# In regards to radical skepticism **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 11, 2017, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296 "2017-11-11T07:11:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2017, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/221 "2017-12-24T18:45:13Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > Reviving this philosophical ouroboros of a thread to share this link: [Neuroscience Has a Lot To Learn from Buddhism - The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/12/buddhism-and-neuroscience/548120/) > > A neuroscientist and a Buddhist monk discuss brain activity and what it tells us about how Human brains function and should be managed. Active mental engagement - rumination - provides far less value to the overall health and capacity of the brain as learning to manage one’s thoughts via various forms of meditation, including via playing music and athletic activity. > > Reputable reporting focused on the Science of brain management. Hmm, that might be worth reading and commenting on, eh? Completely irrelevant to the thread. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2017, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/222 "2017-12-24T20:06:04Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > The issue being that rejecting skepticism and therefor pyrrhonism by extension seems like the “wrong” choice. That acting based on opinions or beliefs (or even holding them) is incorrect. The fact that the guy supposedly found peace by permanently suspending judgment on nonevident matters seems to show that it’s the right way to do things and anything else is wrong. That, right there, is ACTING BASED ON A BELIEF. When you blandly refer to the “fact” that he found peace via that method, and you blandly say that shows it’s the right way to do things – well, you’re acting the same way as any other guy who blandly refers to some other alleged fact and just as blandly states “it’s the right way to do things and anything else is wrong.” > [@](#): > > Holding opinions and beliefs when they are ultimately founded on unsatisfactory justification seems to be the error they claim society does. That’s what you’re doing right now! It’s what you’ve _been_ doing! You’re a guy who holds opinions and beliefs! Am I somehow going too fast for you, here? > [@](#): > > The Trilema shows that all claims are eventually rooted in three unsatisfactory bases. That’s a _claim_. Right there. Take a good look at it. Then maybe take a second look, because you seem to be missing that – as a claim – it’s one of those “all claims”. ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/223 "2017-12-25T06:00:57Z")
I’m referring to the Münchhausen Trilema which sort of negates certainty of knowledge. I don’t think you understand the topic at hand here. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/224 "2017-12-25T12:32:26Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > I’m referring to the Münchhausen Trilema which sort of negates certainty of knowledge. I don’t think you understand the topic at hand here. You _think_ I don’t understand. Is that your belief? Is it an opinion you hold? You offer up a _claim,_ here, about “the Münchhausen Trilema” and what it negates. You’ve also been known to phrase that claim as follows: “The Trilema shows that all claims are eventually rooted in three unsatisfactory bases.” Are those _claims_ you’re making about the Trilemma? Is that a claim you’re making about “all claims”? You say that acting on beliefs – and even _holding_ them – is incorrect: “acting based on opinions or beliefs (or even holding them) is incorrect.” Since you don’t think I understand the topic, teach me by answering my question: does that statement of yours, there, reflect a held _belief_ about what’s incorrect? You refer to “a fact” about right and wrong and finding peace: “The fact that the guy supposedly found peace by permanently suspending judgment on nonevident matters seems to show that it’s the right way to do things and anything else is wrong.” So, help me out, here: _does_ it? Do you _believe_ that? Did _he?_ These are _yes-or-no questions_; if you “understand the topic at hand here”, you should be able to crisply answer all eight – with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ – in short order. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/225 "2017-12-25T13:20:58Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > I’m referring to the Münchhausen Trilema which sort of negates certainty of knowledge. I don’t think you understand the topic at hand here. Where did you get the idea that “agreeing with your conclusions” = “understanding the topic”? ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/226 "2017-12-25T21:30:39Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > Completely irrelevant to the thread. If you behaved as **MrDibble** said upthread, and questioned your ability to live if you couldn’t find your answer, who the heck are you to judge? Did you do that, **Machinaforce**? Assuming you are not going to say he was lying, why should anyone talk with you about your philosophy questions?? ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2017, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/227 "2017-12-25T22:04:50Z")
