In regards to Skepticism

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/#SubOthMin
I have been struggling lately with Pyrrhonism. Mostly because some of the claims that it makes are kind of rooted in truth. Strong beliefs and opinions clashing in the world are a problem and arguably the source of many ills. We also derive some kind of pain from judging things to be good or bad. We seek to avoid the bad and crave the good. Our senses are fallible. I’m not entirely certain about this one but they say that reason is motivated by desire, which I guess is true in some sense. I mean the source of any inquiry is the desire to know. So they try to advocate a policy of continual suspension of judgment in order to find peace, probably because of the above I have mentioned.
From what I have read, I cannot really argue against it. There is some truth to the things that they say, but I wonder if it is even possible to reach what they are talking about. They certainly think continuously suspending judgment leads to peace, but so far I have not seen anyone to which can prove that claim. So far “suspending judgment” for me has caused nothing but confusion and mental stress.
Yet I find it hard to seek knowledge and pursue truth because of their claims. Opinions clashing with each other causes pain, believe and judging things good and bad does too. So if that’s all true, then WHAT IS LEFT?! It seems to me that following this is no different than being dead, but I don’t know what to do about their claims. Should I pursue things even though I am fallible and so is my reasoning? I can’t have opinions on things or beliefs? I feel so lost and confused. I’m just trying to do the right thing here.

Can you pick one question

I wish I could, but I can’t really narrow it down since it’s all pretty much connected with each other.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/#SubOthMin I have been struggling lately with Pyrrhonism. ... Yet I find it hard to seek knowledge and pursue truth because of their claims. Opinions clashing with each other causes pain, believe and judging things good and bad does too. So if that's all true, then WHAT IS LEFT?! It seems to me that following this is no different than being dead, but I don't know what to do about their claims. Should I pursue things even though I am fallible and so is my reasoning? I can't have opinions on things or beliefs? I feel so lost and confused. I'm just trying to do the right thing here.
Can you pick one question
Oh dear. 'Against every question its contradiction may be advanced with equal justification.' ;-P Skepticism is a more slippery term than god. But Pyrrhonism, I have some experience via a gent who fancied himself] skeptical enough to take on the mantle of Pyrrho. If you've ever visited the SkepticForum, you'll know I'm talking about their moderator who certainly embodies what they tell me Pyrrho was all about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrho Pyrrho is renowned for creating the first formal approach to skepticism in Western Philosophy: Pyrrhonism. A summary of Pyrrho's philosophy was preserved by Eusebius, quoting Aristocles, quoting Timon, in what is known as the "Aristocles passage." "Whoever wants to live well (eudaimonia) must consider these three questions: First, how are pragmata (ethical matters, affairs, topics) by nature? Secondly, what attitude should we adopt towards them? Thirdly, what will be the outcome for those who have this attitude?" Pyrrho's answer is that "As for pragmata they are all adiaphora (undifferentiated by a logical differentia), astathmēta (unstable, unbalanced, not measurable), and anepikrita (unjudged, unfixed, undecidable). Therefore, neither our sense-perceptions nor our doxai (views, theories, beliefs) tell us the truth or lie; so we certainly should not rely on them. Rather, we should be adoxastous (without views), aklineis (uninclined toward this side or that), and akradantous (unwavering in our refusal to choose), saying about every single one that it no more is than it is not or it both is and is not or it neither is nor is not.[1] The main principle of Pyrrho's thought is expressed by the word acatalepsia, which connotes the ability to withhold assent from doctrines regarding the truth of things in their own nature; against every statement its contradiction may be advanced with equal justification.
At the risk of sounding crude this reminds me of a bunch of stoned hippies justifying hanging out and doing nothing all day, more than anything else. This from the top of machina's link
Ancient Skepticism First published Wed Feb 24, 2010; substantive revision Sat May 31, 2014 The Greek word skepsis means investigation. By calling themselves skeptics, the ancient skeptics thus describe themselves as investigators. They also call themselves ‘those who suspend’, thereby signaling that their investigations lead them to suspension of judgment. They do not put forward theories, and they do not deny that knowledge can be found. At its core, ancient skepticism is a way of life devoted to inquiry. It is as much concerned with belief as with knowledge. As long as knowledge has not been attained, the skeptics aim not to affirm anything. This gives rise to their most controversial ambition: a life without belief.
We live in a real world and our minds can create many wonders that are not of this world. Still in the end it is this world and it's realities we inhabit and must learn to navigate if we are to have a satisfactory life. Or not. ;-P Perhaps "Critical Thinking" is a far better aspiration to strive for than "skepticism" Sorry Titanomachina, don't think this answered you, I was simply trying to wrap my head around the concept you brought up.

It’s just hard for me to overcome because there are bits to the premises that are true, but I don’t want to really get on board with their conclusion. I know what they CLAIM, but I doubt anyone has ever reached such a state by following them. It honestly seems impossible really, and doesn’t the philosophy itself contradict it’s self?
Though I can understand that what is RIGHT is really just what people believe is so and plenty of people have caused ruin fighting for what they think is right. Even our criteria for good is subjective, sigh. I just don’t know what to do about all of this.
I think their response to you saying it’s an excuse to do nothing is “why must something be done?” Why is it right to do this or that?
I really hate skepticism (philosophical). Especially the Munchausen Trilema

