Sur-reality

Another thread had taken an interesting turn on the subject of presupposition. So here is i think the main question : can we know anything without presupposing anything and is there anyone who knows if i am spelling presupposition correctly?

soundcrd

Hmm...very interesting question. I will qualify my answer by stating that I am currently in the beginnings of my into to philosophy course, and therefore probably don't have as good a background as many of you. That being said, however, we were discussing the nature of Cartesian circularity, but it came up that had he not conjugated it "Cogito" but rather" Cogitas," it would not have been circular. The resulting statement "Cogitas ergo sum" would be translated as "To think is to be." He is therefore no longer presupposing his own existence to prove his existence. I don't know if that was the direction you were taking, but that is what I first thought of when I read your question.
But from a more personal level...I don't know if I could reason my way down to something that presupposes nothing. "To think is to be" is about the lowest I can see it getting. Of course, the extrapolations from there are endless, but at least it is a starting point.

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

I suspect the answer is probably no (because I've had this argument before in this forum).

You can follow an argument back through a chain of logic, but you are always going to come to some point which is logically unsupportable without making some sort of circular reference to the system itself.

Let's take logic itself as an example. You can follow the system of logic back to its fundamental axioms. You can hold up the Law of Identity (A=A) as the first step in the process of building up the logic system. But where does the Law of Identity come from? How is it to be supported? The only way you can deal with it is by pointing back to the entire system of logic and saying: "Logic works tolerably well within certain limits, so there must be some utility in the axioms of logic, and we are justified in using them."

The trouble is, this is a circular argument. A circular argument is a logical fallacy (according to the classical system of logic). That leaves us in the dubious position of having to support the axioms of logic with an argument that is itself not logically valid. We're in a much stronger position if we say: "Let us presuppose the axioms of logic as our starting point."

But if we take this position, we must also admit that other presuppositions might also make valid systems that are different from classical logic. This leads us to relativism, and the idea that many different philosophical systems are possible, and provided that they are all internally coherent, no one is any more valid than any other.

I don't see any valid way to argue against relativism (the argument to convenience: "But if relativism is true, then we have no basis for judging anything," is not a logically valid argument). So I accept relativism.

But that's not the end of the matter. Because even if you accept that every philosophical system is valid (provided it is consistently derived from its presuppositions), you cannot say that every philosophical system is equally as useful. So I have concentrated on devising the criterion of usefulness I posted in this thread.

AdamWho

This is a true statement: I know what I am thinking and feeling. Doesn't this meet the standard of a true statement without presuppositions and is a priori?

Theli

Many people seem to forget that truth is a part (and a product) of logic, and not something objective existing independent of us.
Obviously we must at some point come to a circle, it's not as if there's a "first assumption" that we base all our knowledge on.
In so, about the Law of Identity, A will always be A regardless of what A is, or what the world looks like.

I guess I disagree with Kim on this issue.

jpbrooks

I don't even know why I'm doing this. I certainly don't have much time to devote to everyone's position.

The answers to the questions above are no and yes, in that order.

True. This is actually unavoidable in the case of Logic.

How would the validity of such systems be determined apart from Logic?

This is why I cannot accept Relativism as an absolute truth. If Relativism applies to all systems including Logic, then it must also apply to Relativism itself. But I'm not considering Relativism to be unique in this regard. Most views are probably only "partial truths".

And if we have no basis at all for judging anything, then Relativism cannot possibly be judged "true"! Again, this is why I can only accept Relativism as a "relative truth".

I agree.


It may be that you have an immediate awareness of the "contents" of your consciousness, but the statement that describes that state of affairs "presupposes" that the maker of the statement knows other things as well.

Starboy

There is a difference between the phenomena and the explanation of that phenomenon. It is the explanations that require the presuppositions. Do I know when something hurts? Obviously yes. Do I have to presuppose anything to know that I am hurting? I would say no if you simply mean by the word hurting the sensation you feel when you are hurt. In other words you know what your senses tell you. Interpretations of those sensations require the presupposition.

Starboy

Sur-reality

It is? I would say that if you take away logic then you have truths. For what is logic but another way of discerning truth. If truth is a product of logic then logic is not true or even usable for there must be truth or at least a statement that is held to be true for logic to be used. it seems though that your statement is a bit like circular reasoning because you assume that everything is true because of logic. Example: The sky is blue, a truth. The sky will continue to absorb all light except for that which is blue until the day the earth meets it's demise. But one can say that we can only arrive at the sky being blue by saying that it is blue and then testing that assumption against predetermined colors. Therefore based on the argument that logic produces truth than it would appear that it in this example it has but have we produced truth or defined truth?
We have only defined it against our own standards and logic is just one of those.

Bob Stewart

Can I please have some clarification of the original question, and maybe some clarification of the subsequent comments. I'll give some examples of things I know, and then people can explain what they think is presupposed in my knowledge of these things or explain what they think I presuppose in knowing these things. And, those who think so can explain i) how relativism is a consequence; ii) how there is some sort of circularity involved; iii) what exactly the problem is, if there is a problem, iv) anything else that is worth mentioning about the examples.

What prompted this call for clarification is my thinking that even if it is true that I can't know only one thing, so to speak, this, in itself, doesn't seem to create any circularity of any significance, or to lead to relativism. In other words, it may be that I have to know a number of things to know anything, but as long as I know them all, what is the problem. For example, my knowedge that Paris is the capital of France might be said to presuppose that I know that "Paris" names a city. But, this doesn't seem to lead to relativism, or involve any circularity. Maybe it does, however, and I just don't see it.-- we will see.

Anyway, examples.

1. I know that there is a computer on the desk in front of me.

2. I know that my name is Bob Stewart.

3. I know that 2 + 2 = 4

4. I know that I just typed some sentences that appear in this post.


Of course, anyone else can produce other examples that help.


Bob Stewart

Theli

Ok, first off... Logic is neither a statement or a claim so it cannot be true or false, it is as you descibed it - a tool. Just like mathematics.
And secondly, what kind of statement are you looking for? Is there something like a non-logical true statement? I would like to hear it.
I never said that everything is true, I said that "true" and "false" are outcomes of logical statements (in different words).
If logic cannot describe or predict events we encounter, then we might look for better means to do so, but as far as my experience there is no such thing.
I thought blue was a predetermined color.
I'm sorry, but I don't see your point with that example.

What I don't understand is, if you cannot evaluate logic by some prior true statement, then why do you insist on it?
Aren't there better ways?