Re: Platonism, Zen and the Munchauseen Trillema as Bridge for Eastern and Western Philosophy
Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2019 5:34 pm
If that is what you BELIEVE, then it could not be any thing other than that.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 4:34 pmAge wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 4:32 amI know you have already attempted to argue your stance is just an assumption. I agreed with the absurdity of what you are doing. Did you not see this?
I understand your position, but tell me what absurdity is exactly so I understand your position better.
I have told you already, a couple of times as well if I remember correctly. Absurdity is EXACTLY what you are doing here now.
An 'assumption' could be wrong or partly wrong. Therefore, IF absolutely every thing you say is an assumption, then absolutely every thing you say could be wrong or partly wrong, and there is no real purpose in insisting what you are saying is true, when it obviously could be wrong or partly wrong. Besides the absurdity of this by itself, it also means that continually insisting the "trillema problem" consists of three things or three rules because this, by itself, could be WRONG or partly WRONG, let alone every other thing you say.
To me all assumptions could be wrong or partly wrong, and as your so called "argument" stands it could be completely WRONG. I also agree with you on this truth.
Even if I run a scientific experiment, and get a result, the result is only an assumption considering any new experiment can redefine the result. Facts are merely interpretations, and all interpretations are assumed.
It is absurd to say a fact is certain.
Assumption ia absolute truth, because they are a constant. The question is "what is the most universal assumption?
Obviously, you are NOT going to look at any thing other than what you believe is true now. So, why do you continue to respond to me? I have already stated that you are absolutely RIGHT. You are only making assumptions, of which all of them obviously could be completely and utterly WRONG.
What else do you want from me? Besides completely agreeing with you what else could I give you here?
Unfortunately, for you, your "argument" is not sound and/or not valid, and therefore it is not even really worth looking at again.
Define validity without assuming a premise.
But, to you, I can not, correct?
Is that answer an assumption?
If yes, you are only assuming that I could or could not define validity without assuming a premise. If you assume I can not do it, then that means I could do it.
I accept that you believe that all stances are assumptions. But just because you believe some thing that does not mean that there is any actual real truth in it.
Have I made an argument?
Could you be any more rude?
You are the one who clearly stated that I have, so why are you now asking me if I have?
If you state that I have, then that clearly infers that you believe or know that I have, so why are you now asking me if I have?
If yes, then what is it?
You mostly just say "no", "you are wrong", etc. This is law 2...continual regress.
Also, they are NOT arguments. In case you missed it I asked you; If I have I have made an argument, then what is it?
What you are saying here has nothing at all whatsoever to do with and argument that you say I have "supposedly" made.
To explain why not all truth is assumed, then I would need to know how you are defining the words 'truth' and 'assumed'. If I recall correctly I ask you to define some words earlier, and you have yet to do this. So, at the moment, I have no actual real idea of what it is that you are saying, and are asking for.
If I define, truth or assumed...I would have to connect them to other truths and assumptions. Thus truth and assumption are grounded in the repetition of themselves through various other words.
So, in other words, you, just like "others" here in this forum, are totally incapable of clarifying and clearing up what it is that you are saying, correct?
You appear to be so totally confused about what you are saying that you have no idea of what the words mean that you use here.
I also asked you some clarifying questions earlier as well, and if you had answered them openly and honestly, then WHY not all truth is assumed would already have been understood.
All truth is assumed.
We KNOW that this is what you BELIEVE. Most of also KNOW that what you BELIEVE is not necessarily even remotely close to the truth of things.
Because every thing you say is assumed, and ALL assumptions could be completely WRONG, then the saying "All truth is assumed" could also be completely WRONG. I KNOW this and you KNOW this, so WHY do you keep repeating the same things over and over again?
Also, WHY do you keep repeating the same things over and over again without ever clarifying and clearing up what you are saying?
Earlier I wrote:
If I ask you, Did you eat breakfast this morning? and you give me an honest answer of yes or no, then would that also be an assumption?
And then I wrote:
I am just trying to work out how you see things.
