Proto Writing - Justification

This is the first writing I make in the second Era of writing, for the nature of how justification works is necessary to break through all of metaphysics and philosophy. Without justification, we fail every single time. However, if we arm ourselves with the weapon of justification, then we shall be able to break through even the hardest of all problems. With that, the solutions to all problems shall be revealed by the light of justification.

The essence of justification rests upon asking, "Why do we believe that X is true?" Though a more complete question would be, "What must be true for X to be true?" or perhaps, "What supports our belief in X?" To be honest, I have difficulties envisioning the idea of justification. So let us continue in our journeys until we discover the truth. It is an impression I have that justification is more about the feeling of certainty than genuine truth or certainty. It seems to be about "How can I know that X is true?"

Let us understand as well, that this writing will be put through rigorous examinations in terms of justification, so we must prepare to be dumbfounded. The answer to the most recent question is indeed, "I know set A to be true, therefore X has to be true/X is probably true." So we obtain the first clue, that justification may work from truth to truth, that several certain truths lead to another certain truth. Now we must work out the essential problem, "Is there a first truth?"

A good question which applies justification to this is, "Can we know that there is a first truth?" And the most important question is actually this, "Can we know anything at all?" and "What is knowledge?" Can we know anything? The answer is it depends on the truth. The truth of the truth that is, is the truth fundamental or is it infinitely regressive? That is the only 2 possibilities on the nature of truth. Either justification ends, or it does not. However, if it does not end, how can we know anything? 

If the chain of justification is endless, then we can never reach the source of it all and evaluate the truth of anything. For there is always a truth that must be evaluated. 

(Day Change)

Why is it that if the chain of justification is endless, we can not know anything? The reason is that in the chain of justification, the truth of a particular thing rests upon prior truths known. However, if the law is the same for all truths, then we have an infinite chain of justification. By that reason, no truth is justified for all truths require another truth to justify itself. One has to keep checking the previous truth in an unending manner and so one will never reach the final justification which justifies all other truths.

The problem is, how do we even know if there is an infinite or finite chain of justification? This problem is an extension to the problem of how we know anything at all. However, the problem is stuck in a network or loop of problems, observe. We have problem A, which is "Can we know?" Which is answered by problem B, "Is there an infinite or a finite chain of justification?" which is answered by problem C, "How do we know anything?" which results in problem A again. 

Therefore we cannot rationally escape this problem, there is no existent rational path from the set of problems we have to a solution of the problem set. This does not mean that is there no solution, it simply means that there is no rational solution. The solution is then from observation, for that is the way we know anything at all. This solution will then defeat all 3 problems and provide a sufficient answer.

Problem A is answered with "We can know", because observation remarks that we can know, problem B is answered with "There is a finite chain of justification", which then resolves problem A and is resolved because observation remarks that knowledge is obtained and justified by observation. Finally problem C is answered with "By observation" because that is how anything has been justified since the early ages.

(Time change)

So knowing that beginning with the questions may not necessarily be productive and may not lead to a rational path, we must approach the problem of justification from what we do know and then ask later. We know that we can know, but in the end there is always something that we can know. We can know our knowingness, but there is also the knowing of ignorance. That is being aware of our ignorant state and thus knowing it. That is the way to bypass the problem. 

So we know that we can know and that the method of knowing is through observation. The word "observation" can be substituted with the word "experience" which reveals the true nature of justification and knowledge. So the reason we know that there is a finite chain of justification is because there is experience. The fact that we experience and derive knowledge from our experiences proves definitively that there is a finite chain of justification. Eventually, there has to be a first truth, a fundamental truth, or a foundational truth which justifies all other truths. The source of truth is that which we know as experience.

The problem is what kind of experience supplies our knowledge? This we must also approach from the point of knowledge. There are 2 ways our knowledge is formed, from empirical experience and from rational experience. The empirical experience is the experience of the senses. While rational experience is the experience of the mind. As such there are 2 domains of knowledge, knowledge of the empirical and knowledge of the rational. 

(Time change)

Empirical knowledge is knowledge of the empirical world, or knowledge of the world as received through the senses. Rational knowledge is a bit different, it concerns with reality in general, and since reality consists of things beyond the senses as well, then one cannot use the senses as the sole source of knowledge, in fact one might not even be able to use the senses at all as they may actually deceive us on what reality actually is like. As such, one must use a radically different style and method of observation, that is rational observation.

Rational observation is essentially the observation of our thoughts. However, we don't only look at the way thoughts are as containers of things, but rather we look at our imagination. However, it is at this point that things may become problematic as without the legal system provided by the empirical world, then we are forced to construct our own law inside the mind. As at the point we are closed off the empirical world, we have a void of the law. Without any law, it is possible to declare anything to be true from a rational perspective.

Indeed, as such the combined observation is actually the true way of utilizing our experiences. However, as opposed to the natural science where empirical experiences are the main focus, or even the sole focus, in rational knowledge the empirical experience is simply a supporting information to the rational experience that is our thoughts. In fact, the combined observation might as well be called as the general observation. As we generalize the totality of our experiences into a single concept of reality, that is how we proceed on towards the truth.

(Time change)

Then the best possible way to construct ideas is to simply think about the justification of that idea. Is that idea justified by experience or is it justified by another truth? That way when we write we can display those justifications accordingly. Though it is possible that there are problems where the solution simply requires omniscience, which we clearly do not possess. As such, the problems have to be solvable by rational thought alone, and not by omniscience or by empirical research.