Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:55 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:06 pm

duszek wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:37 pm It seems to me that most of what we say if full of unproven assumptions.

The sentence I have just written does not assume anything because of the introduction unit "it seems to me".

The second sentence I have just written does not assume anything either, because it is purely analytical.
Or do you see any assumption in it of any kind ?
Please be as intransigant as Descartes.

I think not.
"It seems to me" is almost directly identical in meaning to an assumption.
An assumption is a state where what "seems to be the case" is applied unchallenged.

I can express what some thing seems to me without assuming that it is the case.

No you cannot. Since you cannot express such a thing without first making that assumption.
It's almost like you do not understand what "assume" means.
Assuming is not taking a thing to be the case, but hypothetically doing that.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:05 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:55 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:06 pm

I think not.
"It seems to me" is almost directly identical in meaning to an assumption.
An assumption is a state where what "seems to be the case" is applied unchallenged.

I can express what some thing seems to me without assuming that it is the case.

No you cannot.

So if you think or believe that 'you' are able to accurately tell me what 'I' can not do, then SHOW why I can NOT do what I said here.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:05 pmSince you cannot express such a thing without first making that assumption.

What assumption are you talking about?

I can certainly express without first making an 'assumption', which includes 'that' assumption, whatever 'that' may be.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:05 pmIt's almost like you do not understand what "assume" means.

Are you at all aware that different people give different definitions for different words?

There is NOT one universally accepted and agreed upon understanding of what 'assume' means yet, not one universal understanding for any other word yet.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 6:05 pmAssuming is not taking a thing to be the case, but hypothetically doing that.

So explain to us that if, for example, you assume that the sun will be shining on that body sometime in the future, then how this is not taking a thing to be the case, but rather hypothetically doing that?

Also, and this might be simpler for you, considering it is almost, to you, like I do not understand what 'assume' means, then how about you just write down clearly what 'assume' actually does mean, so then I can understand what 'it' means.

And then let us SEE if that is exactly what 'assume' actually does mean.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:44 am Also, and this might be simpler for you, considering it is almost, to you, like I do not understand what 'assume' means, then how about you just write down clearly what 'assume' actually does mean, so then I can understand what 'it' means.

And then let us SEE if that is exactly what 'assume' actually does mean.

I expect the sun to shine tomorrow.
I also have proof and evidence that it shall continue to do so.

However, the case in point is not about a future state, for which we can apply inductive evidence.
The case in point is supposing to be the case, without proof. Which is pretty much exactly what assuming is.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assume

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... e?q=Assume+

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/assume

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 5:11 pm

duszek wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:37 pm It seems to me that most of what we say if full of unproven assumptions.

The sentence I have just written does not assume anything because of the introduction unit "it seems to me".

The second sentence I have just written does not assume anything either, because it is purely analytical.
Or do you see any assumption in it of any kind ?
Please be as intransigant as Descartes.

The second sentence you have written above assumes that you are the one who wrote it. You may know this to be true, but I must assume so.

A correction:

Bullocks. Sentences assume nothing.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:44 am Also, and this might be simpler for you, considering it is almost, to you, like I do not understand what 'assume' means, then how about you just write down clearly what 'assume' actually does mean, so then I can understand what 'it' means.

And then let us SEE if that is exactly what 'assume' actually does mean.

I expect the sun to shine tomorrow.
I also have proof and evidence that it shall continue to do so.

You could NEVER prove what WILL happen in the future. You could have a fairly good idea, and may be well over 99.99% in accuracy about what COULD happen, but you will NEVER know 100% because you will NEVER have the proof.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:24 pmHowever, the case in point is not about a future state, for which we can apply inductive evidence.
The case in point is supposing to be the case, without proof. Which is pretty much exactly what assuming is.

So, your definition, and correct me if I am wrong, is; 'Assuming' means supposing to be the case, without proof.

If this is your definition, then just as I have been claiming: I can express what some thing seems to me without ever 'assuming' that it is the case.

You claim that I can not do this.

