What are they, and who has them?

Who determines which thoughts are ‘groundless’, and on what basis?

Maybe this question is ‘groundless’ to someone who doesn’t understand where it comes from?

Are perhaps all my thoughts ‘groundless’ to someone because they are based on my own experiences, which someone in another Country can not have because their lifestyle is so different from mine?

Or are they ‘groundless’ to someone else because we just don’t have the same level of education?

Does not understanding where someone else is coming from give me the right to dismiss their opinions and thoughts as ‘groundless’?

I do admit that sometimes things that are discussed here baffle me. Perhaps I don’t see the reason for the discussion at all, or I have it seen discussed ad nauseum already and don’t believe that I will find new arguments in 20 pages of the same topic?

But do I have a right to dismiss anything as ‘groundless’ only because it does not conform with my own thoughts, or because for some reason or other I just don’t understand what the other one is trying to say?

So, what,in you opinion, are ‘groundless’ thoughts?

are they pie in the sky???????????

"What are they, and who has them?"

I wonder if thought can exist without origin...and the very origin would be a "ground" for that thought...so, based on my opinion, there are no groundless thoughts...

I think that the original thought about this was asking more about the "factual" basis, or "evidence based" discussion of thought...

Do we or must we have "evidence" for our thoughts? No, not always...we may not have a full realization of the origin of our thoughts or the full dynamic process of how we arrived at a thought..

My thinking>> thought is based on perception, perception is based on experience, experience is based on the environment, environment is based on experience, experience is based on perception, perception is based on thought...

there is the POSSIBILITY of a combination of thought, perception, experience, environment...or a combination of two, or three...

I know that there are things that are done without thought...like breathing, your heart beating, blinking...YET, even then our "brain" is "thinking" about them, or not...

is this thought? and if so, would they be "groundless" thoughts?

so, IMO, there are no thoughts that are groundless...only things that I am not able to yet understand...


"first seek to understand, and then be understood"

I found this to be interesting...

http://www.rosmini-in-english.org/ArchiveVolumes/OrigThought/Part1/OT_Part1Conts.htm

this is from Chapter One...


It Is A Fact That We Think Of Being In General



398. I begin with a simple, very obvious fact, the study of which forms the whole theory of this book: we think of being in a general way. This fact, no matter how we explain it, cannot be called into doubt. To think being in a general way simply means thinking of the quality common to all things, while ignoring all other qualities, generic, specific or proper. I have the power to fix my attention on one element of a thing rather than on another, and in concentrating exclusively on being, the quality common to all things, I am said to be thinking being in general.

To deny that we can direct our attention to being as common to all things, while ignoring or rather abstracting from all their other qualities, contradicts what is attested by ordinary observation of our own actions; it would mean contradicting common sense and violating ordinary speech. When I say: reason is proper to human beings, who have feeling in common with animals and vegetable life in common with plants, I am thinking this common being independently of everything else. If human beings did not have the ability to think being separately from everything else, this statement would be impossible. This fact is so obvious that to mention it would be sufficient, if it were not for the doubt prevalent in modern thinking. Yet it is the foundation of the entire theory of the origin of ideas.

399. To think being in a general way means that we have the idea of being in general, or at least presupposes that we have it; without the idea of being, we cannot think being. Our task, then, is to identify the origin of this idea. But if we are to discover its source, we must first examine its nature and character.

Thank you for the link, it is rather interesting and I will take my time to read through all of it.

This question arose for me yesterday in the other thread, and I'm quite curious what others think about 'groundless' thoughts.

In my opinion they can not exist, because, as you said, every thought has to come from somewhere, and it should be our duty to explore the origin in order to understand.

This is quite interesting actually because in another recent thread it was proposed that all thought is "language", and the claim there was that it supposedly impossible to 'think' or have a meaningful 'thought' that is not specific to other qualities.

That was a claim that is the exact opposite of what Antonio Rosmini is saying here. Rosmini is saying that it's "obvious" that we can indeed think of being in a general way. He claims that this is absolutely required for the very foundation of the origin of ideas.

So here we have an example two totally opposing views.

Would one of them then be 'groundless' and the other not?

Could they both be 'grounded' in different logical systems that simply began with different premises?

