In regards to radical skepticism

In My Humble Opinion
101

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

We do not have enough evidence to determine precisely why Aenesidemus found inspiration in Pyrrho. One important point, however, is that they both promote a connection between tranquility and an acceptance of our epistemic limitations (see Bett [2000] for an elaboration of this view). Diogenes Laertius attributes the view to both Anesidemus and the followers of Timon that as a result of suspending judgment, freedom from disturbance (ataraxia) will follow as a shadow (DL 9.107-8). Similarly, Photius reports Aenesidemus’ view that those who follow the philosophy of Pyrrho will be happy, whereas by contrast, the dogmatists will wear themselves out in futile and ceaseless theorizing (Bib. 169b12-30, LS 71C). Although there seem to be important differences in what Pyrrho and Aenesidemus understood by our epistemic limitations, they both promoted tranquility as the goal, or at least end product. In general terms the idea is clear enough: the way to a happy, tranquil existence is to live in accordance with how things seem, including especially our evaluative impressions of the world. Rather than trying to uncover some hidden reality, we should accept our limitations, operate in accordance with custom and habit, and not be disturbed by what we cannot know (see Striker [1990/1996])

The fifth mode shows that differences in location and position of an observed object relative to the observer will greatly affect the way the object appears. Here we find the oar that appears bent in water, the round tower that appears square from a distance, and the pigeon’s neck that changes color as the pigeon moves. These features are independent of the observer in a way that the first four modes are not. But similar to the first four, in each case we are left without any rational grounds on which to prefer some particular location or position over another. Why should we suppose, for example, that the pigeon’s neck is really green rather than blue? And if we should propose some proof, or theory, in support of it being really blue, we will have to face the skeptic’s demand for further justification of that theory, which will set off an infinite regress.

The fourth mode shows that differences in the emotional or physical state of the perceiver affects his perception of the world. Being in love, calm and warm, one will experience the cold wind that comes in with his beloved quite differently than if he is angry and cold. We are unable to adjudicate between these incompatible experiences of the cold wind because we have no rational grounds on which to prefer our experience in one set of circumstances to our experience in another. One might say that we should give preference to the experiences of those who are healthy, sane and calm as that is our natural state. But in response, we may employ the second mode to challenge the notion of a single, healthy condition that is universally applicable.

The ninth modes points out that the frequency of encountering a thing affects the way that thing appears to us. If we see something that we believe to be rare it will appear more valuable. And when we encounter some beautiful thing for the first time it will seem more beautiful or striking than it appears after we become familiar with it. Thus, we must conclude, for example, that a diamond is no more valuable than worthless.

102

I’m trying to paint the best picture I can here, because I don’t think people are getting at what Pyrrhonism is.

103

Let’s take this paragraph. There are enough factual errors and logical inconsistencies in just this paragraph to choke a dinosaur.
1, Rare things are seen as more valuable. In some cases, they are more valuable because of market forces. If there are fewer objects to sell, then the prices of the objects will be bid up because of more potential buyers might bid on each.
2. Rare things are seen as more valuable. There are some horrible skin diseases which are thankfully rare. Are these more valuable? Is a rare piece of hideous artwork more valuable?
3. The biggest fallacy is the assumption that value is somehow inherent in a thing. There are many things that I might find valuable which you do not, or vice versa. Obviously the person writing this lived before Adam Smith.
4. And when we encounter some beautiful thing for the first time it will seem more beautiful or striking than it appears after we become familiar with it.
Nonsense. Many things grow more beautiful the more you study them. My love for the symphonies of Beethoven has grown the more I listen to them. No one who sees the Mona Lisa in the Louvre has seen it for the first time - but I bet many people love it more after seeing it in the real. The assertion, like so much in philosophy, alas, is unsubstantiated and unsupported.
5. Thus, we must conclude, for example, that a diamond is no more valuable than worthless.
And here we see the hypocrisy - or perhaps the idiocy - of these arguments. This conclusion would imply that the author could waltz into a store or museum showing a much admired diamond and get it for a song. And if the author was given a diamond I’d bet diamonds to donuts that he would not give it up as if it were worthless.

If you have not seen arguments against this philosophy, it is because your eyes are closed. Time to open them.

104

Please define “fulfilled life.” Please show that all people share this definition.
If you cannot, anyone claiming that they can prove that a philosophy leads to a fulfilled life is lying to you. Do they claim that the millions or billions of people who claim to have a fulfilled life while not buying this philosophy are lying?

105

You should read some other ancient philosophy. Philosophy uses informal logic, and usually works on an unstated set of axioms. Try reading works of natural philosophy which prove things true which we know are false. For instance, the non-atomists. (Though the atomists are not any better, they were just kind of right by accident.) Then tell us how the logic of philosophy leads to truth.
There seems to be an unstated assumption that our differing perception of objects in the world means that these objects actually vary with our perceptions. But the ancients were not aware of how sensory information gets distorted as it arrives at our consciousness. Each of us implements a different mapping function from the world to our brains, and thus each of us sees object slightly differently. Modern science has been working at understanding the mapping function, and has not given up by assuming things are fluid. And it has worked quite well.
Take how a color blind person sees a stop light compared to someone without color blindness. If the color blind person sees the red signal as gray, do you think you can conclude that we cannot say what color the red signal is? Remember, we can measure its wavelength, and the color blind and non color blind people will agree on this measurement.

