Would you agree with the notion of assumption?
- Yes
- No
- To some extent
This is something I wrote today and posted on my blog, but to get feedback and to discuss these topics, I posted a copy here.
“I know that I don’t know” said a wiseman. This is absolutely true, and everyone should acknowledge this. We as humans cannot know everything, if anything for that matter, and it tells something about our nature. Let’s say we have a man who knows everything that has ever been thought of, concieved throughout our time. He still wouldn’t know anything truely, because everything he knows is based around the fact that we came up with those thoughts. The biggest and most absolute limitation that we as humans have is the fact that we are human, and we as humans cannot go past that limitation. There is a limit for how much we can discover and know, unfortunately. What does this lead to? It derives that we must know that everything we ever experience or know is based around the fact that we are human. Is this significant? Yes, because it is not objective knowledge. Objectivity is unreachable, for we are limited by our biological heritage - we are based on the biological system called the human body. Our brain and body have physical restraints, and because our mind is intertwined with our body, we cannot break away from these restraints. Only after we acknowledge this, can we go anywhere.
So, now that we acknowledge the undefined limits, where can we go? We have to assume that the knowledge we get is the best we can achieve, but thankfully we as humans are also sceptic by nature. This leads to us questioning what we find and achieving higher levels of research. In the 1920’s, a man who worked for the US Patent Office said that in the next ten years (this would be the 1930’s), no new patent would be applied for, that we have found everything there is to find. As we can see, he was wrong. So what is there to say about the unknown future of thought? We assume that there is such a thing as ‘something else.’ This is a very core theme in human nature - assumption.
We assume nearly everything. I’m assuming an infinite amount of things at this moment, one of them being that as I press the keys on my keyboard, it will come out onto the screen. When I click the ‘Add Entry’ button, I assume this will reach the server and be viewable by everyone visiting this page, AND I assume that what I am writing is coherent and readable. This extends to every section of mankind’s actions. Should we assume? By nature, we as humans assume and generalize. This is because we are animals, if once we get robbed in a dark alley, we avoid dark alley’s. Basic assumptions and generalizations like this build us as humans. But when assumptions extend to every part of life, life loses meaning. Imagine a man with a regular job, he comes in, does work, goes home and that’s his day. He assumes a routine in his life that doesn’t change. If something was to break this firm assumption that he has built for himself (his workplace sets on fire), he would be devastated. This is why when assumptions fall, we flip into a natural state of chaos.
What do humans do with information? We either assume, neglect or analyze (analyzing later leads to assumption). If I was to tell you the earth was flat, you’d assume I’m wrong, due to prior analysis (and firming of the assumption that the earth in fact is round because everything you’ve come across supports this firmly). If I was to say your basis for some thought is false, you might neglect the information, actively try to forget what I’ve told you. Neglection of information is on the same scheme as assumption, but different in context. I can assume tomorrow the sun will rise, but at the same time I neglect the possibility of it NOT rising. When we forget the neglection part of assumption, we are vulnerable to ideological collapse.
If I was to say all ice cream is bad, I’m assuming that there is no exception to my assumption, it’s general and valid. I’m neglecting the possibility of exception, and when I taste an ice cream that I like, I will find myself in quite an uncomfortable situation. Everything previous to this experience told me that all ice cream is bad, but this one ice cream changes the whole ideology, for if a specific ice cream is good, I cannot say that ice cream is bad, for the ice cream I liked WAS ice cream. Of course, I could totally limit myself to change of this ideology by firmly rejecting any possibility to counter my assumption by never tasting ice cream. When I place myself so firmly against change, I destroy a part of me that’s human. When you close yourself of the possibility of being wrong and not absolute, you’re putting yourself even more firmly to become the Imperfect Being.
What is the Imperfect Being? This is the complete opposite of what anyone should be. The Imperfect Being is human, but one who has a firm basis for who he is and doesn’t accept any challenge to this thought frame. Inside he’s deeply insecure but he’s told himself so many times that he’s right that he’s forgetting that he ever made an assumption, which means he’s made an assumption upon an assumption.
Now of course we all have a mind set, schema if you may, of how things are. This means we all have our own way of thinking about how everything is and works, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this. It’s impossible NOT to have a mind set about life and everything, because we need grounds to operate within. But the fallacy is to neglect the possibility of being wrong. When you limit yourself out of change, you lose part of what makes us human. Just imagine that no matter how ridiculous some thought might sound, you’re assuming he’s wrong (which leads to neglection), but what about when he’s right? You’ll only notice that you have limited yourself too much, because ridiculous ideas are only ridiculous in the ears of the hearer, not the believer. My ice cream example might seem basic and even ridiculous, but instead of ice cream, think of politicians, lawyers, any person really above a certain age gets so much reinforcement for their assumptions that they live within the cage of their assumptions, unable to break free.
Only after we acknowledge that our knowledge is limited (and that the word knowledge is not of true objective knowledge, but rather of assumed belief of theories), and that we assume and build schema’s for ourselves, can we truely start learning something about ourselves and everything around us. For it is not facts we get, but human knowledge. To be confident with yourself is to be at peace with the fact that we’re always going to be imperfect. Being firm on everything just reflects internal insecurity, and there’s nothig wrong with being scared or confused how disorientated the world is, but to extend that to the degree of never accepting change is a dooming characteristic that should always be avoided.
A side-note not worthy of it’s own blog entry involves even further elaborating on why we can never know anything for certain: Imagine you have two new concepts that you want to grasp, but they are connected to each other and you don’t know anything firm about either one. You will have to assume a scheme for what these two things are, for example that concept A is written by a man who has had schizophrenia, you limit yourself to understanding the context of concept A because you have a certain way of approaching the subject. This will be carried onto concept B, for let’s say it’s an analysis of concept A. If the person who wrote concept B had a different scheme of concept A (let’s say, he knew the writer and how he thought, what are the reasons for concept A’s context), you will notice your scope broadening, saying to yourself “Hey, I never thought of it like that!” The reason we can’t even derive anything objective from language is because text is written with a certain scheme, and read with another. But language is the strongest tool we have to communicate, or so I assume. And here I assumed that what I mean with ‘language’ is the same assumption that you, the reader, will have. But that’s not entirely true, for even the word language connotates different levels of interpretation.