SO, answer the question, AND THEN is that answer an assumption, a truth, or both?
Did I eat breakfast this morning?
Actually I can give you a an answer based upon empirical life...quite literally from a few minutes ago.
My girlfriend is in the phillipines.
When I talk to her on facebook, I say good morning/evening. We both laugh about it, because we are dealing with a paradox.
It is morning where I am at, evening where she is at.
So when I eat breakfast, it is morning the the context of my position in time and space. In the context of her time and space it is evening.
The time of my eating breakfast is premised in the assumed point if origin. From my position it is morning, hers it is evening....one could question if it is even breakfast at all from her position in time and space alone.
What defines the timing of my eating is the assumed point of origins. From my point, the meal is connected to certain other variables such as the time in clock, position of the sun, schedule ahead of the day. These variables are connected to other variables. Such as the position of the sun assumes I am seeing it (ie can see it), as well as seeing it from a specific angle relative to the horizon, as well as my other senses (smell of air, etc.). This further assumes I am connecting these variable in a certain manner through the abstract senses (thought, emotion).
And vice versa for her.
Now if I assume a different point of awareness, where both of us are right (it is evening and morning simultaneously from the perspective of looking at the earth as a localized "whole" in space), what I am doing is observing how certain variables are connected from a new point of assumption.
If I go back to either assumption a certain disconnection in variables are observed. From her point of view I am eating breakfast in the evening. From mine the morning. Morning is disconnected from one position, evening from another...as well as the variables which are connected respectively with each.
The point of awareness, is always assumed, much like the simple "point" is always assumed.
That may all be true, but unfortunately you will never know.
Is all that true?
Or, is it all just assumed to be true?
According to your logic it has to be assumed, so then it could be completely and utterly WRONG. And, you will NEVER know if it is right or WRONG, true or FALSE.
Also, if you can not answer your own questions that you ask yourself, then how do you get on in life?
Either way, explain your answer now, and then that will help me in explaining to you how not all truth is assumed.
I also gave you some thing to think about:
Variation can also be due to the simple fact that each person can view things in different and varied ways, which is an obvious fact and NOT an assumption. To try to suggest otherwise is to prove this fact True.
Yes, it is true, but it is also an assumption as this is a point of awareness as well. All perspectives as continually diverging necessates a common point of awareness...ie seperation must be objectively observed
But, 'separation "must be" objectively observed' is only assumed. That could be completely WRONG and FALSE.
In these respects there is always a common bond.
However what constitutes separation can be viewed seperately
All assumptions are simultaneously true and false. What we observe as true is the connection of variables within a given context with the context being assumed.
But that is obviously just an assumption, which is also obviously WRONG and FALSE.
You have not said a true word yet. And you have to admit that that is TRUE. To insist that that is FALSE is to insist that your own theory is WRONG.
If you try to dispute that each person can view things in different and varied ways, then you are in dispute with another, and that means that you have a different or varied view than another person. Therefore, this is a Truth, and thus not at all assumed.
Agreed, but still an assumption, as the agreement still requires a group observed assumption.
But agreement does NOT necessarily require any such thing because what you assumed could be completely and utterly WRONG. Agreed?
Now I have provided two different examples of how not all truth is assumed. So, what we are left with is discovering and learning how you are defining the words 'truth' and 'assumed'. Until then I am not able to further explain how, from my perspective, not all truth is assumed, which will help you.
Are you at all aware that if you believe that 'all truth is assumed', then there is absolutely nothing in this Universe that could show nor prove to you otherwise anyway?
You are assuming proof is universally agreed upon.
But I NEVER assumed any such thing. And, I have NEVER met any one who could be so WRONG, so often.
Why would you make such an obviously ridiculous and stupid assumption?
Even if you believe that all you can do in life is assume, you still do not have to make idiotic, ridiculous, and obviously stupid assumptions.
Proof is defintion (assumed) within a given context (assumed). This is an assumption. Both truth and falsity exist as assumptions, and exist by how they are defined (connected and separated from other assumptions) in themselves.