Now, please stop saying no one has pointed out weaknesses in the argument - not that this is the first, second or third.

106

You’re the one who was using “believe” and “belief”: “they believe”, you’d say, and then you’d move on to discussing this or that claim.

If you now want to drop those terms, that’s fine; you’re stating that they’re relaying a fact about how people can reach peace: they’ve tried this approach, they say, and they noted that the desired result ensued; and they wrote about the experience, and others tried it and it worked out the same for them.

That’s pretty much what I do every day: I’m trying something new, or I’m guiding my current actions off the results I recall getting before, or I’m taking someone else’s words to heart in hopes of learning something valuable from their experience. (And sometimes I conclude they were lying or mistaken, but never mind that now.)

The point is: isn’t that what you do every day? And isn’t that what you were already doing before you came across this philosophy?

107

So you say that a person can’t manage their thoughts?

You say that Pyrrhonism’s very core is NOT based on a person managing their thoughts based on skepticism’s precepts?

You demand everyone respond to you. Respond to these, please.

What role should managing one’s thoughts have in applying a philosophical system?

108

…Ad nauseam. Pyrrhonism is wrong in the same way that all other philosophies are wrong (to a lesser or greater extent).

How many philosophies since you’ve been posting here have you latched on to and insisted, to exhaustion, that you’ve finally found the “truth”? I’ve lost count. Do you even know?

This latest is not the last, it’s just the most recent, which you’ll soon abandon and move on to something else, more or less nihilistic. Rinse and repeat. It isn’t that the philosophy of “Pyrrhonism” suffers from obsessive Solipsism Syndrome and nihilism. It’s that YOU DO. Are you aware of that truth & reality?

109

Yes, I’m aware that you’re parroting a bunch of stuff you read on the Internet and are incapable of thinking critically about it. That’s why I said you weren’t doing philosophy or using logic. You’re fixated on your own unhealthy ideas and have simply been casting around for things you can use to justify them. A couple of weeks ago it was some crazy person’s blog, now it’s an ancient school of philosophy, and soon it will be something else. Not only is this not doing you any good, it’s fucking annoying.

110

Actually, philosophy works exactly like religion. There are no facts in philosophy, only beliefs. Logic is sound only to the extent each step is factual.

If all philosophies are false, and skepticism says this is true, then it includes itself as a false philosophy. It was exactly this type of self-refuting statement that led logicians to try to put philosophy on a mathematical basis at the start of the 20th century. They found instead that it can’t be done because any mathematical formulation of any complexity holds statement that cannot be proven true or false inside that formulation.

The world cannot be proven. It must be accepted as it is, all warts included. You can choose to deal with reality or not, but you cannot convince others that any specific analysis is “the” truth. You should therefore not try to convince yourself of it either. At best, philosophy will allow you to encounter interesting minds with interesting analyses. No matter what they say, however, a hammer and nails will still be better tools for joining two pieces of wood than any philosophy.

111

It’s not really solipsism. It’s also getting at the fact that since there are many points of view, one cannot call any of them truth.

112

But the problems posed by it are the same ones that skepticism has posed today in regards to knowledge.

Didn’t you see the explainations behind the points?

113

That’s not how it works for this philosophy, they aim for a life without belief. Because according to them beliefs cause grief and that the “dogmatists” wear themselves out with theorizing.

114

You’re wearing me out with your theorizing. I can’t imagine how exhausting it must be inside your head. We’re trying to help you put a brake on the wear and tear.

115

You’re saying that, “according to them”, beliefs cause grief. That’s a belief.

You, uh, get that, right?

More to the point, it’s apparently a belief they reached by evaluating experiences; as far as I can tell, they’ve noticed that beliefs cause grief the way they’ve noticed that dogmatists wear themselves out with theorizing. Right?

And you mentioned their assorted testimonials, about how various of them claim to have achieved tranquility by use of this approach; presumably, you mentioned that because you believe you can learn from their example – and, presumably, they mentioned it because they’d experienced it first-hand.

So: what does all of that tell you? That folks in this world of appearances manage to notice stuff and reach conclusions, forming beliefs they then announce?

116

Machinaforce, ignoring my questions is a cowardly move. A lot of Dopers are engaging you - please acknowledge that NONE are attempting to agree with or support your line of thinking IN ANY WAY.

Right now, the only thing that happens in your threads is that we watch you chase your tail.

Is this what talking to a 'bot is like?

117

Correct. Is it possible we’ve made progress??

Life is messy and you must find what gives your life meaning (or truth - a word I dislike in this context) without looking to others for all the answers. Dum vivimus vivamus.

And if you cannot find meaning in your own life - which is the sad reality for some - at least stop insisting that therefore no-one can. If finding meaning in life is an illusion, then it’s a very successful one that seems to be working for most people most of the time. Nihilism, on the other hand, is far less successful because it is often self-correcting.

118

It’s exhausting and debilitating and I would like to know the secret that keeps others from folding to this.

119

Most people don’t engage in obsessive or compulsive behaviour. So there is no “secret” to share except to suggest that you find more fulfilling and fruitful pursuits. Do you work? Go to school? Spend time with friends and family? Enjoy hobbies or other interests that don’t involve nihilistic, self defeating pursuits?

Obsessive behaviour can be treated with therapy and meds. Have you explored this option?

120

I was thinking more like what sort of logic or reason people have that prevents them from falling to this, not the pedestrian responses of mental health or obsessive behavior.