Philosophy

1813 readers

46 users here now

All about Philosophy.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

SnowC0de@lemmy.ml

-3

let's talk briefly about suppostion. (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 days ago by Codrus@lemmy.world to c/philosophy@lemmy.ml

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Supposition is defined as an uncertain belief. Therefore, there not being a reason for things or a why would be just as much of a supposition as if I were to say that there is.

There being no why or reason for things is worthy of the same amount of burden of evidence/explanation for if I were to say the opposite. And to say there isn't a reason or a why for things wouldn't/shouldn't make anything being a supposition not worthy of ones consideration just because anything born from an is or an isn't can be considered as supposition based off metaphysical assumptions.

So you're saying scientific theory is not worth the time and energy to even consider? Scientific theory being based off metaphysical assumptions. If so, you're saying The Big Bang wasn't worth not only the time and effort to think up in the first place, but not even worthy of anyone's consideration?

top 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Ik this is about me, so I'm gonna let others respond, but I thought I'd rewrite this for you so it's easier to follow.

Supposition refers to an uncertain belief. This means that claiming there is no reason or explanation for things is just as much a supposition as asserting that there is a reason.

When we say that there is no "why" or reason behind events, we carry the same burden of evidence and explanation as when we argue the opposite. Thus, stating that there is no reason for things does not diminish the validity of any supposition. Both positions—whether something exists or does not exist—can be seen as based on metaphysical assumptions.

Otherwise, would you not also suggest that scientific theories aren't worth our time and energy to consider? If scientific theories are indeed rooted in metaphysical assumptions, does that mean concepts like the Big Bang theory are not worthy of our attention or contemplation?

[–] Codrus@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Please dont see this as a personal attack towards you by any means, I'm only using our encounter and what I ended up saying to speak out about supposition now. I'm worried ultimately about the extent the idea may be potentially hindering knowledge and the consideration of foreign influences, and it's difficult for me to think of anything worse.

[–] Codrus@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

There's a bad habit on this platform of disagreeing and down voting, without stating specifically as to why. Wouldn't it make more sense to share why I'm wrong? Because I'm not necessarily claiming I'm absolutely right, but I'm also not saying I'm wrong either—despite being absolutely okay with being wrong, because then I've only have found what's right.

Please tell me why I'm wrong so I can delete the post and we can all move on too what is right.

[–] deikoepfiges_dreirad@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

people can't even disagree, because it is entirely unclear what you are talking about.

[–] Codrus@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Oh I'm sorry. What about what I've said is so unclear to you exactly?

[–] Codrus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

My point exactly.