Unanswered Questions

So, there's been a lot on my mind lately. It strikes me as a healthy practice to reevaluate my beliefs as regularly as possible- in all aspects of life- to seek out inconsistencies and get the most out of my head.

The first thing that seems readily apparent to me is that beliefs should held for logical, non-arbitrary reasons. Whether logic is a subset of truth or truth a subset of logic, it seems only by logic that one can establish truth. The whole of what is is quite obviously unknown (and inherently unknowable), but the whole of what we know is is what we can logically reason is.

Logic, as I understand it, is to be built in chains-- you start with assumptions and work to conclusions. Two things are true about such chains:

1. Every link must have the support of sound reasoning and sufficient evidence, or else the conclusion, given the assumptions, is false.

2. The conclusion, provided every link is sound, is only as true as the assumptions.

The second point should be enough to instill doubt on many conclusions-- after all, if we are to know their validity, we must know the validity of the assumptions. Ultimately, we're forced to begin our chain from the most basic forms of knowledge we have: self-evident truths. What, then, if any, self-evident truths are there?

I think it's arguable enough to pose two things that we know to exist, as a matter of self-evidence:

1. Self

2. Perceptions

And that's it. I know that I am a perceiving entity, and that I perceive things. In what state these other things exist, besides as products of my senses, is unknown. Whether or not they exist at times that I am not perceiving them is unknown. Whether or not there are other perceiving entities that perceive the same things is unknown.

And yet, all of these unknowns are made as assumptions in the social sciences. Whether or not the conclusions people- myself included- draw about economics or politics are true, given the assumptions, they can only be as true as these entirely unknown assumptions.

The best one can do with regard to unknowns is assert probability, but even then, such probabilities must have a logical justification. I could pose that other minds probably exist, but why? What answer has been given to that question? Is there an answer? What makes the likelihood of a world with other minds greater than that of a world with Descartes's evil demon?

I don't know.

Why believe in that of which I have no knowledge?

Foundation of Man, my book-in-progress, was inspired by the idea to create the ultimate logical chain- from self-evident truth to the moon. I wanted a philosophy where, from last conclusion to first, its soundness was as sure as life. I want to believe that such a thing is possible, but I'm unsure-- there are many unanswered questions.