Philosophy Now Forum

Tesla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:53 am "How can I decide without assuming something first? " -Eod

You are using long strings of assuming assumptions up is down and backwards is forwards to describe your method of assumption.

Any method of assumption itself is an assumption. The only thing you can do is observe one assumption progress to another assumption as a string and where they diverge and converge.

Indeed, lets assume your wrong. Anything built on a false assumption leads to misinformation.

You are still assuming what wrong is without defining it, and we are left with "wrong" being empty. If all is assumed, than knowing is the assumption of assumptions and what we considering right or wrong is connected or disconnected assumptions.



I understand that those who study Philosophy enjoy complex ideas. But if your going to assume qualities to a an idea that does not even qualify for the realm of theory, I'd say your more looking to form the world under your presumption instead of searching for where to find information that could explore potential places to look to gather data for a working theory. Do you follow?


I dont think it is a theory that all theories and argument begin with assumptions...hell just read an argument and look for the word "assume". By modern standards as to what is a theory or fact, this is a fact.

Most people glance over it because of the ring of defintions that contain it, with these rings meant to contain the public secret that the argument is grounded in a word that is void.

Philosophical reasoning, as well as scientific, is a hierarchical pyramid that contains a chamber in the center which is empty.

I dont have to form anything, I am saying whatever you deam as true has no real foundation to it other than void.

So...search for what without becoming aware of the self or the environment?

Face it, we come into the world barely remembering even when we came in, we have black spots of forgetfulness relative to our origins...we literally just assume and reassume patterns as we age.

Even progressive searching, where we progress from on point or view to another point of view necessitates an intrinsic emptiness within the current point of view we have. And this point of view? Continually repeated assumptions that act as a loop, we call perspective, that forms how we assume reality.

Even intuitively people go through life with an emptiness inside of them, some are more or less aware of it than others, in which they try to "fill" with "forms" of experiences or whatever. The truth of it is...nothing is there and people create looping logic around the fact trying to contain it.



Philosophy is grounded in the question of truths and the assumptions they are founded on. No philosophy has addressed the simple "fact" that it is grounded on assumptions (with all fields of knowledge being variations of philosophy).

Theory is abstract assumptions disconnected from empirical assumptions, but considering both assume forms (as abstractions and empirical phenomena are forms) we are strictly observing forms in multiple dimensions of awareness simultaneosly. Philosophy does not make theories, or not theories, it provides definition by nature.


Philosophy makes assumptions, and then connects them to other assumptions in the form of a tautology as proof, but fails to take into account this "assumption --> (proof=assumptions)" is circular.

Wittgensteins observations of tautologies shows that knowledge, of any type specifically logic, is recursive loops.

Hegel observed, maybe Fichte, that these tautologies not only synthesize with other tautologies but effectively that even synthesis itself is a tautology and we are left with....again...loops. he did not address the nature of the loop as specifically, rather change and continuums, but this reflects deeply a tautological nature.

A tautology is pretty much isomorphism and recurssion as looping.

One statements inverts to many. This one to many is a recursion of the original. It is circular.


Assumptions are tautological in nature with what we assume fundamentally being "form". This form begins in the act of definition where we assume assumption. Considering the empty nature of assumption and the "form" nature of definition we can observe this literally and metaphorically through a simple point projecting to another point through a line. The point being the empty assumptions, the line being the connection of assumptions as definition.

It is grounded in geometry at the end of the day considering the formless nature of assumption only assumes form.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:32 pm How can I decide without assuming something first? We assume our assumption, thus resulting in the converge of the assumptions (many assumptions into 1) and the divergence of assumptions (one assumption to many with this converging into a new assumption as a variation of the original.

• In metaphysics, [philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
  -wiki

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 8:57 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:32 pm How can I decide without assuming something first? We assume our assumption, thus resulting in the converge of the assumptions (many assumptions into 1) and the divergence of assumptions (one assumption to many with this converging into a new assumption as a variation of the original.

The ones who insist they are not making the ultimate assumptions are the theists and philosophical realists.

• In metaphysics, [philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
  -wiki

Theists insist their God is real without any provision for assumptions.

You think you are the only one who is aware of assumptions upon assumptions and upon an ultimate assumption.

There are many philosophies and philosophers who recognized that whatever is taken as real is grounded ultimately on an ultimate assumption to deal with infinite regression.

Most philosophers and scientists would assume there is no certainty to knowledge, thus the starting point is an assumption.

Hume highlighted the principles of cause and effect is not real but rather psychological. So whoever take cause and effect as real is ignorant they are making as assumption cause and effect is real.

