Fifth in a series of questions for Atheists?

Question

What do you believe comes first: the knowledge of self, the knowledge of intelligible objects, or the knowledge of being and non-being? Do you believe, for instance, that a person first knows reality, and its opposition to non-reality (implicitly, of course), and then later, by reflecting on his or her act of knowledge, the intellect comes to know the existence of that knowing act and its thinking subject, and thus he or she comes to know the existence of this "chair" or that "bed", seized by his or her senses.

In other words, do you believe that in intellective knowledge, the universal comes first, and that sense is restricted to the individual and particular?

For an introduction that may clarify this, please see my previous question: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmgF6T79A4AOXy7WOUZN8z3sy6IX?qid=20070720084124AACP1g8

"Seciden Mencarde" Our philosophy of how to approach reality is directly related to religion. It is what gives us the "rules", so to speak, of what constitutes proof, and what does not. As the debate is about how to "prove" the existence, or non-existence of God, as well as to discern the nature of that hypothetical entity, we have to be building off of the same foundation if we are going to get anywhere.

"Big Red Machine"--if I phrased my question in such a way that I lumped all atheists together, I apologize.

Answer 1

You are essentially doing some Lacanian analysis there in the framing of your question. It's basically a long-winded chicken/egg proposition that has no answers except belief. In that, it is a trick question. If you get an atheist to say or write "I believe," you are already correct.

Thus, I choose to expose the structure of your question instead of answering it.

Answer 2

a million. I was once raised as a Christian, and I simply misplaced religion and was once in a state of uncertainty of whether or not I was once a theist, pantheist, panentheist, deist, and many others.. Then I began to study into more than a few varieties of faith. I've studied the Abrahamic religions, Hinduism, and a few Greek mythology. I've additionally studied extra minor religions each right here and there.. like a few pagan ones and whatnot. Recent study in Psychology indicates hyperlinks to mind undertaking which might be aspect of why persons are devout. Anthropology additionally presents insightful glimpses into the human race. Religion is stagnant - by no means progressing, regardless of the arrival of recent understanding - very so much in contrast to technological know-how. two. 18 three. I do not comply with some thing that is not a faith on the second. I'm presently seeing that Buddhism (the form that's now not a faith, however a lifestyle..) and feature been finding out my as* off at the Buddha and his phrases.

Answer 3

JP and UP pointed out some known steps in psychological development, with which I agree...

...but I think some of what you're talking about depends on the person. Aside from known developmental steps, some people just understand things differently. My little boy seems very interested in what's in front of him and how things work in particular, but my 1 year old baby girl seems to understand concepts first and particulars second.

For example, when playing with a toy cell phone my son pushed all the buttons to see what happens and tried to open it to see inside. He didn't pretend it was a phone until much later. My girl took it and immediately put it up to her ear like she'd seen grown-ups do with real phones. She had to be shown the buttons.

So I think some people may grasp universal concepts first and some people are more focused on the steps first.

Answer 4

You seem to have come to the conclusion that these systems of knowledge must be built one upon the other like bricks, and that they must come in a certain order. I have not been shown a convincing argument to make me believe that that is the case. They may develop together from very primitive forms to advanced, each complementing the other, or they may arise each independently, none depending on the other, and in no necessary order. I have no way of knowing at this point.

Answer 5

At first, an infant cannot distinguish between self, other, and world.

The first split is the split which substantiates an external reality, a world, separate from the self (which still at this phase includes other).

After perception develops further to the point empathy begins to show, the self differentiates from other.


As this is psychology, it is possible that splits may occur otherwise, or not at all. In autism, the self-other split is often incomplete or does not occur at all, and even the self-world split may not occur completely (though only in the most severe of cases would it not occur at all).

Answer 6

It is not clear that the question makes sense. We believe in an objective reality because that is a model that works well; it conforms to perceptions in every case. In this model, the universe would come first, and sense would indeed be limited to the one doing the sensing. But the commonality of sense indicates the existence of an objective reality, in conformance with the usual model.

Answer 7

I believe child and developmental psychology shows that it is:

Objects
Awareness of self as opposed to others.
Being/non-being.


Children first learn to manipulate objects. But they are ego-maniacs, Self is all there is, the world exists for them alone.

Next they learn that what affects them does not necessarily affect others. But they have no concept of non-existence. Death is just sleeping.

Finally they learn that living is being and death is non-being. Some retreat into the warm and fuzzy world of religion and the delusion of eternal life. Others face reality as it actually is and accept their fate.

Answer 8

I believe in the Interpersonal, Personal, and Trans-personal stages (in that order), also known as Pre-Conventional, Conventional, and Post-Conventional.

They are outlined here:

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
2. Self-interest orientation
( What's in it for me?)

Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
( The good boy/good girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
( Law and order morality)

Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
( Principled conscience)


In the first stage (Pre-Conventional) we only do what is right if it benefits us in some way.

In the second stage (Conventional) we do what is right because we are supposed to and fear the consequences of not doing so.

In the third stage (Post-Conventional or Trans-personal) we do what is right because we DESIRE to do so for our own well being and the well being of others.

I also believe in Freud's Stages of Psycho-development.

I hope this answered your question...

Answer 9

In human development, there is some fairly clear research about this...

First, we develop primitive awareness of self and others... then comes awareness of objects. Object permanence (that it still exists, even if you can't see it) is clearly demonstrated by toddlers playing peek a boo and hiding objects in order to reclaim them. We are a complex little machine, us humans and our consciousness...

I believe your wondering about existentialism...??? At what point do we start to wonder why we are here?? And, that, is how it ties into religion....

Answer 10

I think knowledge of things comes first; even babies react to the world around them. Self awareness, well, that depends on how you define it; babies can be aware of things they like or don't like, but I don't consider true selfawareness until about 5 years old.

Some never understand the concept of reality, thinking that whatever exists in their minds is real.