3 of 6
3
In regards to Skepticism
Posted: 08 November 2017 01:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1002
Joined  2015-12-29

I think the division is with Radical skepticism, which is different from scientific skepticism.

But I can’t ignore their points. I mean, clashing opinions and beliefs do cause suffering. Our senses can fail and be mislead. Even the evidence that we base our views on can be interpreted in many different ways. With all that and more, how can we claim anything solid like knowledge to build on? Even a post that was linked to video showed that the mind hallucinates reality, constructing it according to what our senses give us. We don’t see reality as it is just as it appears, which gives Pyrrho some weight.

Even right and wrong is dubious since it amounts to personal judgment about what ought to be. I just don’t see a convincing way to defeat him.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 November 2017 10:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1002
Joined  2015-12-29

http://www.iep.utm.edu/skepanci/#H3

So, skepticism is an ability to discover opposed arguments of equal persuasive force, the practice of which leads first to suspension of judgment and afterwards, fortuitously, to tranquility. This makes Sextus’ version of Pyrrhonian skepticism dramatically different from other Western philosophical positions, for it is a practice or activity rather than a set of doctrines. Indeed, insofar as the skeptic is supposed to live without belief (adoxastôs), he could not consistently endorse any philosophical doctrine. But how is it possible to live without beliefs?

The short answer is that one may simply follow appearances and withhold judgment as to whether the world really is as it appears. This seems plausible with respect to physical perceptions, but appearances for Sextus include evaluations, and this creates a complication. For how can the skeptic say “this appears good (or bad) to me, but I don’t believe that it is really good or bad”? It seems that there is no difference between evaluative appearances and evaluative beliefs.

One possible response to this problem is to say that Sextus only targets sophisticated, philosophical theories about value, or about physics or logic, but allows everyday attitudes and beliefs to stand. On this view, skepticism is a therapy designed to cure the disease of academics and theoreticians. But it seems that Sextus intends his philosophical therapy to be quite widely applicable. The skeptical life, as he presents it, is an achievement and not merely the recovering of a native innocence lost to philosophical speculation. (See Burnyeat and Frede [1997], Brennan [1999] for the debate regarding what the skeptic is supposed to suspend judgment about.)

Any answer to the question about how the skeptic may live without beliefs will depend on what sort of beliefs we think the skeptic avoids. Nevertheless, an elaboration on living in accordance with appearances comes in the form of the fourfold observances. Rather than investigate the best way to live or even what to do in some particular circumstance, Sextus remarks that the skeptic will guide his actions by (1) nature, (2) necessitation by feelings, (3) laws and customs, and (4) kinds of expertise (PH 1.23-24). Nature provides us with the capacity for perception and thought, and we may use these capacities insofar as they don’t lead us to dogmatic belief. Similarly, hunger and thirst will drive us towards food and drink without our having to form any explicit beliefs regarding those physical sensations. One need not accept any nutritional theories to adequately and appropriately respond to hunger and thirst. Laws and customs will inform us of the appropriate evaluations of things. We need not actually believe that the gods exist and that they are benevolent to take part in religious ceremonies or even to act in a manner that is (or at least appears) pious. But note that the skeptic will neither believe that the gods exist nor that they do not exist-he is neither a theist nor an atheist, but agnostic in a very robust sense. And finally, the skeptic may practice some trade or profession without accepting any theories regarding his practice. For example, a carpenter need not have any theoretical or geometrical views about doors in order to be skillful at hanging them. Similarly, a doctor need not accept any physiological theories to successfully heal his patients. The further question, recalling the dispute explored in Burnyeat and Frede [1997], is whether the skeptic merely avoids sophisticated, theoretical beliefs in employing these observances, or whether he avoids all beliefs whatsoever.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2017 05:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4162
Joined  2009-10-21
Titanomachina - 07 November 2017 06:56 PM
Lausten - 07 November 2017 05:20 AM
Titanomachina - 06 November 2017 11:57 PM

Therefore, ....

You’re still going around the internet looking for reasons to be miserable and do nothing about it. Go outside. Get a life. People do that without needing to prove anything.

