even the Western tradition has things could self-evident truth they call them innate
truth for global I just finished my postcard in philosophy and I studied one specialist module
code the philosophy of psychology and they have this idea that language is innate it's called
linguistic nativism and it's based on my argument from the poverty of stimulus I don't want to bore
you to death but what it basically means is that a child learner learning an acquiring language
developing language acquisition right has limited linguistic inputs but what they express is far
more complex than the input so if the data is limited its poor its impoverished it's called
the primary linguistic data it's limited and poor and it's poor in quality it goes through the brain
and what comes out is far more complex right for example a child who have limited sentences
and would develop grammatical rules based on limited sentences for sentences that the child
has never heard before what many linguists say and philosophers say that there is a mate there are
natural domain specific structures in the brain that have linguistic knowledge like grammar and
that's why we have the famous norm Chomsky who has discussed this and he is a one of the main
proponents for linguistic nativism yes there are debates amongst them but the most primary
theory at the moment is that language is innate its inbuilt so it's a it's innate right so they
have this concept to that things are innate so don't think all we're just making this up just
to justify the Islamic tradition no this is based on normal stuff even the world being physical like
this iPad being external to my brain this is a self-evident truth in Western philosophy because
they had a huge problem about the physical hood by Israel right realism versus idealism is this
is this iPad really outside of my brain of course is home so I can see it yeah but maybe you think
being your brain right maybe our brain is on Mars and there's an alien with mental probes in
our brain making us thinking fools we're thinking of feeling right now so they had a huge debate so
some of them said it's self-evidently true what about the fact that you could trust your mind now
the reason I'm making this brothers and sis is to show that the Western Eastern tradition has
adopted this concept of self-evident truth right the things are so evidently true you don't have to
prove them we know right for example trusting your mind the hold of science read this up for yourself
okay read the works of professor Thomas Nagel mind and cosmos other people and philosophers that one
of the main assumptions or the main self-evident truths of science is that you have to trust your
mind because if you don't trust your mind they could eventually formulate truth then you can't
trust by it because the minute you do science assumes that you have a mind that can eventually
acquire truth it's an assumption you have to start with the fact that you could trust your mind and
then you end up doing science that you can't see well science can prove you could trust your mind
because I'll be a circular argument you're arguing in a circle because you first have to admit that
you trust your mind before you do any science this is called a self-evident truth they have
to accept it they just have to accept it now the reason I'm making these things is to show
that the things that are self-evidently true and you know the truth but maybe you can't articulate
their truth and the idea of things being self-evidently true is a universal phenomenon
from science to religion to philosophy everyone accepts that our things could self-evident truth