Science also made the assumption that there is a real ultimate reality to be discovered.

According to the principles of anatman [anatta], impermanence, emptiness [Sunyata] there is no reality of permanent substance.
Thus whatever is taken as real is grounded on an assumption of emptiness.
So what is wrong with that?


You are ignorant that it is very common with philosophies and philosophers who believe reality is grounded on an ultimate assumption. Then you kick up a fuss based on your ignorance that others are ignorant.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 8:57 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:32 pm How can I decide without assuming something first? We assume our assumption, thus resulting in the converge of the assumptions (many assumptions into 1) and the divergence of assumptions (one assumption to many with this converging into a new assumption as a variation of the original.

The ones who insist they are not making the ultimate assumptions are the theists and philosophical realists.

• In metaphysics, [philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
  -wiki

Theists insist their God is real without any provision for assumptions.

You think you are the only one who is aware of assumptions upon assumptions and upon an ultimate assumption.

There are many philosophies and philosophers who recognized that whatever is taken as real is grounded ultimately on an ultimate assumption to deal with infinite regression.

Most philosophers and scientists would assume there is no certainty to knowledge, thus the starting point is an assumption.

Hume highlighted the principles of cause and effect is not real but rather psychological. So whoever take cause and effect as real is ignorant they are making as assumption cause and effect is real.

Science also made the assumption that there is a real ultimate reality to be discovered.

According to the principles of anatman [anatta], impermanence, emptiness [Sunyata] there is no reality of permanent substance.
Thus whatever is taken as real is grounded on an assumption of emptiness.
So what is wrong with that?


You are ignorant that it is very common with philosophies and philosophers who believe reality is grounded on an ultimate assumption. Then you kick up a fuss based on your ignorance that others are ignorant.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 8:57 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:32 pm How can I decide without assuming something first? We assume our assumption, thus resulting in the converge of the assumptions (many assumptions into 1) and the divergence of assumptions (one assumption to many with this converging into a new assumption as a variation of the original.

The ones who insist they are not making the ultimate assumptions are the theists and philosophical realists.

• In metaphysics, [philosophical] realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
  -wiki

Theists insist their God is real without any provision for assumptions.

You think you are the only one who is aware of assumptions upon assumptions and upon an ultimate assumption.

There are many philosophies and philosophers who recognized that whatever is taken as real is grounded ultimately on an ultimate assumption to deal with infinite regression.

Most philosophers and scientists would assume there is no certainty to knowledge, thus the starting point is an assumption.

Hume highlighted the principles of cause and effect is not real but rather psychological. So whoever take cause and effect as real is ignorant they are making as assumption cause and effect is real.

Science also made the assumption that there is a real ultimate reality to be discovered.

According to the principles of anatman [anatta], impermanence, emptiness [Sunyata] there is no reality of permanent substance.
Thus whatever is taken as real is grounded on an assumption of emptiness.
So what is wrong with that?


You are ignorant that it is very common with philosophies and philosophers who believe reality is grounded on an ultimate assumption. Then you kick up a fuss based on your ignorance that others are ignorant.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 11:42 pmre point 1-8

• P1. All of reality is grounded on assumptions, upon assumption, upon assumptions;
  P2. but All assumptions are assumed by the human mind.
  C3. Therefore all of reality is grounded on the human mind.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:06 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 11:42 pmre point 1-8

1.Actually there are so many versions of theism, many just assume God exists.


Yes, I say, all theists assume God exists, but in their mind they insist they are not assuming.
Nope there is only theism, i.e. belief in a God, but there are many forms of God. Ultimately there is Ontological God


False generalization, some just assume. For some the question "God?" is a yes or no answer with no depth given to why,

2. But those philosophers fail to take it beyond an infinite regression.
There is nothing beyond infinite regression that can be real, i.e. justifiable empirically and philosophically.

There is not explanation for justification that does not result in definition creation continually.



Btw, are you a theist?
or otherwise?

Both.

Are you insisting you are not making any ultimate assumptions?

The ultimate assumption is "all"...it is taken as is.

3. Most philosophers and scientists ignore their starting point of assumption, and assume instinctively.

The assumption made by Science is stated with the Scientific Framework
Some philosophers assume instinctively but consciously deny they are not making any assumptions. I don't agree with these philosophers, i.e. the philosophical realist.

Still making assumptions.



4. Hume did not address that is cause and effect is psychological, and empiricism acts as the ground form the pscyhe, whether cause and effect is effectively empirical as well.

It is implied very obviously.
Implication is probabilistic and necessitates the opposite possibility as necessary by its probabilistic nature.