It seems to me that the premises we chose to build upon are ultimately our 'grounds', yet we can never prove our premises.

In fact is sounds like Rosmini's claim above is indeed his beginning premise. He states his 'grounds' as follows:



This is how premises are 'grounded'. They are simply set forth by the philosopher as being "Obviously self-evident". That's the grounds. To this philosopher this idea is simply self-evident and obvious, thus he uses this as his foundational premise for everything that will follow.

Clearly the gentleman who demands that all thought is based on language and the comparison of specific experiences would simply not accept this as being 'obvious'. He might claim, "That is not sufficient 'grounds'"

But clearly Rosmini has given his 'grounds' for why he feels this way:



So this would then be the 'reasoning' (or grounds) of his position.

To argue with the man future would be futile.

At this point, we either accept this intuitive premise, or we reject it and do our own thing.

But no matter what we do at this point, no one could claim to have any better "grounds" for their views, all they could do is say that they see things differently and therefore choose to begin with a different unproven premise.

Permises are typically statements that are offered up as 'self-evident'. Whether a premise is accepted or not lies in whether other people agree that it's 'self-evident'

I think Rosmini has a good starting view. I would tend to accept his starting premise. I might be interested in reading where he goes with this.

Thanks for posting the link to his online book.

I'm in complete agreement with you on this.

All philosophy begins with some unproven idea that the philosopher usually feels should be 'self-evident'. And that is the 'grounds' for everything that follows.

For example, we can start two different philosophies of the nature of our existance and see where they lead.

On philosophy begin with the 'self-evident' premise that we are the form.

What does that mean? Well this is just a statement that says that we are our physical bodies and are brains, ect. Our entire being is nothing more than our physical body experiencing our physical surroundings. We are the form.

That's one basis for a philosophy that we could explore and see where that leads.

Another philosophy could begin with the 'self-evident' premise that we are the thing taking the form.

What does that mean? Well this is just a statement that says we are not our physical body and brain, but instead we are the very essence of the universe that is taking the form of a physical body.

Both of these are equally valid premises.

People who think entirely scientifically might call upon Ocaam's Razor and say that it's "clearly obvious" that we are our bodies, and there is no "reason" to make up this utterly nonsensical idea that we are the universe taking the form of a body. "What would that even mean?", they might ask.

But the people who feel that we are indeed the universe taking up forms could just as easily argue that this is "clearly obvious" to them. What sense does it make to say that we are "seperate" from the universe when we are clearly made of the universe? There is nothing in us or of us that is not the essense of this universe. Any boundraries that we could attempt to draw can clearly be shown to be superficial and arbitary. For example where do our lungs stop and the atmosphere of the Earth begin? If we require air to live than are we not a part of the atmosphere of the Earth?

THe same thing could be said about our roots that anchor us to the Earth. Someone might say, "What roots? Plants have roots, not humans!" But that's actually a false notion. We simply carry our roots around in the form of a stomach and instestines, then we pick up pieces of the Earth (or other living animals that are ultiamtely made of Earth) and eat them.

We aren't seperate from our planet, nor are we made of anything that is seperate from the universe.

So the two philosophies are 'equally grounded', both of them are grounded compeltely unproven premises that appear to be 'self-evident' depending on who's judging.

How could we say that one of these philosophies is 'more grounded' than the other?

They both have valid reasoning to suggest that either one might be true. Which one we favor or chose to explore is nothing more than a matter personal preference. Neither is any more or less 'grounded'. They both have their rationale.

I think you said exactly what I was thinking, only you have a better way with words.

I have no wish to insult somebody, but I find it rather ignorant to dismiss any thought, no matter how far fetched it seems to be at the time, as groundless.

If we do not wish to take the time to explore deeper by asking questions and actually trying to think this thought ourselves, then it should be denied to us to judge.

If I said that I was being watched by an invisible flying monkey who throws invisible intangible poo at me all day that only I can smell.

That would be groundless.

But it's a thought that could be explored.

Sometimes I find it rather intriguing to visualize what people write.

I had some fun this morning imagining my nekid thoughts hopping through the threads because James said they have no clothes on.

Hmm, if no one else could percieve these things through any means, it would be groundless.

