How old does an argument have to be before it can assume the de facto status of being foundational? Before it can just be assumed as a given?
How popular must it be with philosophers, serious theologians, or John Q Public before it simply becomes the truth?
Can you build arguments upon layers of previous arguments - a philosophical Stratum Ex nihilo?
Or, in the end, do you always have to ground your arguments in some factual observation about reality?
What's responsible for the arrow of time? There's a lot of physics and philosophy on the subject including concepts that suggest that time isn't an arrow at all. But in at least one sense I think it's safe to say that time is an arrow - at least for sentient beings. Cognition, requires an accumulation of information that must be converted into knowledge. That's a temporal process. It requires a forward sequence of events. Any learned behavior, requires past experiences that lead to lessons learned. It is impossible to create a learning model that doesn't involve time. Sentient beings perceive the passage of time in universe within a framework of prior events that define historical contexts. What I ate last night, what I saw on TV this morning, what I read on Saturday, etc. , the framework we use to contextualize our existence. Thoughts?