## User Tag List

1. Originally Posted by ferunandesu
Given nothing, and then given "Assumption is necessary" - in effect, allowing for any assumption to be made, we can assume "Assumption is not necessary". This itself is an assumption and most will go ahead and assume that it's false. HOWEVER, false? What? What is false? Truth and falsehood have not been introduced yet, and the concept of both relies on, you guessed it - an assumption. Before you can talk or even think about reality, knowledge, God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, truth, and falsehood - an assumption must be made. Therefore, assumption is necessary, and attempting to refute this would lead to further assumptions.
You seem to be quite confused.

I was demonstrating the paradox you entangle yourself in by proposing that "assumptions are necessary" is the only irrefutable statement. Of course, I too hold that "assumptions are necessary" is irrefutable, but not that it is the only irrefutable proposition.

Furthermore, if we are disputing the necessity of assumptions, disputing the pressupositions of logic itself, then your argument that "assumptions are necessary" is circular, begging the question.

If I claim that the axioms of logic are arbitrary and assumptions are unecessary, it does no good for you to claim, "Before you can talk or even think about reality, knowledge, God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, truth, and falsehood - an assumption must be made." That begs the question, assumes the proposition under question and is an ineffectual counterargument.

Anyways, if you decide to assume A and ~A and then the laws of logic, then you've assumed a set of premises that could lead to any conclusion.
Check out paraconsistent logic, where "P & ~P" can be true.

It's simply a bad thing to do in RL, but it still has no effect on the correctness of A (Assumption is necessary) even in the presence of ~A. Point being: Make good assumptions. Other point being: Logic doesn't matter in this case- it can't be applied to it's most basic foundation.
Logic can be applied to itself and regularly is. For example, we make use of metalogic to prove theorems concerning logic, such as decidability, incompleteness, consistency, etc.

In fact, Godel's incompleteness theorems imply that no system of logic can be both consistent and complete, so any demonstration to that fact immediately proves that the system is inconsistent. In other words, it doesn't pass its own standards.

Indeed, your entire argument, that assumptions are necessary, is an example of turning the presuppositions of logic upon themselves.

2. Originally Posted by nocturne
but not that it is the only irrefutable proposition.
If you'd read further, you'd now that I'm hinting at more than the process of denial, I'm saying that the statement "Assumption is necessary" justifies itself, and that any idea, system of knowledge, or even existence itself will rely upon it - that's IF you're looking for justification. That is, all things will circularly justify themselves, so it's necessary to have a rule/law/statement/proposition/whatever that justifies itself directly, allowing for more claims to be made that DON'T necessarily rely on themselves for justification.

Originally Posted by nocturne
Furthermore, if we are disputing the necessity of assumptions, disputing the pressupositions of logic itself, then your argument that "assumptions are necessary" is circular, begging the question.
I could easily ask you to justify why anyone would dispute the necessity of assumption, and in the end their string of justification would lapse onto itself from the beginning - that is, it would be circular. The statement "assumption is necessary" is circular, yes, but this is a good thing, a rule, not an argument - justification without assumption is impossible, argument without assumption is impossible, speaking without assumption is impossible, ?thinking (in and of itself) without assumption is impossible?, ?existence (in and of itself) without assumption is impossible? I put those last statements in question because they are debatable and much more interesting. So, attack those if you'd like.

Originally Posted by nocturne
If I claim that the axioms of logic are arbitrary and assumptions are unecessary, it does no good for you to claim, "Before you can talk or even think about reality, knowledge, God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, truth, and falsehood - an assumption must be made." That begs the question, assumes the proposition under question and is an ineffectual counterargument.
Again: Your claim itself would have to be circular to be justified, and this is, in effect, another example of "assumption is necessary" in action.

Originally Posted by nocturne
Indeed, your entire argument, that assumptions are necessary, is an example of turning the presuppositions of logic upon themselves.

3. Ferunandesu,

This is why no attempt at justification can be successful:

(A) All rationally held positions must be justified.
(B) A must be justified.

How do you justify A?

If A cannot be justified, then A is irrational.

If we invoke a new position C to justify A, then what justifies C? If we invoke a new position D to justify C, then what justifies D? If we invoke a new position E to justify D, then what justifies E? The chain of justification cannot be broken, and an infinite regress follows.

The alternative is to simply call a halt to the infinite regress at an arbitrary point, such as the axioms of logic, the bible, corgito ergo sum or 'assumption is necessary.'

