{"id":5558,"date":"2021-10-24T13:39:18","date_gmt":"2021-10-24T11:39:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=5558"},"modified":"2025-04-30T10:19:43","modified_gmt":"2025-04-30T08:19:43","slug":"self-evidence-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/self-evidence-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Self-Evidence"},"content":{"rendered":"

SELF-EVIDENCE<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

Self-evidence is a feeling of immediate certainty about a state of affairs<\/span>; when expressed, the corresponding statement is obvious, i.e., it requires no proof or justification, and should be accepted as such<\/span>, in other words, it cannot be doubted or questioned.
\nThis statement is a-stasi<\/a>c, not debatable<\/span> see evidentiality;<\/a> dismissal<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The term apperception<\/em><\/span> is used to denote this form of knowledge which is produced by a conscious perception, and accompanied by reflection.
\nKnowledge by apperception is opposed to knowledge by inference<\/em>, and thus to knowledge acquired by argumentation, which is a kind of inference. Three types of apperception, that is to say three main sources of evidence, can be identified and distinguished from each other:<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0Self-evidence as the fruit of the divine revelation<\/span> of a transcendental reality.<\/span>
\n\u2014 Perceptual self-evidence<\/span> of sensory data.<\/span>
\n\u2014 Intellectual self-evidence<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The easiest way to legitimize a claim is to appeal to one of these three sources, see argument-conclusion<\/a>.
\nThe certainty manifested in a direct, simple assertion corresponds to the certainty associated with apperception, see repetition<\/a>.
\nInferential argumentative belief can be considered inferior to belief based on any kind of evidence: this observation is at the root of the paradoxes<\/a> of argumentation.<\/p>\n

1. Dogma: Revelation as a Source of Certainty<\/span><\/h1>\n

Believers consider the revelation contained in the sacred books<\/span> to be the best source of certainty. This revelation, which took place in the sacred time of the origins, can be renewed by a special revelation.
\nIn what is now called his Memorial<\/em>[1], Blaise Pascal has described this experience which produced an immediate and absolute \u201ccertainty<\/span>\u201d:<\/p>\n

The year of grace 1654,<\/span>
\nMonday, 23 November, Feast of St. Clement, Pope and Martyr, and others in the Martyrology.<\/span>
\nVigil of St. Chrysogonus, martyr, and others.<\/span>
\nFrom about half past ten in the evening to about half past midnight,<\/span>
\nFIRE.<\/span>
\nGOD of Abraham, GOD of Isaac, GOD of Jacob<\/span>
\nnot of the philosophers and of the learned<\/span>
\nCertainty. Certainty. Feeling. Joy. Peace.<\/span>
\nGOD of Jesus Christ.<\/span>
\nMy God and your God.<\/span>
\nYour GOD will be my God.<\/span>
\nForgetting the world and everything, except GOD. [\u2026]<\/span><\/p>\n

2. Self-evidence of the sensory data<\/span><\/h2>\n

Direct physical perception of a state of affairs immediately legitimizes a claim. There is no need to argue to see and claim that the snow is white.<\/span> As the saying goes, \u201cfacts are the best arguments\u201d; the question \u201cIs snow white?<\/em>\u201d\u00a0is not debatable (\u201ca-stasic\u201d, see stasis<\/a>;<\/span> evidentiality<\/a>).<\/p>\n

From a philosophical point of view, Descartes has rejected the possibility of basing knowledge on sensory data with the hypothesis of the \u201cevil genius\u201d<\/span> (Descartes [1641], First Meditation).<\/p>\n

3. Intellectual intuition<\/span><\/h2>\n

Descartes accepts only intellectual intuition as a source of certainty:<\/p>\n

Rule 3<\/em> – Concerning objects proposed for study, we ought to investigate what we can clearly and evidently intuit or deduce with certainty<\/span>, and not what other people have thought or what we ourselves conjecture. For knowledge can be attained in no other way<\/span>. (Descartes [1628], Rule 3)<\/span><\/p>\n

Unlike sensory data intuition, intellectual intuition is infallible:<\/p>\n

By intuition I mean, not the wavering assurance of the senses, or the deceitful judgment of a misconstructed imagination, but a conception, formed by unclouded mental attention, so easy and distinct as to leave no room for doubt<\/span> in regard to the thing we are understanding. (Id<\/em>, Rule 7).<\/span><\/p>\n