I take grounding to mean objective, verifiable, or based in a priori knowledge that is accepted by all parties, ie an accepted premise based in common previous knowledge.

If this cannot be done, then two parties do not have a grounded argument and should not proceed or else confusion and misunderstanding are sure to follow.

For creative, or others that wish a more science and reason oriented site. http://forums.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewforum.php?f=9&sid=2fa5e7ace59ee05139829ae573f460f3

Beliefs which exist without the believer knowing why or how they arrived at that particular belief.



Questioning where is asking for grounds.



Your understanding of experience constitutes your grounds for what you state.



No



You have the right, but that would not necessarily make the claim true. Your reasons(grounds) for the claim may not accurately reflect the other's understanding.



Sometimes a very careful dissection is necessary to get to relevancy.



You have the right, but that right does not make the claim true.



Read abra's response regarding what my view is. That is groundless, because he does not really know what my view is, yet continues to write about it as if he does. He is not in a position to elaborate on it. His expressions do not reflect it. Therefore, it is impossible for him to ground my belief from his point of view.

Perhaps schizophrenia could be the grounds?

Also, shouldn’t we at least presume 'honesty'?

Clearly if people are going to outright lie to us on purpose when they have no grounds for what they are saying then they aren't sharing philosophy. Such people are just out to deceive and give people a hard time.

There will always be utter jerks around who are just out to give people a hard time no matter what. That has nothing to do with respectable philosophical notions.

We must assume an element of honesty. Dishonest people have nothing to do with philosophy. Their ‘grounded’ in deceit and treachery. Or they may very well be mentally ill, or simply living in a differnet conscious reality than most of us experience.

Also a lot of people may actually buy into myth or fantasy. Look at religion, a huge portion of the human population has bought into religious mythologies on many different levels. Their ‘grounds’ range from a simple belief in a doctrine, to intuition, to actual experiences they believe to have had. I’ve known quite a few people who firmly believe that they have seen deities, angles, and so on. Are they schizophrenic? Do they just have a wild imagination? Or did they truly have some psychic experience that is based in some essence of what we’d normally think of as the supernatural?

Should we dismiss all psychic experience as schizophrenia?

Maybe there is no such thing as schizophrenia and invisible flying monkeys who throws invisible intangible poo at people are real.

What would you do if it actually happened to you? Deny the experience? Or run out and make an appointment with a shrink?

This is interesting.

So you want 'groundless' thoughts dismissed on the basis of what?

Because you can?

Because that is the way this comes over to me.

Why do you see it that way?

Groundless?

So you're saying that in your 20+ page thread you were not able to convey your idea?

I thought I understood your position quite well actually. You kept demanding over and over and over again that we can only think by comparing experiences with other experiences and you were calling that "language" and demanding that all thought is therefore founded on the basic principle of 'language'

That is my 'grounds' for what I wrote. It's very well 'grounded' based on a 20+ page conversation I just had with you!

My position was along the lines of Rosmini's premise.

So now you're saying that we both agree with Rosmini?

Gee, so much for language then. Here we were in agreement all along and we simply weren't able to communiate our thoughts very well via language.

It took Rosmini to translate it for us.

I guess we have lighthouselover to thank for posting Rosmini's thoughts then.

Just post something groundless on the league of reason, there are no rules against it, but you pay the price of unconcealed laughter.

Kind of like telling someone in public you believe Elvis lives.

http://forums.leagueofreason.co.uk/index.php?sid=c9641a0e5104662e818b1f73e86112d6


Elvis!!!!! LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjhbccXIp4c&feature=PlayList&p=F8D3E52B881884C4&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=23

Perhaps some "grounds" have to be experienced personally before they can be acknowledged and accepted personally. Transcendental meditation would be a good example for me. Dying and then being "sent back" another one. Goodness gracious, Scrooge very badly wanted Marley to be a figment of his imagination caused by indigestion.

Yea cause we all know that to be a true story . . .

I am saying that in 20+ pages you had not yet understood...

You can ground your own claim, not mine. Your claim of mine is groundless. Your claim of mine is grounded by your own belief. Your belief of my claim is grounded by your belief. You cannot ground my belief with your claim of what it is.