Except this philosophy itself is affecting my ability to do that, so much so that I cannot sleep. I wonder if they are right and nothing can be known, then what? What to do? I can’t shake the nagging thought that they might be right.

If that’s true, and I doubt it, then anything could effect you like that. The thought of a meteor hurtling to earth could take over your thoughts. I can’t provide a logical solution to your problem. Your problem is obsession.

[ Edited: 09 November 2017 05:55 AM by Lausten ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2017 09:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1002
Joined  2015-12-29

It’s not obsession, if you read the above post you can see that there is some logical sense to what they are saying. That’s what makes it so hard to dismiss.

The Munchausen trilemma and the fact that there are hundreds of theories out their makes the claim of knowledge dubious. It almost like I have to lie to myself to say I know anything. Ultimately to answer “how do you know” you have to settle on something unsatisfactory.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2017 12:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4162
Joined  2009-10-21
Titanomachina - 09 November 2017 09:36 AM

It’s not obsession, if you read the above post you can see that there is some logical sense to what they are saying. That’s what makes it so hard to dismiss.

The Munchausen trilemma and the fact that there are hundreds of theories out their makes the claim of knowledge dubious. It almost like I have to lie to myself to say I know anything. Ultimately to answer “how do you know” you have to settle on something unsatisfactory.

Your quoted post answers your question: “For example, a carpenter need not have any theoretical or geometrical views about doors in order to be skillful at hanging them. Similarly, a doctor need not accept any physiological theories to successfully heal his patients.”

You decide to obsess over any detail you want. You are limited to the sum of all human knowledge, and that doesn’t go back that far or answer the question of how our brains got how they are. If this is a problem for you, then your problem is with being human.You can obsess all you want. You got the ultimate answer to the ultimate question. You state it above, right after “ultimately”. Anything past that is just complaining about it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2017 01:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1002
Joined  2015-12-29

But I don’t get it though, does that make Pyrrhonism correct and therefor one must live by it? How do people move past this and deal with the unsatisfactory aspects of the trilemma?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2017 02:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4162
Joined  2009-10-21

The answer is that there is no answer. You get that there is nothing to get. There is just what there is.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2017 03:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4314
Joined  2014-06-20
Titanomachina - 06 November 2017 11:41 PM
LoisL - 06 November 2017 10:30 PM

Anyone who can say with a straight face, “I hate skepticism” isn’t worth responding to. It’s going to be a fast slide downhill from that point on.

I’m implying philosophical (or what is known as radical) skepticisms. Something that assserts that since our theories and sense are flaws and tell neither truth or lie that we can’t trust them and must hold no views and take no sides.

Yesm something like what creationists say when they say they believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution.

If you can bring yourself to understand critical thinking, yku will know there is no difference between philosophical and practical skeptocism. You just don’t like where philosophical skepticism leads you. It trashes too many of your dearly held fantasies. You also need to understand what empirical evidence is. You need to be ready to give up on impossible ideas. You are apparently not ready and may never be, just like YECs.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2017 03:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4314
Joined  2014-06-20
Titanomachina - 09 November 2017 09:36 AM

It’s not obsession, if you read the above post you can see that there is some logical sense to what they are saying. That’s what makes it so hard to dismiss.

The Munchausen trilemma and the fact that there are hundreds of theories out their makes the claim of knowledge dubious. It almost like I have to lie to myself to say I know anything. Ultimately to answer “how do you know” you have to settle on something unsatisfactory.

You just dismiss all theories that have no empirical evidence behind them. It’s not hard if you’re willing to give up your fantasies. Put everything to the empirical evidence test and dismiss everything that doesn’t pass the test. Also try to learn the difference between a scientific theory and pretense.

Lois

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2017 09:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1002
Joined  2015-12-29
LoisL - 09 November 2017 03:21 PM
Titanomachina - 06 November 2017 11:41 PM
LoisL - 06 November 2017 10:30 PM

Anyone who can say with a straight face, “I hate skepticism” isn’t worth responding to. It’s going to be a fast slide downhill from that point on.

