An analogous statement : “The theory of phogiston is so problematic as to be impossible to take seriously.”
“I” am undefined in the following sentence: I think, therefore I am.
Since that word is undefined, we’re left with “Thinking is taking place, therefore something exists and is the seat of consciousness”.
The seat of consciousness uses “I” as a self-referential. That’s reasonable. Doing so doesn’t make “I” unproblematic, of course, it’s akin to a mathematician saying Let x equal the function that results in blah blah blah. It’s a legitimate use of x but you have not solved for x.
Cogito ergo sum asserts that “I”, in this specific limited sense as the self-referent of the seat of whatever consciousness is doing the thinking, has a solution. It doesn’t solve for “I”, but it says there does exist an “I”.
This is getting a bit off track. I’m saying here that in the face of fallible tools at our disposal the stance of the pyrronist is to just “give up” and not say anything. Apparently it’s supposed to give mental fortitude when you don’t pass any judgment
AHunter3: I like your answer. I feel I have to point out a few things though.
First you say “seat of consciousness” is “undefined”. If that is the case, how can you say it is subjective, let alone “self-referential”. Why do you get to import all this content into “undefined” without any basis?
But even with your undefined x, the skepticism runs still deeper. Axioms were mentioned upthread. Consider the Identity axiom: A = A. Easy to take for granted and convenient, too- one can’t do any math without it.
But as it is presented without proof, it is subject to skepticism. In a universe in which Identity is not taken for granted, we are left with A != A. Our entire mathematical system collapses to : A. We can’t assert any more than that.
So you can talk about your x, but there is no math so there is no x. There is only A.
No I don’t. I say “I”, in that sentence, is undefined. Go back and take a look.
So what’s the debate, then?
You start threads and come at topics with a closed mind and try to toss “philosophy” out as a bad discipline, but there is often a decent discussion despite that approach, so here goes:
Yep, if that’s what Skepticism is, then it would be dumb. I am no expert, but have done some reading on it. Skepticism looks to establish an approach that tackles a couple of the fundamental questions about one’s life philosophy:
-
**How should one engage their day? ** Skeptics argue that one best faces the day by paying attention to what is happening and looking to filter out pre-conceived notions. A form of “Be here now.” Getting tangled up in how to view Science is silly. The point is to be open to how your biases shape your thoughts. Keep doubt available as a check on pride.
-
How should one “connect with the infinite” - what does Success look like? Near as I can tell, it is being open to ataraxia, a tranquility that comes from accepting greater levels of paradox (a concept that Jung names Wisdom).
As a simple recipe, it is practical:
- Stay present and see things for yourself.
- Be open to changing your mind as new facts and insights emerge.
- You’re better off allowing allowing Truths that appear contradictory to coexist than by ignoring all but one - it is better to contain multitudes.
Sounds okay to me.
Except it isn’t advocating many of that. They say there is no truth and nothing can be known. That our tools for finding such truth are fallible so there is no point in trying. The philosophy itself seems self refuting. Stating a path to follow based on what it knows even though it says nothing can be known.
Your simple recipe isn’t even close to what it’s saying. It’s not about changing your mind but not having anything to change. Simply put, following pyrronhism is the same as death from what they say. Ataraxia seems to be little more than stasis and a fear of being wrong.
And it can be argued that you can’t filter your preconceived notions, because they are the basis for what you know of the world. You will always see the world through them. That’s the only way things get done. Science gets things done by assuming the existence of an external world (a preconceived notion). The same applies to this field when they think nothing can be known.
Also multiple truths cannot exist. There is but one that is true, even if we don’t know what that is that doesn’t change the fact. It’s like how a statement can’t be true and false.
Despite what it advocates it doesn’t seem very practical.
Meh. You say Potato, and I say practical, internally-consistent philosophy for how to live. We’ll agree to disagree.
You can think that, but it’s wrong. It’s not a practical way to live and will most likely end with someone dying shortly. I don’t think you understand the depth of skepticism I’m talking about here. It literally has nothing to do with what you are describing.
Well, if the people who deny all reality die off… do they make a sound?
I would find that kind of creed intolerable.
I certainly don’t ascribe to it.
