This is an Assumption

This is an Assumption

All domains of knowledge rest upon some form of assumptions. Philosophy, it appears to claim, thinks it does not do so but that is for another discussion.

Our first conscious contact with assumptions probably occurred when we took Geometry and started with axioms such as “a straight line is the shortest distance between two points”.

The natural sciences assume the world is knowable, quantifiable, measurable, etc. Theology assumes the existence of a caring God and the reliability of the written word. Every domain of knowledge is limited by its assumptions. The assumptions distort and limit the world of enquiry for that domain of knowledge.

Our intellectual worldview is filled with assumptions. I think that one task of intellectual maturity is examining our closely held assumptions, which in many cases are carried over from our childhood. Track down your ideologies and examine the assumptions upon which they rest would be a good way to overcome a boring Sunday afternoon.

What assumption does one make in the name of patriotism? I am inclined to say that patriotism is ‘love of country’. I must assume that my nation deserves my love. I must assume that love can be a rationally induced emotion. I assume I my not know what I am talking about here.

Cognitive science has in the last three decades developed empirical evidence that sounds very convincing to me that these ‘gut feelings’ that are also called assumptions are the result of accumulations of experiences. The theory or paradigm is called ‘conceptual metaphor’.

our first assumptions were dealing with what it took to survive, not some abstract mathematical concept.

Isn’t every thought an assumption?

depends on the depth of the thought.

if I think of ice. is the definition of what ice is, an assumption? or a fact to you.

if there is nothing but assumptions then the edifice of rationality crumbles. I would suggest that there has to be a base level, such as cogito ergo sum, for the idea of assumptions to even exist. This may seem a little chicken and egg, but rationality would seem to dictate that there are universal givens, such as the departure form the vertainty of existance.

When written history began five thousand years ago humans had already developed a great deal of knowledge. Much of that knowledge was of a very practical nature such as how to use animal skins for clothing, how to weave wool, how to hunt and fish etc. A large part of human knowledge was directed toward how to kill and torture fellow humans. I guess things never really change all that much.

In several parts of the world civilizations developed wherein people learned to create laws and to rule vast numbers of people. Some measure of peace and stability developed but there was yet no means for securing the people from their rulers. I guess things never really change all that much

Almost everywhere priests joined rulers in attempts to control the population. Despite these continual wars both of external and internal nature the human population managed to flourish. Egypt was probably one of the first long lasting and stable civilizations to grow up along the large rivers. Egypt survived almost unchanged for three thousand years. This success is attributed to its geographical location that gave it freedom from competition and fertile lands that were constantly replenished by the river overflowing its banks and thus depositing new fertile soil for farming.

Western philosophy emerged in the sixth century BC along the Ionian coast. A small group of scientist-philosophers began writing about their attempts to develop “rational” accounts regarding human experience. These early Pre-Socratic thinkers thought that they were dealing with fundamental elements of nature.

It is natural for humans to seek knowledge. In the “Metaphysics” Aristotle wrote “All men by nature desire to know”.

The attempt to seek knowledge presupposes that the world unfolds in a systematic pattern and that we can gain knowledge of that unfolding. Cognitive science identifies several ideas that seem to come naturally to us and labels such ideas as “Folk Theories”.

The Folk Theory of the Intelligibility of the World
The world makes systematic sense, and we can gain knowledge of it.

The Folk Theory of General Kinds
Every particular thing is a kind of thing.

The Folk Theory of Essences
Every entity has an “essence” or “nature,” that is, a collection of properties that makes it the kind of thing it is and that is the causal source of its natural behavior.

The consequences of the two theories of kinds and essences is:

The Foundational Assumption of Metaphysics
Kinds exist and are defined by essences.

We may not want our friends to know this fact but we are all metaphysicians. We, in fact, assume that things have a nature thereby we are led by the metaphysical impulse to seek knowledge at various levels of reality.

Cognitive science has uncovered these ideas they have labeled as Folk Theories. Such theories when compared to sophisticated philosophical theories are like comparing mountain music with classical music. Such theories seem to come naturally to human consciousness.

The information comes primarily from “Philosophy in the Flesh” and wku.edu/~jan.garrett/302/folkmeta.htm

Everything is an assumption because nobody knows the universe exists, and the only thing we do know (that we think) might be affected because we might not have free will.

There is a significant difference among assumption, induction, and deduction.

I assume therefore I assume I am.

You have confused propositional knowledge with axiomatic logic. Socrates knew he really knew nothing, so I don’t know how you can claim that philosphers claim to know things? When in fact, I “know” otherwise… :wink: I am sure you can find the trial of Socrates online, if not a few thousand synopses of it.

That hard sciences are plagued by the correlation v causation argument, but as long as the theory or statement corresponds with the evidence, it is probably true. I think this validates an assumption, given the assumption[s] are clear and do not beg the question, or the results.

Contradictory evidence is the scientist’s proverbial hemlock.

in strict philosophy you state your assumption, besides mutual understanding apon knowledge of basic operators and even that can be thrown into question if you like.

have you ever heard of conversation, or should I grab the ruler

give credit where it is due,thats all we ask

it’s finding it that becomes a problem,if you dug deep down and went in a circle,you would never say anything

were living-thats an assumption.

grab the gun and do it, or shut up and go on with you life.

if you did’t have an assumption you be the universe,oh yeah,hey wait.

mirrors exist all around us, and they reflect nothing forever!learn not to fear ourselves, and we all know thats impossible,have a drink and deny your-education.be merry,don’t worry, too late!

While studying philosophy thirty five years ago I asked my professor “what is philosophy about?” He said to me “philosophy is radically critical self-consciousness”. Today I think I now know what he meant.

First I will change his wording but not his meaning. Philosophy “is a self-conscious and radically self-critical form of enquiry”.

All forms of enquiry are based upon some assumptions. Such assumptions as the world is orderly and can be comprehended by reason, the world operates by laws and is causally connected and can be measured; theology assumes the existence of God and the veracity of the Word.

Philosophers contend that the assumptions of an enquiry make that enquiry limited and distorted by those assumptions. These assumptions lead the enquiry to abstract certain aspects of the world and ignore others; an example in the natural sciences is that natural scientists ignore quality and focus on the quantifiable.

Philosophers argue that unlike other sciences (domains of knowledge) philosophy is radically critical and is self-conscious; it constantly criticizes its own assumptions. The examination of fundamental assumptions has been traditionally a distinctive preoccupation of the philosophical form of criticism. As an example, natural scientists are unable qua (in the capacity as) natural scientists to examine their own assumptions. This leads to the mistaken hubris that the natural sciences can serve as a model for other domains of knowledge.

Philosophy does not rest on unexamined assumptions; this means that while other sciences (domains of knowledge) are narrowly focused; philosophy is broadly focused and views the world as a gestalt, as a whole. Philosophy contends that its knowledge is not abstract but is concrete. Its knowledge is categorical.

While philosophers disagree on many things they seem to agree that 1) assumptions distort a domain of knowledge 2) non philosophical enquiries tend to advance claims that are universal and illegitimate. As a result the best way to counter this tendency is for philosophy to draw lines of demarcation of the general field of knowledge. Philosophy draws the boundaries between prevailing forms of inquiry.

You can’t deduce or induce that the universe exists or that you have free will, so you have to assume that it is. So everything about everything is an assumption.