I don’t think so.
I don’t think everyone fancy about “truth”. to begin with. For example, people busy with obtaining food to eat, each day, may not have lots of time to think about anything much.
I don’t think everyone is interested in expanding the land of truth. In my case, I’d rather examine and reduce the territory of subconsciously presumed truth.
There are cultures that are far less concerned about “absolutes”, too.
Assumptions must be made in order to come to logical conclusions. In absence of this method, and consideration of our ever-changing external environments and internal perspectives, nothing would hold as valid.
Maybe nothings is valid.
And what’s wrong with it, if we happened to have conclusion that there is nothing (definitely, absolutely) valid?
Also, we can probably have different methods based on likelihood, probabilities, guesstimate, etc.
Even now, certainty cannot be measured but by the strength of speculation against rigorous testing – I doubt absolute certainty even exists.
Rationally, logically speaking, I don’t think we can have absolute certainty on any positive assertion.
But many people seem to claim the absolute certainty. Religious people very often talk like god and angel and hell and other things are real/fact/true and so on, in absolute manner, for example.
Some materialists talks as if physical materials are there god and the last hope, with firm enough attitude that suggest the absolute certainty they might be holding.
When we ask question about their beliefs, they tend to show similar evasiveness, denials, and other not so rational reaction patterns, too.
Assumptions must be made, we just try to minimize risk by using our safest, or ‘strongest’, assumptions as grounding.
I think what I call as the “logical mind” is potentially very flexible and dynamic, similar to the RAM (random access memory) of computer. We can hold any focus/perspective if we wanted, and we then discard when it’s done.
I don’t think we MUST make assumptions. I think we CAN make it IF we wanted.
Also, the assumptions do not need to be persistent/permanent.
We can use any assumption and we can hold it while it’s needed.
In other words, I don’t think we need to identify ourselves with a set of assumptions and stick to them, such as religious belief, ideologies/idealism, and so on, when we think with our flexible and dynamic mind scape where we can play with any hypothetical views.
Holding persistent/permanent assumption (which is more like beliefs) in the dynamic memory is to limit the potential of our mind and use it as if it’s a programmable ROM.
It’s similar to how our emotional mind works (with more or less persistent and harder to modify subconscious data). Not utilizing the dynamic nature of “logical mind” doesn’t seem to be very rational, to me.