I don't disagree with what you say there. I agree that it is accordance with ordinary parlance to say that causation (among other things) is presupposed in all our searches for explanation.

Perhaps where we've been misunderstanding one another is that I also see that basic presupposition as a kind of foundational belief, not consciously chosen of course.

I guess the point for me is that rather than saying we presuppose causation, which seems to suggest our consciously presupposing or believing in causation, which we also indeed do (mostly) I think it is less potentially confusing to say that the idea of causation is constitutive of our whole process of thought; the very water in which we swim, so to speak.

Interested in a reading group, or another thread? — creativesoul

I'm pretty much Collingwooded out for now.

I guess the point for me is that rather than saying we presuppose causation, which seems to suggest our consciously presupposing or believing in causation, which we also indeed do (mostly) I think it is less potentially confusing to say that the idea of causation is constitutive of our whole process of thought; the very water in which we swim, so to speak. — Janus

But there's a need for caution here. First, presuppositions may well be consciously presupposed - or not. Absolute presuppositions, not. Second, the idea of causation as an account for how the world works is seductive. But as I believe Hume makes clear, there ain't no such thing. In a substantive sense, then, the APs are determinative of the water itself.

But RGC wasn't giving an account of physics or any science He was instead giving an account of how the thinking of such folks - and everyone when they're thinking at a relatively high level of organization - think. So you and I might very well bet the farm that Cause C causes Effect E, but that's just a model, and while a model that still has some utility, not the model, apparently, of much modern physics - and certainly not how the world actually works. Which is to say that C&E, at one time an absolute presupposition of science, no longer is.

I enjoy being an AAF. And, it's quite evident that one need not follow any particular set of rules to play this game we're talking about, because you yourself said it's a matter of free choice. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you're being intentionally disruptive, so I flagged your post. Let's see what @fdrake thinks.

The only way to find out whether a book is worth reading is to read it." (EM, p.19)
— tim wood

That's highly untrue, delusional I might add. If we couldn't use the words of others to make such judgements, we'd have no way of deciding which books to read, and we'd have to choose what to read randomly. — Metaphysician Undercover

Such confusion, MU. But this. I have a gold coin I'd like to sell you. 72% of reviewers say it's real. Shall I tell you where to send the Western Union money order?

I don't disagree with what you say there. I agree that it is accordance with ordinary parlance to say that causation is presupposed in all our searches for explanation. — Janus

Ordinary parlance, yes.

I also see that basic presupposition as a kind of foundational belief — Janus

Presuppositions, yes.

we don't consciously presuppose or believe in causation, it is rather constitutive of our whole process of thought. — Janus

I’m sure you wouldn’t contradict yourself as obviously as this last seems to contradict the first, so I’ll just assume I’m not getting what you’re saying.

Interested in reading group, or another thread? — creativesoul

I’m non-committal, but I might eavesdrop from behind the fake rubber tree.

So there is no point then? Got it.

Because all I am seeing is a wall of text that changes nothing at the end of the day.

Interested in a reading group, or another thread? — creativesoul

Sure, I'm interested. Grateful for being introduced to Collingwood, had never heard of him but I like what I read so far. He is very readable.

No worries, my friend.



Looks like we're the only ones who want to read this...

:razz:

I'm only on page 56, and I'll not be able to spend much more than an hour or so, maybe two, a day reading and/or discussing it. However, I'd be happy to begin a new thread on the paper itself, because this thread is not about that. We could discuss it as we read... as needed. Maybe start the discussion by summarizing the first four chapters? That looks like it's though page 33. Or, perhaps do it chapter by chapter?

BTW, this ABC podcast provides an interesting overview of Collingwood's life and thought.

Nice. Interesting parallels drawn between RGC and Witt's notion of forms of life, with both emphasizing the importance of language. The difference between them is RGC's focus upon thought.

BTW, this ABC podcast provides an interesting overview of Collingwood's life and thought. — Olivier5

Thank you very much for this. The Philosopher's Zone is a great show. And they all have those funny accents.

The Philosopher's Zone is a great show. — T Clark

Yes, it was well made. Balanced, inquisitive but sympathetic, and with some pace and flow in providing a broad overview.

we don't consciously presuppose or believe in causation, it is rather constitutive of our whole process of thought. — Janus


I’m sure you wouldn’t contradict yourself as obviously as this last seems to contradict the first, so I’ll just assume I’m not getting what you’re saying. — Mww

The first being:

I don't disagree with what you say there. I agree that it is accordance with ordinary parlance to say that causation is presupposed in all our searches for explanation. — Janus

What I has in mind there was how in common parlance presuppositions can be referred to as being implicit, taken for granted, in questions, or investigations, without the questioners being consciously aware of those presuppositions.

With the comment you refer to as "last" I had in mind that these basic presuppositions (or beliefs) that people may or may not be conscious of as being implicit in their questions and investigations, are constitutive of the processes of thought that lead to the questions and investigations, that they actually are ineliminable because without them the questions and investigations would lose their sense.

The point was also that it seems less likely that foundational presuppositions or beliefs were, in their origins, consciously adopted. So, as I see it the two comments support one another rather than they contradict one another.

basic presuppositions (....) are constitutive of the processes of thought — Janus

I certainly agree with that, so....good enough. Thanks.

This idea of the power of belief has come to its logical conclusion for me.

Lately I've begun to realize and understand that we are our beliefs. Our beliefs are the entirety of our being. One can understand this completely, and yet, trying to elaborate what these are, find them either trite and mundane, or nebulous and elusive, hard to pin down or specify.

And so they should be. Heidegger says "the more comprehensive a concept is in its scope...the more indeterminate and empty is its content" (Introduction to Metaphysics, p. 43) So, in fact, knowing that beliefs are the basis of being, we reach the point of the pure indetermination of content. I know that I am both the product and the author of my beliefs. I know that I exist. Cogito ergo sum.

Relative to another thread, for example, this would explain why people need religious beliefs; they need religious beliefs to found their being when they themselves are incapable of doing so. Either you assume responsibility for your own being, or you accept a whole lot of doctrinal gibberish that does nothing to fill in the gaps between obeyances.

Glory, for the Greeks, is the highest manner of being....Glory means doxa [which is "belief"]....I show myself, I appear, I step into the light. (Introduction to Metaphysics, p. 108)

The being of believing, the being of believers, the being of belief.