Draft I Part XIII

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Draft I Part XIII

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

To premise any rational argument or philosophy without using any assumptions, such as in Hegel’s or Husserl’s work, is in itself an assumption. It is an assumption in the respect that one not only assumes there are no assumptions but one also assumes that no assumptions is the most logical route to follow. This results in a contradiction. Assumptions are contradictory in another respect considering what is an assumption for one person is not an assumption for another considering the expression as to what counts as justification for each perspective is highly relative. In other terms what is justification for one person is not a justification for another. Due to this relativity of justification the nature of whether or not something is assumed is relative as well. Under these terms everything is both an assumption and not an assumption.

Considering the nature of justification determines whether or not a phenomenon is assumed, as what is justified is no longer an assumption, this nature of justification must be justified as well if we are not to assume what justification is or is not. This ends us in a revolving circle as ‘justification’ must be justified and yet we have no definition of what it means to be ‘justified’ if we already do not know, and only assume, what ‘justification’ is or is not. In these respects we must first make assumptions if we are to have any starting point for a philosophical discourse on the subject. This leads to a problem however as the assumptions necessitate a point of not knowing and knowing only comes after the fact that something is justified. So to make an assumption of what ‘justification’ is means we do not know what it is and yet this very same phenomenon, i.e. ‘justification’ or ‘to be justified’, requires itself to pull itself up by its own boot straps considering ‘justification’ must be ‘justified’. In these respects the ‘justification of justification’ is not only a self-referencing loop within the limits of knowledge but effectively can mean just about anything considering all the different angles through which it is observed.

However let us say that ‘justification’ is justified. An argument about justification is made and this argument is the justification. ‘Justification’ is no longer assumed. Or is it? That act of justifying a phenomenon results in a corresponding web of further definitions and relations the prerequisite phenomenon, i.e. the justified phenomenon, exists through. These definitions and relations are taken at point blank. And how is this so? It “is so” in the respect that the corresponding definitions/relations are assumed for being what they are without any further definitions/relations for those definitions/relations. In another respect if these definitions/relations are not assumed, and further justification for the justification ensues, then these definitions/relations result in further definitions/relations and a regress results. If this regress is not continuous then eventually it ends in assumption. However, if it is continuous then the regress is potentially infinite. And is there a problem with the latter being infinite? It depends again on context. Under one context an infinite regress necessitates the definitions/relations being indefinite as they go on forever. In another context the definitions/relations are continually defined and redefined depending on what portion of this infinite regress is observed. Depending upon the context, and if multiple contexts are observed at once, the act of justification is both justified and not justified. It is both assumed and not assumed. This is a contradiction.

Justification is contradictory if it is assumed as contradictory; justification is contradictory if is justified as contradictory. Justification is still contradictory if it is assumed as ‘not contradictory’ considering the absence of justification for the statement of ‘not contradictory’ or ‘no contradiction’ is an act of assumption. In other terms to assume a phenomenon is not contradictory is to assume ‘no contradiction’ and this results in further contradiction considering the act of assumption is to leave something as both accepted in being defined, for what it is in itself, and accepted in being undefined, as no justification follows. An assumption is both states at one time. On the other hand, justification is still contradictory if it is justified as ‘not contradictory’ considering the justification must go on to a potential infinity thus leaving it indefinite as infinity is indefinite. Nothing can be truly justified without first going to a potential infinite regress.

The latter point above leaves us with the question of “infinity?”. If all assumptions require a potential infinite regress then how can we justify ‘infinity’? To justify ‘infinity’ would require ‘infinity’ to describe itself, i.e. through the infinite regress, thus resulting in a self-referential circle as both the form of definition and act of definition refers respectively to each other. ‘Infinity’ results in an infinite regress thus the act of defining infinity contains infinity and yet this leaves us with ‘infinity’ as an assumption that is unjustified as it is without beginning or end, or only half-defined as having only a beginning or only an end. To speak of the necessity of justification, in order to avoid assumption, is a senseless endeavor in these respects as its foundations are unjustifiable even when they are ‘justified’.

Reverting back to the nature of assumption, we ‘know’ that we assume…or do we? To relegate knowledge to Plato’s definition as “true justified belief”, or under the terms of this argument: ‘justified assumption’, is in itself a belief, or again in the terms of this argument: ‘an assumption’. ‘Knowledge’ effectively does not exist under these terms and can be describe as an illusion. But does this make ‘assumption’ an illusion as well? Contradictorily “yes” and “no”. “Yes” in the respect that not only are all assumptions relative, thus false under certain contexts, but to ‘assume that we assume’ is a self-referential state that necessitates the assumptions exist as themselves but this self-referentiality results in a meaningless state, in meaning themselves they are empty of meaning (this is a contradiction). It is also a “no” in the respect that the relativity of assumption points to relations between the observer and ‘the phenomenon of the assumption’ which necessitates something which is sensical. In a dual respect the self-referentiality of ‘assuming we assume’ makes a sensical looping form that one is aware of. To view these statements in other terms, the relativity and self-referentiality of the nature of assumptions are both non-sensical and sensical…again this is a contradiction. All assumptions share the nature of illusion and truth simultaneously.

In conclusion, the whole of trying to understand an assumption is in itself an assumption thus leaving us with the foundations of knowledge being on no-thing, nothingness, and/or an indefinite state. To try to understand anything beyond an assumption, such as ‘justification’ or ‘infinity’, is an assumption as well. If knowledge is to exist at all it must be viewed synonymously to ‘assumption’ otherwise knowledge is an illusion. However, the statements made above can be viewed as assumptions as well and in these respects the argument self-negates. The self-negation points to a state of ‘truth’, if such a word can be used in these respects, which is beyond anything knowable as the argument itself has sound premises and is valid in form. This argument can be referenced under another form, that of the ‘Munchausen Trilemma’, where all knowledge is reduced to one or more of the three following things: an assumption, an infinite regress, a circularity.
Post Reply