3 ms·

This doesn't pass the smell test for me. It seems like you've taken a system of reasoning that was built through careful consideration (Kantianism), called the

This doesn't pass the smell test for me. It seems like you've taken a system of reasoning that was built through careful consideration (Kantianism), called the conclusions it meticulously built 'presuppositions' and hand-waved it without making substantive counterpoints. The problem then, of course, is that burning down previous philosophy and starting 'without presuppositions' will lead inevitably to conclusions again, which you can once again call presuppositions and hand-wave.

bowsamic 1y ago
If you have no external assumptions you can’t be wrong
- haswell 1y ago
  This statement is self-refuting in multiple ways. It is itself an assumption. It is assuming that it’s possible to have no external assumptions, that being wrong requires external assumptions, and that this principle is true. You’ve already violated your own standard. Even basic logical reasoning requires assumptions. Like the principle of non-contradiction, or that our cognitive faculties can distinguish between valid and invalid inferences. Hegel’s work doesn’t actually proceed without assumptions either; it starts with the concept of “being” and builds from there using logical principles. If you truly had no assumptions, you couldn’t even begin to reason or make any truth claims. You’d have no framework for distinguishing truth from falsehood, valid from invalid reasoning, or meaningful from meaningless statements. You might avoid being wrong about empirical facts, but you’d also avoid being right about anything. The real philosophical task isn’t to eliminate all assumptions (which is impossible), but to identify foundational commitments, examine them critically, and build carefully from the most defensible starting points we can find. But those starting points are still assumptions, and at least for the time being, there’s no reason to believe we’ve sufficiently closed the knowledge gaps necessary to operate on anything but a base set of assumptions.
  - bowsamic 1y ago
    Those are all assumptions
    - haswell 1y ago
      Exactly
      - bowsamic 1y ago
        So forget about them and start from zero, from totally empty thinking
        haswell 1y ago
        Can’t be done. That’s not how human brains work, and there’s no neurological basis for the claim that it is possible. Look, this has come full circle and we’re both just restating our positions at this point. If you’re not just trolling, I’d highly recommend you go read some of the criticisms of Hegel’s work. You keep dismissing/side stepping the counterpoints raised here without providing substantive arguments to back up this dismissal, so I’ll leave it there.

bowsamic 1y ago

If you have no external assumptions you can’t be wrong

haswell 1y ago
This statement is self-refuting in multiple ways. It is itself an assumption. It is assuming that it’s possible to have no external assumptions, that being wrong requires external assumptions, and that this principle is true. You’ve already violated your own standard. Even basic logical reasoning requires assumptions. Like the principle of non-contradiction, or that our cognitive faculties can distinguish between valid and invalid inferences. Hegel’s work doesn’t actually proceed without assumptions either; it starts with the concept of “being” and builds from there using logical principles. If you truly had no assumptions, you couldn’t even begin to reason or make any truth claims. You’d have no framework for distinguishing truth from falsehood, valid from invalid reasoning, or meaningful from meaningless statements. You might avoid being wrong about empirical facts, but you’d also avoid being right about anything. The real philosophical task isn’t to eliminate all assumptions (which is impossible), but to identify foundational commitments, examine them critically, and build carefully from the most defensible starting points we can find. But those starting points are still assumptions, and at least for the time being, there’s no reason to believe we’ve sufficiently closed the knowledge gaps necessary to operate on anything but a base set of assumptions.
- bowsamic 1y ago
  Those are all assumptions
  - haswell 1y ago
    Exactly
    - bowsamic 1y ago
      So forget about them and start from zero, from totally empty thinking
      - haswell 1y ago
        Can’t be done. That’s not how human brains work, and there’s no neurological basis for the claim that it is possible. Look, this has come full circle and we’re both just restating our positions at this point. If you’re not just trolling, I’d highly recommend you go read some of the criticisms of Hegel’s work. You keep dismissing/side stepping the counterpoints raised here without providing substantive arguments to back up this dismissal, so I’ll leave it there.