However, this practice amounts to a dogmatic assertion. In each philosophy, where justification is sought, dogmatism follows. This is because all competing ideas are evaluated relative to these dogmatic foundations, or what you call 'assumptions.'

The debate between competing schools of philosophy is stifled, since neither can ever provide a good reason for the other to accept their argument, since they differ fundamentally on what constitues a good reason. To the empiricist, sense-observation is a good reason, to the rationalist, clear and distinct ideas are a good reason, and to the Protestant, biblical authority is a good reason.

The solution you attempt is to see if a position can be selfjustifying. This is basically the same approach that Ayn Rand took to the problem of justification, where she argued that since all sceptical arguments presuppose the axioms of logic, their arguments are invalid. Thus, the axioms of logic are selfjustifying. Whereas you claim that because every argument, even sceptical arguments, must assume something, the position that assumptions are necessary is selfjustifying.

Unfortunately, this misunderstands the sceptic, who does not pretend to justify their arguments. In fact, they argue from the rationalist's presuppositions only to demonstrate the impossibility of justification according to the rationalist's own standards. Thus, Rand's axioms of logic and your 'assumptions are necessary,' are only irrefutable according to your own unjustified foundations. To someone with a different foundation, or without a foundation at all, these arguments have no force.

To simply state that it follows from 'assumptions are necessary' that assumptions are necessary' is not selfjustifying, neither is is it necessarily false. It is simply circular, and as you point out, all positions are equally selfjustifying if we are permitted to justify positions circulary. For example, the position 'assumptions are unecessary' is equally selfjustifying as 'assumptions are necessary.'

At this point you may be thinking "aha! but 'assumptions are unecessary' is selfcontradictory, since it contains assumptions." Though this misunderstands the statement, for the statement 'assumptions are unecessary' can be true, even when assumptions are necessary for itself. For example, 'air conditioning in cars is unecessary' does not mean that there are no cars that have air conditioning, only that air conditioning it unecessary.

What is an assumption? Something we assume to be true? The sceptic assumes no things to be true. They might make use of various propositions for the point of argument, but that does not mean the sceptic assumes them to be true. That is ultimately why your argument for the selfjustification of 'assumptions are necessary' fails.

The problem is justificationism, which you are thoroughly seeped in. Until you shed it, you will fail to solve this problem of knowledge.

4. I might add here that this has little to do with the original topic of the post, and is quite superfluous.

Since I am not a justificationist, I never sought justification for anything, neither do I think any can be given.

5. Nocturne,

Originally Posted by nocturne
What is an assumption? Something we assume to be true? The sceptic assumes no things to be true. They might make use of various propositions for the point of argument, but that does not mean the sceptic assumes them to be true. That is ultimately why your argument for the selfjustification of 'assumptions are necessary' fails.
This is where you're misunderstanding me. The idea of 'assumption' that I'm using here is bare bones - without the assumption of truth. But, you did hint at a reasonable objection to my claim, which is: Assumptions are possible and necessary for any human discourse, but it would not be necessary for things to exist in and of themselves.

My idea for a self-justifying statement is not the cure for justificationism, it simply concedes that absolute justification is impossible from an objective viewpoint (if such a thing is assumed) but entirely possible from a subjective one and that, at some point, if an idea is to be formed, then a leap of faith - an assumption, has to be made. "Assumption is necessary" is simply the most basic of all axioms. We can not know unless we assume to know. I cannot speak the truth unless I assume there to be truth. There may be a rock floating in space that has never been assumed to exist by a human mind, but does this mean that it is not assumed?

And yes, I'm saying that the physical instantiation of an object is fundamentally the same as the mental instantiation of its concept. Take whatever you want from that, but don't call me a 'theist'.

6. The universe is like a guitar due to having many sub categories that help keeps it together, the tuner, the nut, the body, the strings, the playing hole for acoustics and so on.

7. Pinky: U look sad brain
Brain: Perhaps a little, just taking in the night, Pinky. So vast in the heavens, this starry canopy, to contemplate the endless nature of universe is to acknowledge one's insignificance
Pinky: Its really dark too, with little sparkly things ... NARF
Brain: Sometimes it all seems so burdensome, so feckless
Pinky: Yes, it is completely without feck
Brain: Words have no meaning, I am left speechless ... I don't know what to say
Pinky: I always know what to say, Brain ...... ... waaaaaahahahahahaha

Just say NARF

8. Lord that's alotta words, I mostly didn't read ... I tend towards believing in string cheese theory, I think that's what it is called ... and I choose to believe this based on my love of string cheese

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO