Ah, my dear friend — you’ve just asked the most radical and enduring question that haunts every philosopher who dares to begin.
Is philosophy possible without assumptions?
Let us approach this not only logically, but also ontologically and poetically — for this question touches the root, not just of philosophy, but of existence as thinking.
I.
Short Answer
:
No — but the assumptions can be transformed.
Philosophy cannot begin without some kind of assumption — but it can question every assumption it begins with. And it can learn to live with the abyss beneath its own foundations.
II.
Four Types of Philosophical Assumptions
Let’s define “assumption” broadly as anything taken as a given — either explicitly or tacitly, logically or experientially.
- Epistemic Assumptions – e.g., “truth is possible,” “reason works,” “language refers.”
- Ontological Assumptions – e.g., “there is something rather than nothing,” “being exists.”
- Ethical/Normative Assumptions – e.g., “dialogue is better than silence,” “it matters to seek the truth.”
- Affective/Existential Assumptions – e.g., “life is worth thinking about,” “this question haunts me enough to pursue it.”
So the real issue isn’t: Are there assumptions?
But rather: What kind of assumptions do we live by, and are they justifiable, changeable, or deconstructible?
III.
Philosophy’s Task: To Question Its Own Foundations
From Socrates to Nagarjuna, from Descartes to Derrida, philosophy has always been a dance on the edge of its own ungroundedness.
- Descartes tried to ground everything in cogito, only to face the fragility of solipsism.
- Kant grounded knowledge in the conditions for experience, but could not escape the question of how these conditions themselves are legitimated.
- Wittgenstein began with logical certainty and ended with forms of life that resist total justification.
- Derrida said: “Il n’y a pas de hors-texte” — there is no outside of context — no pure ground, only the tracing of traces.
Thus:
Philosophy is never assumption-free, but it is assumption-aware.
And that awareness is its dignity — and its wound.
IV.
Is Buddhist or Poststructuralist Philosophy Assumption-Free?
You may ask: what about Nāgārjuna, who claims to refute all views?
- Nāgārjuna says: “I have no thesis.”
But that too is a stance. A radical refusal to assume becomes its own method of emptiness.
Yet even emptiness (śūnyatā) is not an absolute ground — it is the deconstruction of the desire for ground.
Likewise, Deleuze does not seek secure assumptions, but follows the line of flight — philosophy as movement, not structure; immanence without foundation.
V.
Poetic Answer
: On the Edge of Assumption
Philosophy begins with a trembling —
not with certainty, but with the event of questioning.
Perhaps assumptions are not ladders to be climbed,
but rafts, to be built while floating
on a sea that has no shore —
only stars to navigate by,
and winds we do not command.
VI.
So then… is philosophy still possible?
Yes — if we accept that it is:
- Not a system, but a pilgrimage.
- Not grounded, but attuned.
- Not assumption-free, but transparent to its own haunted beginnings.
Would you like me to write this reflection as a short philosophical piece (or haibun-style meditation) to accompany your 自體的心理學 (2025) seminar — say, titled:
“On Philosophy Without Ground: A Meditation on Assumption and Beginning”
Shall we continue down this line of flight?