The witholding of judgement is a big part of buddhism, maybe the most important and profound. So there is lots of firm ground on this. In the US Eugene Gendlin formulated and wrote a book about something he calls “focusing.” It’s derived from research about what the people who are helped by analysis are doing as their “inner act”. This is critical because therapy is an art and not a science roughly speaking, and outcomes are not controllable. Focusing is done all over the world now. It involves turning things over in your mind without naming them, until you have had a shift. Not naming things imediately is very powerfuil when used correctly. I guess it’s the exact opposite of posting here, and I’ll plead to that. > **[The International Focusing Institute](https://focusing.org/)** > > The International Focusing Institute. Focusing Is A Process Grounded In Experiential Listening As Developed By Eugene Gendlin. It Is A Powerful Way Of Interacting With Innate Body-Felt Knowing And Leads To Mutual Respect, Authenticity And Compassion. I should add that Gendlin was a philosophy guy at University of Chicago, and also a psychotherapist. I don’t htink there is a psychologist or self help author who is as philosophically literate, and profound, as he is. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2017, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/228 "2017-12-26T10:19:58Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > The witholding of judgement is a big part of buddhism, maybe the most important and profound. So there is lots of firm ground on this. > > In the US Eugene Gendlin formulated and wrote a book about something he calls “focusing.” It’s derived from research about what the people who are helped by analysis are doing as their “inner act”. This is critical because therapy is an art and not a science roughly speaking, and outcomes are not controllable. Focusing is done all over the world now. > > It involves turning things over in your mind without naming them, until you have had a shift. Not naming things imediately is very powerfuil when used correctly. I guess it’s the exact opposite of posting here, and I’ll plead to that. > > [http://focusing.org/](http://focusing.org/) > > I should add that Gendlin was a philosophy guy at University of Chicago, and also a psychotherapist. I don’t htink there is a psychologist or self help author who is as philosophically literate, and profound, as he is. That’s a great post. The thing that is difficult is that folks like you, me, **Exapno** - actually, pretty much everyone - are trying to speak to someone who is choosing not to listen. \*\*Machinaforce \*\*- this place is, like, the opposite of 4chan. We don’t grab popcorn to watch people suffer. I don’t see value in sitting idly by while you start thread after thread obsessed on the Kafkaesque implications of extreme philosophy. Especially if the stakes are a lot higher than is readily being discussed. You can set up a thread but it ain’t your personal sandbox. I am not threadshitting - I am addressing your central OP directly and constructively. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2017, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/229 "2017-12-28T21:49:38Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > That’s a great post. The thing that is difficult is that folks like you, me, **Exapno** - actually, pretty much everyone - are trying to speak to someone who is choosing not to listen. > > \*\*Machinaforce \*\*- this place is, like, the opposite of 4chan. We don’t grab popcorn to watch people suffer. I don’t see value in sitting idly by while you start thread after thread obsessed on the Kafkaesque implications of extreme philosophy. Especially if the stakes are a lot higher than is readily being discussed. > > You can set up a thread but it ain’t your personal sandbox. I am not threadshitting - I am addressing your central OP directly and constructively. It’s funny because “focusing”, while you can do it alone, is done in other settings with a partner, taking turns being listened to, and that listening to the other person is part of the effect. It’s called peer counseling. When I get a chance to talk about Gendlin I do, but I step back and let people see something in it if they need or want to. ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/230 "2018-01-10T02:36:51Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > That’s a great post. The thing that is difficult is that folks like you, me, **Exapno** - actually, pretty much everyone - are trying to speak to someone who is choosing not to listen. > > \*\*Machinaforce \*\*- this place is, like, the opposite of 4chan. We don’t grab popcorn to watch people suffer. I don’t see value in sitting idly by while you start thread after thread obsessed on the Kafkaesque implications of extreme philosophy. Especially if the stakes are a lot higher than is readily being discussed. > > You can set up a thread but it ain’t your personal sandbox. I am not threadshitting - I am addressing your central OP directly and constructively. The site that he links too sounds too much like pseudoscience. It has nothing to do with Pyrrhonism or skepticism. The bit about buddhism is sort of related since he visited India when he came up with this philosophy which is why it seems so similar to buddhism. ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/231 "2018-01-10T02:40:49Z")
In fact, the link seems like one of those scams out to get your money. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2018, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296/232 "2018-01-10T11:04:53Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > The site that he links too sounds too much like pseudoscience. It has nothing to do with Pyrrhonism or skepticism. > > The bit about buddhism is sort of related since he visited India when he came up with this philosophy which is why it seems so similar to buddhism. No, it has nothing to do with skepticism or any other specific system. It is one approach to managing one’s thoughts. If you don’t like that one, fine. There’s plenty. The point is: do you see that managing one’s thoughts is an essential ingredient to the type of thinking you are attempting? That if you find yourself questioning the value of living if you apply a philosophical system a specific way, something is not working, and that managing one’s thoughts is how one is aware of stuff like that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-regards-to-radical-skepticism/801296.md?page=11)