I’m implying philosophical (or what is known as radical) skepticisms. Something that assserts that since our theories and sense are flaws and tell neither truth or lie that we can’t trust them and must hold no views and take no sides.

Yesm something like what creationists say when they say they believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution.

If you can bring yourself to understand critical thinking, yku will know there is no difference between philosophical and practical skeptocism. You just don’t like where philosophical skepticism leads you. It trashes too many of your dearly held fantasies. You also need to understand what empirical evidence is. You need to be ready to give up on impossible ideas. You are apparently not ready and may never be, just like YECs.

I don’t think you understand. There is a big difference between practical and philosophical skepticism. Philosophical skepticism is throwing EVERYTHING out since the methods used to obtain them are flawed, again (they tell neither true nor do they lie). That evidence can be found for either side and is subject to interpretation (reason being motivated by desire). It’s suspending judgment indefinitely. It’s not at all what you are suggesting.

The reason why I hate it is that it threatens to negate everything and I can’t beat its logic.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 November 2017 09:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1002
Joined  2015-12-29
Lausten - 09 November 2017 02:31 PM

The answer is that there is no answer. You get that there is nothing to get. There is just what there is.

I don’t really understand what that means to be honest. Nothing to get? No answer? So does that make Pyrrhonism right? There’s nothing I can do but accept it? What kind of life is that to suspend judgment indefinitely

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 November 2017 09:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4162
Joined  2009-10-21
Titanomachina - 09 November 2017 09:34 PM
Lausten - 09 November 2017 02:31 PM

The answer is that there is no answer. You get that there is nothing to get. There is just what there is.

I don’t really understand what that means to be honest. Nothing to get? No answer? So does that make Pyrrhonism right? There’s nothing I can do but accept it? What kind of life is that to suspend judgment indefinitely

It’s just life. you can’t know everything and you don’t know everything. Perfectly logical.

Pyrho says you can’t know anything, which is extreme, and no way to live.

[ Edited: 10 November 2017 09:19 AM by Lausten ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 November 2017 11:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1002
Joined  2015-12-29
Lausten - 10 November 2017 09:16 AM
Titanomachina - 09 November 2017 09:34 PM
Lausten - 09 November 2017 02:31 PM

The answer is that there is no answer. You get that there is nothing to get. There is just what there is.

I don’t really understand what that means to be honest. Nothing to get? No answer? So does that make Pyrrhonism right? There’s nothing I can do but accept it? What kind of life is that to suspend judgment indefinitely

It’s just life. you can’t know everything and you don’t know everything. Perfectly logical.

Pyrho says you can’t know anything, which is extreme, and no way to live.

Well according to what the links say, saying that you can’t know anything is dogma so they don’t do that. It’s more like continuously suspending judgment on anything in order to achieve tranquility

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 November 2017 06:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4162
Joined  2009-10-21
Titanomachina - 10 November 2017 11:38 PM
Lausten - 10 November 2017 09:16 AM
Titanomachina - 09 November 2017 09:34 PM
Lausten - 09 November 2017 02:31 PM

The answer is that there is no answer. You get that there is nothing to get. There is just what there is.

I don’t really understand what that means to be honest. Nothing to get? No answer? So does that make Pyrrhonism right? There’s nothing I can do but accept it? What kind of life is that to suspend judgment indefinitely

It’s just life. you can’t know everything and you don’t know everything. Perfectly logical.

Pyrho says you can’t know anything, which is extreme, and no way to live.

Well according to what the links say, saying that you can’t know anything is dogma so they don’t do that. It’s more like continuously suspending judgment on anything in order to achieve tranquility

You are just using more words to say exactly the same thing. I’m not making a claim about how much you know or don’t know. “can’t know anything” is just colloquial. You have to decide how accurate your own knowledge is, not some 5th century BC philosopher.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 November 2017 08:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1002
Joined  2015-12-29

There is a big difference between “can’t know anything” and suspending judgment on everything. I’m not saying the same thing here.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 6
3