Hume mentioned cause and effect is leveraged merely upon customs, habits and constant conjunction. If that is not psychology basically, then what.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

Customs, habits, constant conjunctions are a tautology premised on recursive forms...both abstract and physical.

5. Science in assuming a real ultimate reality to be discovered, is assuming a definition of God to be discovered.

Perhaps Newton did but not Science in general.
Show me the evidence where scientists has generally accepted that.

When you said the sought "ultimate reality", which by definition is "God."

Btw, the assumptions of the noumenon in Science is not a critical factor.
This assumption merely set the limit.
Limits are intrinsically empty when looking at the definition of a line as "infinite zeros".


What is critical in Science is the scientific knowledge that is justified as objective via the Scientific Method.
People, from all over the world, claim an experience of divinity...this group agreement is objective.

When Science justify the existence and principles of gravity, what is critical for humans is whether this knowledge is consistent as qualified and whether it can be useful.

Gravity is true because it is a story. You cannot see it, it merely is a way of defining reality.

No one bother with the assumption at all.


6. There is no reality of a permanent substance, considering substance changes, necessitates substance as consistently changing is always around. The hinge point is "substance" as continually changing makes substance permanent.
Agree

Substance is form.

But considering substance is uniform matter, we are left with substance grounded in form. Form is constant.
Basically 'Change' is the only constant.
Forms are always changing.

Hence consistency is the limit of change through form. For example the form "horse" is just a boundary of movements. Constant change is a limit.


7. As to your sunyata, you are arguing that what is deemed real is emptiness, reality is grounded in emptiness...and this whole statement is a self referencing "form".
I did not argue "what is deemed real is emptiness,".
What is real is justifiable empirically [i.e. Science] and philosophically [critical thinking and wisdom], and both are grounded on assumptions.

Is justifiability empirical?



8. As to point 7, assumption of emptiness is not the same as assumption being empty in your context. I am say we are not assuming emptiness, but assumption itself is empty.
Yes, assumption itself is empty, and emptiness is also empty.

What you missed out on the above is;

• P1. All of reality is grounded on assumptions, upon assumption, upon assumptions;
  P2. but All assumptions are assumed by the human mind.
  C3. Therefore all of reality is grounded on the human mind.

The human mind is, is a context of space. All is assumed through space.

Note Kant's Copernican Revolution.
Note Neitzche killing Kant.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:43 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:06 am What you missed out on the above is;

• P1. All of reality is grounded on assumptions, upon assumption, upon assumptions;
  P2. but All assumptions are assumed by the human mind.
  C3. Therefore all of reality is grounded on the human mind.

The human mind is, is a context of space. All is assumed through space.

• Space [empirical] is part and parcel of reality [empirical].
  Reality is grounded on assumption.
  Therefore space is grounded on assumption.

• "All is assumed through space which assumed upon assumptions"
  To assume, there must be a human mind.
  Therefore the human mind preceded all assumptions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:08 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:43 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:06 am What you missed out on the above is;

• P1. All of reality is grounded on assumptions, upon assumption, upon assumptions;
  P2. but All assumptions are assumed by the human mind.
  C3. Therefore all of reality is grounded on the human mind.

The human mind is, is a context of space. All is assumed through space.

You stated;
"All is assumed through space." but

• Space [empirical] is part and parcel of reality [empirical].
  Reality is grounded on assumption.
  Therefore space is grounded on assumption.

Assunption is void. Space is void. Assumption, as emptiness of thought and/ or form (considering formless physical phenomenon assume imprints as well), is spatial in nature.

Space manifests through space.

Thus your point is;

• "All is assumed through space which assumed upon assumptions"
  To assume, there must be a human mind.
  Therefore the human mind preceded all assumptions.

see clay example above. Assumption is the reception and projection of form through formlessness. The assumptive nature of man, embodied within the metaphorically stated "formless child's mind", is grounded in formlessness thus spatial.

The latter conclusion is the basis of the philosophical anti-realists grounded on empiricism-rationalism combination with critical thinking.

Not really.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 5:31 pm Assunption is void. Space is void. Assumption, as emptiness of thought and/ or form (considering formless physical phenomenon assume imprints as well), is spatial in nature.

Space manifests through space.

Thus your point is;

• "All is assumed through space which assumed upon assumptions"
  To assume, there must be a human mind.
  Therefore the human mind preceded all assumptions.

see clay example above. Assumption is the reception and projection of form through formlessness. The assumptive nature of man, embodied within the metaphorically stated "formless child's mind", is grounded in formlessness thus spatial.

