To my mind, a philosophical expression amounts to a supposition – 'Suppose X, then possibly Y' – that is, a proposal for reflective consideration (e.g. dialectics, gedankenexperiment, daily (fitness / therapeutic) praxis, etc) tested only by its comparatively rational adequacy for some reflective task, and not a proposition asserting what is or not a fact of the matter. — 180 Proof
No doubt. I'm not sure I ever read this text and it would've been in the 1980s if i had ... Good reference though – thanks.Aristotle's Rhetoric could easily be said to be all about finding, creating suppositions, or in this sense arguments. In one section (Bk. II - Chap. 23) he lists outright 28 topoi, topics, lines of argument - tools - that can be used both to create and then prove the arguments of suppositions. — tim wood
No. They count as a formal system of transformational rules. Keep in mind, I'm referring to nothing but philosophical statements in my previous post.Do the 'laws' of logic count as presuppositions? — Tom Storm
If you're referring to my take on presuppositions in philosophy, then that depends on which suppositions – philosophical statements – and their assumptions you think we philosophers cannot do without. Something stated by Socrates or Plato, Aristotle or Sextus Empiricus, Descartes or Kant? First principle/s of a philosophical school, tradition or movement perhaps? :chin:Are there examples of presuppositions that we can't really do without (the afore mentioned laws of logic, perhaps)? — Tom Storm
That's easy. Try to talk to someone who thinks differently than oneself. This quickly brings to the surface one's hinge propositions. The moment in the interaction when you want to call the other person crazy, evil, deranged, and such, is the moment where the hinge proposition surfaces and can be recognized.And 2) do you happen to know of any relatively simple or brief way to identify your own APs or anyone else's? — tim wood
That depends on how much goodwil and time one is willing to invest in the interaction, and whether one is willing to make the first step.anyone else's? — tim wood
NO. :sweat: (Welcome to the club!) — 180 Proof
Do the 'laws' of logic count as presuppositions?
— Tom Storm
No. They count as a formal system of transformational rules. — 180 Proof
My absolute presupposition would be "my sensations reflect truth (reality)." — god must be atheist
However, the supposition that "logic dependably works", that one can trust logic, is an absolute one. You cannot prove that logic is true or efficacious because you would need logic to do so. — Olivier5
For me, suppositions – philosophical statements – have implicit, sometimes explicit, assumptions, and it's these assumptions which require presuppositions to give the assumptions sense, or relevance, as commitments to either an ontology or some other discursive domain. — 180 Proof
"Logic dependably works", I think, is an assumption (re: logic is dependable), which in turn presupposes that some things work and some things do not work. — 180 Proof
Which in turn presupposes that some things exist, I guess — Olivier5
This gets tricky. APs underlie issues of truth or falsity. They are the grounds upon which relative presuppositions are reckoned true or false. Or perhaps yours a relative proposition that leads back to "sensations reflect reality." You might question whether yours do, but whether sensations in general do a whole other question.My absolute presupposition would be "my sensations reflect truth (reality)."....In the previous post, my presupposition may not be true... but it works for me. — god must be atheist
I read RGC as saying the cultures, or historical eras, consist in absolute presuppositions and, implied, that thinking only presupposes culture, or a historical era, which is not absolute (like e.g. Witty's language games presuppose forms-of-life). Maybe I'm misremembering him; however, I stand with Witty's presupposing.Presupposing, then, a part of thinking, implying the existence of absolute presuppositions (APs)
To my mind, a philosophical expression amounts to a supposition – 'Suppose X, then possibly Y' – that is, a proposal for reflective consideration (e.g. dialectics, gedankenexperiment, daily (fitness / therapeutic) praxis, etc) tested only by its comparatively rational adequacy for some reflective task, and not a proposition asserting what is or not a fact of the matter.
— 180 Proof — tim wood
These seem along the right lines. And interesting because within a system of thinking some proposition can express an a priori truth. - universal and necessary. But that in itself no truth at all. Gravity as a force, now gravity as description of the free movement of objects in space-time along geodesics - no force at all.
My absolute presupposition would be "my sensations reflect truth (reality)."....In the previous post, my presupposition may not be true... but it works for me.
— god must be atheist
This gets tricky. APs underlie issues of truth or falsity. They are the grounds upon which relative presuppositions are reckoned true or false. Or perhaps yours a relative proposition that leads back to "sensations reflect reality." You might question whether yours do, but whether sensations in general do a whole other question. — tim wood
Which in turn presupposes that some things exist, I guess
— Olivier5
These seem along the right lines. — tim wood
Where it leaves me is understanding that no claim is absolute - whatever that might mean - but is rather founded in and on what is believed and how it is believed. Within that system it may well be absolute, but the system itself is also always in question. RGC called the the activity of finding out what are the APs of a given group metaphysical analysis, an historical science, and that described as finding out what people did by examining and interpreting evidence all for the sake of 'human self-knowledge." (The Idea of History, pp. 10-11.)Not sure where that leaves us. — Olivier5
To my mind, a philosophical expression amounts to a supposition – 'Suppose X, then possibly Y' – that is, a proposal for reflective consideration (e.g. dialectics, gedankenexperiment, daily (fitness / therapeutic) praxis, etc) tested only by its comparatively rational adequacy for some reflective task, and not a proposition asserting what is or not a fact of the matter — 180 Proof
And your point? — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.