Intellectual intuition is what makes us accept something as \u201cbeyond reasonable doubt. For example, we can be fairly certain that if you take a point off a line, you can draw a single second line parallel to that line; or that the square of any negative number is positive.
\nBut these certainties have been challenged by the construction of imaginary numbers and non-Euclidean geometries.<\/p>\n

4. Consequences<\/span><\/h1>\n

4.1 Conflict between Sources of Evidence<\/span><\/h2>\n

It may seem that the most unassailable kind of self-evidence is the direct evidence provided by sensory data. However, the following text shows that it can be judged inferior to that which comes from the authority of the sacred text.<\/p>\n

The first disagreement among the Companions after the Prophet’s death concerned the reality of his death itself.<\/span> After the Prophet’s death, ‘Umar ibn al Khattaab, may God be pleased with him, insisted that the Messenger of God did not die, and considered any such talk to be a false rumor spread by the hypocrites, and threatened to punish them for it. This went on until Aboo Bakr appeared on the scene and recited the Qur’anic verse:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018Muhammad is no more than a Messenger. Many were the Messengers who passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will you then turn back on your heels? Whoever turns back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to God; but God [on the other hand] will swiftly reward those who [serve him] with gratitude\u2019<\/em> (3: 144).<\/span><\/p>\n

And another verse of the Qur’an:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018Truly you will die [one day], and truly they [too] will die [one day]\u2019<\/em> (39: 30).<\/span><\/p>\n

When ‘Umar heard these verses, his sword fell from his hand<\/span> and he himself fell to the ground. He realized that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, had passed away and that the divine revelation had come to an end. [\u2026]<\/span><\/p>\n

Differences over the Burial of the Prophet [\u2026]\n<\/strong>These were two critical issues [about \u201cthe reality of the death of the Prophet\u201d and about \u201cthe burial of the Prophet\u201d]<\/em>, that were swiftly resolved simply by resorting to the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
\n<\/span>Taha Jabir al ‘Alwani, 1993, The Ethics of Disagreement in Islam<\/em>, pp. 35-36.[2]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

4.2 Subtraction from doubt<\/span><\/h2>\n

The argument, the basis of the argumentative derivation of a conclusion, is presented as being beyond doubt, or, at least, less doubtful than the conclusion. It is conveniently presented as an apperceptive datum, i.e., as something which is as certain as a revelation, as sensible evidence, or intellectual intuition. It follows that the person who refuses to share this data is considered, as dishonorable, weak or idiotic. It is therefore not necessary to refute him or her, since he or she is already slandered, see destruction<\/a>; dismissal<\/a>.
\nGeneralized disputability<\/span> assumes that everyone can be held accountable for his or her beliefs, and that he or she must justify them when asked, so that it is illegitimate to postulate any kind of a priori certainty.
\nThis thesis contrasts with positions that accept certainties<\/span> of a religious order, such as \u201cthere is no God but God<\/em>\u201d; mathematical, \u201cthe square of a positive number is positive<\/em>\u201d; or simply everyday arguments such as, \u201cI believe that the ground will not collapse under my feet<\/em>\u201d, see dialectic<\/a>.
\nSelf-evidence can be opposed to extended argumentability, see conditions of discussion.<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> Cited after http:\/\/www.users.csbsju.edu\/~eknuth\/pascal.html<\/a> (07-09-2017).<\/span><\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Taha Jabir al ‘Alwani, 1993, The Ethics of Disagreement in Islam<\/em>. Herndon: VA: International Institute of Islamic Thought, p. 35-36. Cited after:<\/span>
\narchive.org\/stream\/157627041TheEthicsOfDisagreementByTahaJabirAlAlwani\/157627041-The-Ethics-of-Disagreement-by-Taha-Jabir-Al-Alwani_djvu.txt<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SELF-EVIDENCE Self-evidence is a feeling of immediate certainty about a state of affairs; when expressed, the corresponding statement is obvious, i.e., it requires no proof or justification, and should be accepted as such, in other words, it cannot be doubted or questioned. This statement is a-stasic, not debatable see evidentiality; dismissal. The term apperception is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5558","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5558","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5558"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5558\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14138,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5558\/revisions\/14138"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5558"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5558"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5558"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}