Okay, I’ve been thinking about this – no, really, stop snickering, you over there! – and I suspect what may be hanging you up is the need for a term, one word, that neatly encapsulates the particular concept you’re expressing. Sometimes there just isn’t one; sometimes you have to circumlocute around the idea in order to express it. Here’s what I mean:
One can say “He runs each day” or “He does a run each day” or “He’s a daily runner” and while each has a slightly different flavor they all convey pretty much the same concept.
But if you were to take the equestrian term “passage” (“pah-SAHJ”) (Wikipedia has a short article which includes a video clip nicely illustrating the gait) you could say “That horse passages elegantly” or “That horse does an amazing passage” but not “That horse is a great passager.” Logically, yes, one should be able to construct that usage, but in the world of dressage it simply is not part of the vocabulary.
Off-topic, but writing that post reminded me of the most amazing dressage performance I’ve ever seen, a freestyle in the 2006 World Equestrian Games. Simply stunning, not only for its passage, but also for the piaffe, extended trot, canter pirouettes, one and two-tempi flying changes, and – well, ALL OF IT! Watching it gives me choked-up chills every time, it’s so incredible.
Oh, and if you’re wondering, the music isn’t added to the video later; the freestyle is performed to it, and yes, that horse is in fact dancing, joyfully dancing in time to the music.
I’m totally with you on this, Lib. You know what I really hate? When people misuse the word “fury.” Like, when people use it to mean anger, or rage. You know what words they should use instead? *Anger *or rage. Because a “fury,” as everyone knows, is a winged goddess of Greek mythology–specifically (duh) Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, who hunt down and punish evildoers. Every time someone uses the word “fury” to mean “rage,” I have to stop and decipher what it is, exactly, they’re saying, because, like you, and everyone else, I’m naturally gonna assume they’re using the most archaic, esoteric definition.
Some might consider you a god among men from your exacting post.
Of course, by archaic, you must be referring to “arkhein” from the Greek “to begin”, in other words “original” - meaning, in casual conversation “Preceding all others in time; first.” but obviously, more poignantly and truthfully, “Being the source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made.” How this sums it up is clear to any who’ve actually bothered to read the entire thread to this point.
In short, I think that’s how we should choose to view the previous discourse. ::shrug::
Is there any evidence or argument that would convince you?
That’s a cleverly conceived but poorly executed parody. The thing about “fury” is that the usage is easily revealed by context. I’ve made the point you’re making several times myself when discussing libertarianism. “Force” has a specific meaning in that context, just as it does in a legal context (the force of law), or a sports context (a force play), or a scientific context (mass times acceleration). A creature of mythology could never be confused with a description of emotion, given proper phrasing.
But “skeptic” is different because there is only a nuance of difference between the word as it’s apparently used today and as it has been used for millenia, and yet the difference is profound and impactful. It is not a whole switch from one discipline (mythology) to another (psychology). Rather, it introduces equivocation by using the word in place of another word that is already perfectly satisfactory. If you merely doubt, then you merely doubt, and evidence or argument would convince you. But if you are skeptical, then you are questioning the very core of the assertion.
You could, for example, convince me with sufficient argument that libertarianism is a bad idea. And in fact, people have convinced me that implementing it overnight in our present society would have disastrous consequences. But you cannot convince me with any amount of argument that a person is born with no intrinsic rights to his own mind and body because I take that as axiomatic. Likewise, you could convince me that God does not exist. And I have acknowledged many times the validity of that claim from the perspective of people with a life experience in which the statement makes sense. But you could never convince me that it is impossible for God to exist because it is a contradiction in terms, if God is taken to be a supreme being.
I agree completely that sometimes there just isn’t a word, but in this case there is. The link I gave in the OP shows that there is. The word was already there and in use for that purpose until sometime and someplace, people apparently could not discern intellectually the difference between doubt and skepticism. It’s almost like a person using Asian to refer to either Japanese or Chinese just because he doesn’t know the difference.
Because we capitalize names of religions. They are a form of proper name.
But I said the same thing your dictionary says: capitalize it for the school. It is, in that usage, a proper name.
True, that. I was doubtful that people would change their usage of this word, especially not just to suit me or others of a philosophical mind. Philosophy is something of the bastard step-child of disciplines here, despite its many contributions to everything else under discussion from science to politics to religion. But you’ve convinced me; so I no longer have any doubt.
But that doesn’t mean I can’t give it a rant in the Pit, right?
I am skeptical of that claim. It seems equally likely to me that people looked at the original root of the word–it comes from the Greek word that means “doubt”–and decided that it made sense to use it to describe doubt in general.
If you’re using “school” in the sense of a school of philosophy, then what’s the objection? If folks are not capitalizing it, they are not referring to the the philosophical school of Skepticism; rather, they are referring to the concept of doubting something absent sufficient evidence. If you’re using “school” in some other sense, I hope you’ll explain, becaues I’m confused.
Sure, rant away! The thing is, while philosophical discussions can be interesting, not everything is being discussed in a formal philosophical manner. When something is being discussed in another manner, it’s not disrespectful to philosophy not to use words within the philosophical discipline’s context; on the contrary, it’s disrespectful for philosophers to expect folks in other contexts to use words by their definition.
Even in philosophical discussions, however, it appears that Pyrrhonian skepticism is only one flavor:
I’m not accustomed to reading philosophical texts, but if I understand this correctly, what you’re discusing is radical Skepticism, not local skepticism.
It was pretty funny to me, but I think you’re right that it’s a little off the mark. Would a closer comparison be to cynic? That is, if someone, in discussing politics, refers to themselves (or to someone else) as a cynic, must we stop discussion to find out whether they actually understand the word they’re using, or are just pretending to understand, and aren’t really talking about someone who believes “that virtue is the only good, that the essence of virtue is self-control, and that surrender to any external influence is beneath human dignity”?
Again, I think that the capitalization rule can help us out here tremendously.
See Cite 1 above, and note that the word is never capitalized except in titles where other words are capitalized as well. It is rare to reference the school itself, unless you’re writing about history rather than philosophy.
I completely agree (and have expressed that already). However, doubt and skepticism do not belong to the disciplines of science or politics; they belong to the broader discipline of philosophy. “I doubt that” and “I’m skeptical about that” are philosphical statements. In a discussion about law, for example, where a legal claim is made, “I doubt that” is not a legal claim, but a claim about the legal claim. Or in a discussion of politics, “I’m skeptical about that” is not a political claim, but a claim about the political claim. Just because the discussion is about law or politics doesn’t mean other disciplines are elbowed out by default. You can introduce statistical claims, religious claims, sociological claims — all sorts of claims from other disciplines. If someone claimed that Smith won by a landslide, it would be perfectly within reason to inquire about the statistical threshold of landslides. But that’s an inquiry that has a number for an answer.
Yes, that’s what I said in the OP.
Essentially, radical skepticism is a meta-philosophy that examines not only the nature of truth, but also the nature of perception about truth and rational thought about truth. Local skepticism is a description of scope, and is opposed to global skepticism. So, a claim can be examined in the light of a radical global skepticism (the perception and rationality of everything) or a radical local skepticism (the perception and rationality of the claim).
