions tell one story of it, but ultimately we are just one of the men stumbling around the elephant, each describing a piece of it. We must, as rational beings, act as if the perception is definite, but we shouldn't claim, as rational beings, to know Truth.

Even rationally held and justified beliefs can be wrong.

[QUOTE]Do you mean to imply that because we believe that we can explain the world, we actually create the world? (obviously I exaggerate here--but no more so than your assumption that the world is real because we sense it.)

Yet, you deny that faith is a valid term to use?[/QUOTE]

I don't think I have to believe in the world for it to exist, if it does or as it does.
I do think that we are dependent on our senses, however our senses diverge from whatever is "Really Real". The world looks quite different to birds, and they do not experience the heat of chili peppers as mammals do.
Which is more real?

I tend to be easily persuaded by the results of well planned, well reviewed experiments, i.e. physics. I suppose it can be argued that this is just another creed.....or that the Noodly Appendage of the FSM is fixing the results to its own "end".

[QUOTE=kladner;316234]

I tend to be easily persuaded by the results of well planned, well reviewed experiments, i.e. physics. I suppose it can be argued that this is just another creed.....or that the Noodly Appendage of the FSM is fixing the results to its own "end".[/QUOTE]


Ramen.

[QUOTE=chappy;316206]here is the real revelation (my opinion) either sense perception tells us about the world or it doesn't.

(1) if it does then we can learn about the world.
(2) if it doesn't then we can't learn about the world.

Doesn't really matter which answer is Capital T Truth--rationally, we have to act like the former is correct. Nothing can be gained from the second path.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=davar55;316207]By the contrapositive of (2), since we can, it does.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chappy;316208]there is no contrapositive of a P v -P statement :) (or it is it's own contrapositive) [/QUOTE]

(I labeled (1) & (2) above. It was only the second half, (2), whose
contrapositive I was referring to.)

[quote]Do you mean to imply that because we believe that we can explain the world, we actually create the world? (obviously I exaggerate here--but no more so than your assumption that the world is real because we sense it.)[/quote]What I said was, since we can (learn about world), it (sense
perception) does tells us (something) about the world.
We don't just believe we can explain (something) about the world,
we can (based on reason based on ultimately sense perception)
in fact explain and understand (something, not all) about the world
(not create the world).
It's not "the world is real because we sense it" (I sense therefore it is)
but "we sense it because it's real, if it weren't, we couldn't).

[quote]Yet, you deny that faith is a valid term to use?[/quote]"Faith" is only invalid as an epistemological term if you're attempting
to base any knowledge on it. If you don't care whether you know
what you know, faith is fine.

[quote]Don't get me wrong. I believe the physical world exists, and that our perceptions tell one story of it, but ultimately we are just one of the men stumbling around the elephant, each describing a piece of it. We must, as rational beings, act as if the perception is definite, but we shouldn't claim, as rational beings, to know Truth.[/quote]When those men start talking to each other and sharing percepts and
concepts, they start to get the True picture. If by Truth you mean
omniscience, then no, but we individually or together can in fact
as rational beings discover truths and truth.

[quote]Even rationally held and justified beliefs can be wrong.[/quote]People make mistakes, even big ones in their core beliefs.
But these types of errors must be based on (IMO)
some kind of logical error, or major mistake of information,
or emotional attachment to an idea. The basics of philosophy
or of science should (but aren't) understood and agreed on
by all thinking adults by now. That we're not even close just
means we have a long way to go.