Philosophy Now Forum

Benny Hill had said when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.

It appears you need to assume to move forward and if you assumed wrong, then you could change, but you don't always get that chance. I suppose I'm asking what is most reliable in philosophy? What is safest to assume?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:38 am Benny Hill had said when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.

It appears you need to assume to move forward and if you assumed wrong, then you could change, but you don't always get that chance. I suppose I'm asking what is most reliable in philosophy? What is safest to assume?

PhilX

Assumptions are like leaves on a tree.
They are many, Grasshopper.
So many to prune, so little time.
Cut the tap root and all the assumptions wither, and die.
Much less effort.

To, perhaps, assume that one must think with all newness and sharpness everything one thinks, each time it is thought, including what is herein experienced as thinking in this sentence. Only then will the perpetual pons asinorum swim in his erudition as what is indistinguishable from the view over the hoop, a Harry Hudini that slips in and out of the fast-holding straitjacket of competence which is the impediment to one's own essential possibility.

I don't see how can you can start any train of thought without some basic assumptions, any more than you can lay out a mathematical formula without a set of "givens". At the very least, you must rely on the precision of words, or else you're constantly having to backtrack over semantic quibbles.
It may not be 'safe', but it's necessary to communication of any kind to assume a shared data-base and glossary.
Beyond that, I suppose it's useful to state your own starting points: your own assumptions regarding the world; a definition of essential terms and the ethical foundation and/or philosophical approach of your argument.
If your foundation is an established school of thought, state which one, and if it's unfamiliar to the reader, explain its premises.
If your foundation is personal, say so, and explain your reasoning.

I have two quotes to answer that question:

1: Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe! (Einstein)

2: I know that I know nothing. (Socrates)

So what does that tell us?
It tells us that we cannot assume anything! Unless perhaps logic... maybe... sometimes...
If we get the same results from experiments again and again, we know cause = result. But we don't know the reason!

We can do our best to find reason with philosophy, but we will never know if we're right!

Assume means to suppose something is true without proof but many assumptions have logic and turn out to be true later.

An assumption can be rational, logical, based on known facts and deductions. Assumptions, like the assumption for time travel, are not automatically wrong but may be right if the underlying logic and facts are right. (I know that time travel is not right but that's because I know some of the facts are wrong.)

The smart philosopher knows when an assumption is right, uncertain or wrong.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:57 pm Assume means to suppose something is true without proof but many assumptions have logic and turn out to be true later.

An assumption can be rational, logical, based on known facts and deductions. Assumptions, like the assumption for time travel, are not automatically wrong but may be right if the underlying logic and facts are right. (I know that time travel is not right but that's because I know some of the facts are wrong.)

The smart philosopher knows when an assumption is right, uncertain or wrong.

I concur. But there will always be small exceptions.

Regarding time travel: We know from relativity that backwards TT takes all energy in the entire universe to function. So we can rule that out as a possibility. Forward is another matter. It's possible, however hard it is to accomplish.

It's safe to assume your own awareness, no matter how vague, and it's reasonably safe to assume things do exist independently of your awareness, if only for their persistence, and their critical impact on your awareness should they be dismissed as immaterial.