Have you made that argument elsewhere in this thread. If so, I've missed it. I'd be interested in taking a look. — T Clark
For one reason or another, any proposed example can be rejected. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, I had a lengthy discussion with tim wood (to spell the name properly) before on this subject, and I'm just not interested any more. I concluded — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm in the middle of cutting and pasting from the essay as a means to provide an acceptable and accurate portrayal of RGC's notion of absolute presupposition. ↪tim wood hasn't done a bad job here, from what I can see thus far, but I think there's much more going on with RGC than first meets the eye. — creativesoul
Take your time — tim wood
Collingwood and Wittgenstein...
With respect to the subject matter, which can be refreshed by looking at the OP, do you have any correction to make for my improvement? — tim wood
Being foundational to their respective endeavors, they're not usually matters of or for attention - why would they be? — tim wood
Tim didn’t quote absolute presuppositions; they were explicitly stated by the author as metaphysical propositions, and as such, can have truth value. You are justified in asserting truth values are possible for them as propositions, but cancel yourself by calling them absolute presuppositions.
On pg 52, the author says these proposition express an AP, albeit under three different configurations, which is very different than saying they are AP’s, in and of themselves. It is in the underlaying conception expressed, taken for granted, by the proposition, to which a truth value assignment is tantamount to “nonsense”, because that which the proposition takes for granted, assumed as immediately given, is nothing but a single, solitary, unconditioned conception, re: causality.
For all intends and purposes, pursuant to the reference literature, AP’s are just single words, which is sustained by the author asserting that AP’s are not propositions. — Mww
If causality is "taken for granted, assumed as immediately given" then its actual existence, in some form or other, is being proposed, and the history of ideas, where causality had always been asserted as real, up until the advent of QM bears this out. — Janus
First off, the idea that causation is not necessary to understand the universe has been around for a long time. — T Clark
I'm not aware of that, — Janus
Yes - any proposed example can be rejected. That's the whole point. It's not a matter of fact, it's a matter of choice. — T Clark
That's exactly the reason why "absolute presuppositions" cannot serve the purpose of underlying any field of study, or any knowledge in general. If they can simply be accepted or rejected at will, they have no capacity for creating the coherence which we actually find within knowledge... And the idea of "absolute presuppositions" essentially denies the role of logic in producing the fundamental metaphysical principles which serve as the basis for epistemology. — Metaphysician Undercover
That's exactly the reason why "absolute presuppositions" cannot serve the purpose of underlying any field of study, or any knowledge in general... — Metaphysician Undercover
To adequately account for the existence of knowledge we need to understand the power which logic may have over will. — Metaphysician Undercover
(i) 'That all science is of the universal or abstract ; in other words, that its procedure is to ignore the differences between this individual thing and that, and attend only to what they have in common.
(ii) That there is potentially at least a science of every universal, that is, of everything which is common to the individual things we call its instances.
(iii) That there are degrees of universality or abstractness, and that these give rise to a hierarchy of universals and a corresponding hierarchy of sciences ; so that whenever a generic universal A is specified into sub-forms B and C there will be hierarchical relations between the superordinate science of A and the subordinate sciences of B and C.
(iv) That A is not only the indispensable presupposition of B and C, but their sufficient logical ground, so that the subject-matter of any superordinate science can be rightly described as generating or creating, in a logical sense, those of the sciences subordinate to it.
...not all beliefs have to be believed. — Janus
I'm in the middle of cutting and pasting from the essay as a means to provide an acceptable and accurate portrayal of RGC's notion of absolute presupposition. ↪tim wood hasn't done a bad job here, from what I can see thus far, but I think there's much more going on with RGC than first meets the eye.
— creativesoul
When you're done with your cut and paste, please send it out to the rest of us. — T Clark
Whenever anybody states a thought in words, there are a great many more thoughts in his mind than are expressed in his statement. - Among these there are some which stand in a peculiar relation to the thought he has stated : they are not merely its context, they are its presuppositions.
Not interested in personal jabs. — creativesoul
R.G. Collingwood's recasting of metaphysics from its Aristotelian origin... — Pantagruel
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.