So, I will say again: If you think or believe that 'you' are able to accurately tell me what 'I' can not do, then SHOW why I can NOT do what I said here.

In other words, you explain and show why I can not express what some thing seems to me without supposing it to be the case, without proof. We have both been using roughly the exact same definition of the word 'assume', so nothing has really changed in this regard.

If, however, this is NOT your definition for the words 'assume', then what is your definition for the word 'assume'.

If you want to claim that you KNOW what I can NOT do, especially when I say what I do do, then you will need to have some pretty good proof and evidence to back up your claim. You have NOT provided any to back you up so far, and your definition so far does NOT help your claim here at all.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:49 am

So, your definition, and correct me if I am wrong, is; 'Assuming' means supposing to be the case, without proof.

You do not have to rely on me.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client= ... 8&oe=UTF-8

LOL

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:26 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:49 am

So, your definition, and correct me if I am wrong, is; 'Assuming' means supposing to be the case, without proof.

You do not have to rely on me.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client= ... 8&oe=UTF-8

LOL

And as I had already clearly stated:
We have both been using roughly the exact same definition of the word 'assume', so nothing has really changed in this regard.

So I am not sure what was so funny here for you.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 1:25 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:26 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:49 am

So, your definition, and correct me if I am wrong, is; 'Assuming' means supposing to be the case, without proof.

You do not have to rely on me.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client= ... 8&oe=UTF-8

LOL

And as I had already clearly stated:
We have both been using roughly the exact same definition of the word 'assume', so nothing has really changed in this regard.

So I am not sure what was so funny here for you.

Still an assumption, as to define "assumption" requires a continuum of assumptions.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:32 pm Still an assumption, as to define "assumption" requires a continuum of assumptions.

Not a continuum so much as a regression, one that ends with the assumption, “I am I.”

[

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:17 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:32 pm Still an assumption, as to define "assumption" requires a continuum of assumptions.

Not a continuum so much as a regression, one that ends with the assumption, “I am I.”

Regression is relative to a direction, one can progress to that point as well. Continuum may be a more accurate word.

But this is nit-picking. What is not nit picking is that you are assuming it ends with "I am I" or any other assumption without noticing that all assumptions end with assumptions. Even "I am I" can be replaced with "P=P" or "I am" or "(P)P" or "I" or "(P)". "I" is a context and variable.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:04 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:17 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:32 pm Still an assumption, as to define "assumption" requires a continuum of assumptions.

Not a continuum so much as a regression, one that ends with the assumption, “I am I.”

Regression is relative to a direction, one can progress to that point as well. Continuum may be a more accurate word.

But this is nit-picking. What is not nit picking is that you are assuming it ends with "I am I" or any other assumption without noticing that all assumptions end with assumptions. Even "I am I" can be replaced with "P=P" or "I am" or "(P)P" or "I" or "(P)". "I" is a context and variable.

I was thinking of “I am I” in a metaphysical sense, which lead me to conclude that if there can be nothing more basic than existential primacy, then there can be no other assumption beyond—or prior to—that assumption.

In light of your post, I stand corrected.

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:38 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:04 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:17 am

Not a continuum so much as a regression, one that ends with the assumption, “I am I.”

Regression is relative to a direction, one can progress to that point as well. Continuum may be a more accurate word.

But this is nit-picking. What is not nit picking is that you are assuming it ends with "I am I" or any other assumption without noticing that all assumptions end with assumptions. Even "I am I" can be replaced with "P=P" or "I am" or "(P)P" or "I" or "(P)". "I" is a context and variable.

I was thinking of “I am I” in a metaphysical sense, which lead me to conclude that if there can be nothing more basic than existential primacy, then there can be no other assumption beyond—or prior to—that assumption.

In light of your post, I stand corrected.

"I" is a real finicky word. Really think about what it means, and I am not saying this to debate or argue, really sit down and in your free time actually meditate on its meaning.

I have found:

It is an inherent middle.

It is empty.

It is a variable.

It is imaginary.

Awesome!