There is truth. And to varying extents there is knowledge of it.
There isn’t certainty. Or tools for finding truths are indeed fallible.
There’s an extremely meaningful difference there. The scientific method approaches its subject matter with an attitude of “this is what the preponderance of evidence would seem to support”; its explanations of observed phenomena are famously called “theories”. Nothing is ever proven, and even things that have been “disproven” may be reopened with questions of how variables were operationalized in the “disproof”.
Dude, radical anything is likely too much, including radical skateboard moves. So? Radical religious systems within Christianity lead to weird cults and I don’t think we need to discuss radical Islam. So, yeah, radical Skepticism sounds kinda stoopid.
“…will most likely end with someone dying shortly.” ?? It was devised about 2,000 years ago. What point could you possibly be trying to make? Why are you needing to envision a scenario of such OMG EXTREME!! Skepticism?
You regularly bring up philosophical ideas with threads that basically start with “Okay, because Philosophy as a topic is a life-force-sucking evil, we can agree that this specific topic is bad, too, right?”
Dude, no. I am sincerely sorry that focusing on the Big Questions using philosophical tools has not been a good thing in your life. That simply isn’t the case for the majority of those who do use the tools. Yes, some philosophers are/were tortured souls, but so are many passionate Humans. Not all artists cut their ears off, right?
A healthy use of philosophical tools involves processing through them and taking what you need, what works for you. I would submit that my summary of Skepticism in my first post above is a way one can dig into this system and learn good stuff. You are welcome to take away what works for you.
Settle down and engage in a discussion for once.
I am engaging in a discussion here. But you are hung up of a previous thread instead of focusing on this one. I’m saying that doubting and constantly questioning absolutely EVERYTHING isn’t practical and will likely result in either going mad or dying, not tranquility like they say. This is discussing whether radical skepticism is practical.
I don’t think it is or isn’t practical. I think it depends on what you are using it for. When it is the right tool for the job, it will be practical.
Serious question: what belief system is better when it is radicalized, and a person interprets it/seeks to live it to an extreme?
I agree with you and your OP’s premise: radical skepticism is not practical. If those are the only two options - practical vs impractical - then you’re good.
I would argue there are other options than that.
I’m pretty sure “practical” and “practice” stem from the same root. And while I am not going to claim that if you could monitor my mind’s workings you’d see that at every single moment I retain an awareness that in each and every thing I believe, I might actually be wrong, I do practice it as a philosophy and attitude.
I question my precepts and conclusions on my own, embracing my doubts and giving them consideration, and in my interactions with others I do my best to consider their contrasting viewpoint with an awareness that they might be right, or more right than I am, or as right from a different angle as I am from my angle.
I see a lot of social damage done by people enacting policies or dealing with others from a starting point of “I know for sure this is right, that this is now things are” and therefore seeing any and all differing opinions as wrong. I have seen the damage done by religions and philosophies that purport to offer their believers certainty. Yes, we humans do crave something to believe in, something that feels solid and reliable, something we can call Truth. I recommend radical skepticism as the best Truth you can cling to, paradoxical though it may be to do so.
Except radical skepticism is in the same vein as those religions and philosophies that offer certainty. It is certain that nothing can be known and that our senses are constantly fooling us. It is certain that no judgment is the best path and that it leads to tranquility. In short, it’s almost like a religion and like religion it falls apart upon serious inquiry into it. It’s not a solution, humans learn through trial and error, but this philosophy doesn’t even advocate trying. All it does is give either an early grave or madness. It’s exactly like the other things you mentioned, doing nothing can be just as damaging as doing something. In the fact, you using words like good and bad are also proof that you aren’t a radical skeptic.
You aren’t practicing radical skepticism as the ancients did. Because you still have beliefs and you are making judgments. You are just practicing the modern version of skepticism which is less radical but more realistic.
Also bear in mind that much good has also been done from people who did what they knew to be right. In fact that is all humans do, act on what they think is right. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not.
The problem with your comment is that it tells me you don’t understand what radical skepticism is. The guy who founded it would have died many times if people didn’t come to his rescue (since he didn’t trust his senses he often got into dangerous situations). It is borderline suicidal
Oh, OK. Sounds silly to me.