The latter conclusion is the basis of the philosophical anti-realists grounded on empiricism-rationalism combination with critical thinking.

Not really.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 5:41 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 5:31 pm Assunption is void. Space is void. Assumption, as emptiness of thought and/ or form (considering formless physical phenomenon assume imprints as well), is spatial in nature.

Space manifests through space.

But all the above is grounded on an ultimate assumption.
Thus my argument and conclusion below,
Therefore the human mind preceded all assumptions.

False, because even the word assumption is assumed...its an empty term that means nothing as it is a formless word.

The human mind as form, does not proceed formlessness

Thus your point is;

• "All is assumed through space which assumed upon assumptions"
  To assume, there must be a human mind.
  Therefore the human mind preceded all assumptions.

False see above. Second I also stated that empirical phenomenon assume other phenomenon. Sand assuming the imprint of a rock is one example.

see clay example above. Assumption is the reception and projection of form through formlessness. The assumptive nature of man, embodied within the metaphorically stated "formless child's mind", is grounded in formlessness thus spatial.

The latter conclusion is the basis of the philosophical anti-realists grounded on empiricism-rationalism combination with critical thinking.

False, as space is both abstract and empirical and is the respective point of formlessness itself.

Not really.

1. You argued, ultimately assumptions are looped upon assumptions and more assumptions.
I disagree with that.

Thus creating a tautology of one assumption variating into others and proving the above.

Note,
You stated above "The assumptive nature of man .."
The above imply it is humans who are making the assumptions, i.e. whatever the assumptions.
The key word is "implies", thus by default it is not just man. The fulcrum of your argument is "implies".

This imply humans has the inherent nature to make assumptions.
Thus whatever the assumptions you bring on, they are made by humans.
Not only, see above.

Thus my point is whatever the assumptions, they all fall back and are reducible to humans, the assumptions looped back to humans.
Therefore your proposition in 1. is false!
True and false, but this aligns with the nature of assumption so ironically the premise maintains itself in multiple states within the argument.

To explain this further:

1. All assumptions as variations of the original assumption are extensions of the assumption as they observe the original assumption exist in many variations...thus the original assumption as looping through itself through continual adaption is both self-referencing and true.

2. All assumptions as variations of the original assumption are progressions away from the original assumption as the original assumption cannot exist in and of itself without progressing to further assumptions, thus all assumptions are intrinsically empty and as such are not self referencing and false.

3. All assumptions as both form and formless are variables as contexts and exist as intrinsically empty loops that exists in multiple positions and states as the same looping form while still being empty. The assumption is a variable that is both constant, like the variable "x", while equivocating to anything, like the variable "x".

4. All assumptions are imaginary in nature, as in they given "image" or form through formless and formlessness through form. The assumption as imaginary is thus both true and false, with falsity being a gradation of one truth through many and truth being unity. Assumptions are both one and many, and as images are superpositions. For example a red beer cup may exist in multiple positions of reality, with each red bear cup being a variation of the other due to its position.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:18 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 5:41 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 5:31 pm Assunption is void. Space is void. Assumption, as emptiness of thought and/ or form (considering formless physical phenomenon assume imprints as well), is spatial in nature.

Space manifests through space.

But all the above is grounded on an ultimate assumption.
Thus my argument and conclusion below,
Therefore the human mind preceded all assumptions.

False, because even the word assumption is assumed...its an empty term that means nothing as it is a formless word.

The human mind as form, does not proceed formlessness

Thus your point is;

• "All is assumed through space which assumed upon assumptions"
  To assume, there must be a human mind.
  Therefore the human mind preceded all assumptions.

False see above. Second I also stated that empirical phenomenon assume other phenomenon. Sand assuming the imprint of a rock is one example.

see clay example above. Assumption is the reception and projection of form through formlessness. The assumptive nature of man, embodied within the metaphorically stated "formless child's mind", is grounded in formlessness thus spatial.

The latter conclusion is the basis of the philosophical anti-realists grounded on empiricism-rationalism combination with critical thinking.

False, as space is both abstract and empirical and is the respective point of formlessness itself.

Not really.

1. You argued, ultimately assumptions are looped upon assumptions and more assumptions.
I disagree with that.

Thus creating a tautology of one assumption variating into others and proving the above.

Note,
You stated above "The assumptive nature of man .."
The above imply it is humans who are making the assumptions, i.e. whatever the assumptions.
The key word is "implies", thus by default it is not just man. The fulcrum of your argument is "implies".

This imply humans has the inherent nature to make assumptions.
Thus whatever the assumptions you bring on, they are made by humans.
Not only, see above.

Thus my point is whatever the assumptions, they all fall back and are reducible to humans, the assumptions looped back to humans.
Therefore your proposition in 1. is false!
True and false, but this aligns with the nature of assumption so ironically the premise maintains itself in multiple states within the argument.

To explain this further:

1. All assumptions as variations of the original assumption are extensions of the assumption as they observe the original assumption exist in many variations...thus the original assumption as looping through itself through continual adaption is both self-referencing and true.

2. All assumptions as variations of the original assumption are progressions away from the original assumption as the original assumption cannot exist in and of itself without progressing to further assumptions, thus all assumptions are intrinsically empty and as such are not self referencing and false.

3. All assumptions as both form and formless are variables as contexts and exist as intrinsically empty loops that exists in multiple positions and states as the same looping form while still being empty. The assumption is a variable that is both constant, like the variable "x", while equivocating to anything, like the variable "x".

4. All assumptions are imaginary in nature, as in they given "image" or form through formless and formlessness through form. The assumption as imaginary is thus both true and false, with falsity being a gradation of one truth through many and truth being unity. Assumptions are both one and many, and as images are superpositions. For example a red beer cup may exist in multiple positions of reality, with each red bear cup being a variation of the other due to its position.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:41 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:18 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 5:41 am
But all the above is grounded on an ultimate assumption.
Thus my argument and conclusion below,
Therefore the human mind preceded all assumptions.

False, because even the word assumption is assumed...its an empty term that means nothing as it is a formless word.

The human mind as form, does not proceed formlessness


1. You argued, ultimately assumptions are looped upon assumptions and more assumptions.
I disagree with that.

Thus creating a tautology of one assumption variating into others and proving the above.

Note,
You stated above "The assumptive nature of man .."
The above imply it is humans who are making the assumptions, i.e. whatever the assumptions.
The key word is "implies", thus by default it is not just man. The fulcrum of your argument is "implies".

This imply humans has the inherent nature to make assumptions.
Thus whatever the assumptions you bring on, they are made by humans.
Not only, see above.

Thus my point is whatever the assumptions, they all fall back and are reducible to humans, the assumptions looped back to humans.
Therefore your proposition in 1. is false!
True and false, but this aligns with the nature of assumption so ironically the premise maintains itself in multiple states within the argument.

To explain this further:

1. All assumptions as variations of the original assumption are extensions of the assumption as they observe the original assumption exist in many variations...thus the original assumption as looping through itself through continual adaption is both self-referencing and true.

2. All assumptions as variations of the original assumption are progressions away from the original assumption as the original assumption cannot exist in and of itself without progressing to further assumptions, thus all assumptions are intrinsically empty and as such are not self referencing and false.

3. All assumptions as both form and formless are variables as contexts and exist as intrinsically empty loops that exists in multiple positions and states as the same looping form while still being empty. The assumption is a variable that is both constant, like the variable "x", while equivocating to anything, like the variable "x".

4. All assumptions are imaginary in nature, as in they given "image" or form through formless and formlessness through form. The assumption as imaginary is thus both true and false, with falsity being a gradation of one truth through many and truth being unity. Assumptions are both one and many, and as images are superpositions. For example a red beer cup may exist in multiple positions of reality, with each red bear cup being a variation of the other due to its position.

Eodnhoj7:False, as space is both abstract and empirical and is the respective point of formlessness itself.
Space in this case is abstracted and empirically leveraged by human beings.
If not, how else?
Simple. An empty mind and empty night sky appear as the same things.
Whether you see darkness or think it...there is no difference.

Are you insisting there are platonic 'space'?

Are you insisting we cannot both see and think of various spatial forms?

In all your above arguments you have not been able to prove whatever the assumptions, they are absolutely independent of the human conditions.
I never said they where dependent or independent, but that form and formlessness mediates all things including the human condition.

Assumptions do not appear out of the blue and influence things.

Actually they do. Just empty your mind and various random images pop up.
Or just looked at the spontaneous particles in a vaccuum experiment.

If all assumptions are imaginary [point 4] they are imagined by human beings.

Not reality as space being the grounding of our ability to assume, makes itself a conscious due to its self referencing and we are left with reality being formed as images.

In all the points above, the assumptions has to be predicated upon human beings, i.e.
no human beings mean no assumptions.

False, water assumes the shape of whatever object that imprints it.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:51 am Not reality as space being the grounding of our ability to assume, makes itself a conscious due to its self referencing and we are left with reality being formed as images.

In all the points above, the assumptions has to be predicated upon human beings, i.e.
no human beings mean no assumptions.

False, water assumes the shape of whatever object that imprints it.