gl

It's just hard for me to overcome because there are bits to the premises that are true, but I don't want to really get on board with their conclusion. I know what they CLAIM, but I doubt anyone has ever reached such a state by following them. It honestly seems impossible really , and doesn't the philosophy itself contradict it's self?(sure seems that way to me.) Though I can understand that what is RIGHT is really just what people believe is so (Nah, can't sign on to that. Just because people believe something doesn't make it true in the face of reality) and plenty of people have caused ruin fighting for what they think is right. (Sure has - look at how we've fuk-ed our world with this "War on Terrorism") Even our criteria for good is subjective,(Ain't that the truth, plenty of flag wavers cutting their own throats) sigh. I just don't know what to do about all of this.(Why do have to "do" something about it? Specially if it's way bigger than you.) I think their response to you saying it's an excuse to do nothing is "why must something be done?" (Why, because I have but one life to live. I have chosen it to be an adventure, and it certainly has been. I didn't "must" do it, but it's been a hell of lot more fun and passion and sorrow and insights, than if I'd have accepted my lot and become another brick in the wall.) {There is no MUST, there is only DOING.} :-) Why is it right to do this or that? (Define right. For me right is in living dignified, doing good work, being helpful to others, earning my own way, having a good reputation among those who know me. Experiencing as many facets of life as possible. Being present. Other's think good is power and more money than they know what to do with.) I really hate skepticism (philosophical). Especially the Munchausen Trilema(Why do have to do that to me Titano, I'm no philosophy student, don't even want to go there, but know eventually I peek at the wreck (yeah like on the freeway) ;-)
I read your comment then went for a nice walk with Maddy, the thought that kept returning was one of hanging on too tightly, taking everything too seriously. Like over tightening a nut till it brakes, or gripping a bike so tightly you can't ride, or getting ultra-intense with a new lover they must escape. Don't know where to go with that though, so I'll just pass it along. Have you checked out Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? by Robert M. Pirsig yet? Here, let me make it a present to you. :-) I just found the full text on PDF, https://www.bartneck.de/projects/research/pirsig/zen.pdf Quiet little haunt away from people when you can cut out some time. It'll be pretty easy reading for you, yet fascinating i bet.
That the Metaphysics of Quality would do is take this separate category, Quality, and show how it contains within itself both subjects and objects. The Metaphysics of Quality would show how things become enormously more coherent--fabulously more coherent-- when you start with an assumption that Quality is the primary empirical reality of the world.... ...But showing that, of course, was a very big job.... -- From Lila
bartneck.de/projects/research/pirsig/zen. pdf
I can't have opinions on things or beliefs?
Alright. I'll pick one. The answer is, yes, you can have opinions. You can even believe. Hume figured out that pure skepticism is debilitating. I believe I have propane in my tank, so although I'm looking out at a cold forest with snow stuck on the trees, I'm safe in stocking feet inside. But I haven't checked it lately. Maybe there is a leak. Maybe the laws of physics changed overnight and propane is no longer combustible. I've decided not to live like that though. Hume didn't really solve this problem. I don't think anyone did.

Not solving it isn’t very comforting. I know it’s not easy, but I’m hoping there is something to lay this to rest. I can’t go the rest of my life stopping literally every singal judgment or opinion.

Not solving it isn’t very comforting. I know it’s not easy, but I’m hoping there is something to lay this to rest. I can’t go the rest of my life stopping literally every singal judgment or opinion.
I don't know what you are reading, but no one is suggesting that. I think you are confusing "having an opinion" with "opinions having you". You can have an opinion, just understand what an opinion is. The problem is when opinions own you. Someone tells you that the Green Bay Packers are the best football team, so you invest in lots of green and gold stuff and get to know all the players. Then they start losing. But you can't let go of that opinion, so you start constructing a world that explains how they can be the best yet still have a losing record.
Not solving it isn’t very comforting. I know it’s not easy, but I’m hoping there is something to lay this to rest. I can’t go the rest of my life stopping literally every singal judgment or opinion.
I don't know what you are reading, but no one is suggesting that. I think you are confusing "having an opinion" with "opinions having you". You can have an opinion, just understand what an opinion is. The problem is when opinions own you. Someone tells you that the Green Bay Packers are the best football team, so you invest in lots of green and gold stuff and get to know all the players. Then they start losing. But you can't let go of that opinion, so you start constructing a world that explains how they can be the best yet still have a losing record. I'm referring to Pyrrhonism which sees opinions and beliefs and something that causes suffering and is therefor bad. So i can't have opinions or beliefs because they would be bad.

Place Pyrrhonism in the context of modern knowledge. Pyrrhonism may be referring to the modern concept of cognitive dissonance. In that case, it is pretty much true that forming beliefs that don’t conform with reality can cause suffering, especially when people build their identities around these unreal beliefs.
The solution isn’t to reject this concept, but to take a step back in the process and ask how we decide to believe things so that the things we believe are most likely to conform to reality. At some point, we just have to say that the preponderance of evidence for a particular belief justifies it, and believe. The trick is knowing where that point is, and that’s a huge part of critical thinking and getting an education. At least, it should be.
And, go a step forward in the process and accept that sometimes we’re wrong and we must be willing up update our beliefs. The trick there is similar: knowing what the criteria are for showing a belief to be wrong, and never falling into the trap of “I just believe, you can never change my mind.” Even Richard Dawkins has said that if a process gets thought up that is shown via evidence to be better at explaining life than evolution, he would be on board.

Yeah well, just don’t. They weren’t that smart back then.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism

It's just hard for me to overcome because there are bits to the premises that are true, but I don't want to really get on board with their conclusion. I know what they CLAIM, but I doubt anyone has ever reached such a state by following them. It honestly seems impossible really, and doesn't the philosophy itself contradict it's self? Though I can understand that what is RIGHT is really just what people believe is so and plenty of people have caused ruin fighting for what they think is right. Even our criteria for good is subjective, sigh. I just don't know what to do about all of this. I think their response to you saying it's an excuse to do nothing is "why must something be done?" Why is it right to do this or that? I really hate skepticism (philosophical). Especially the Munchausen Trilema
If you hate skepticism, then why don’t you just close your eyes and pick something? Since you have no standards regarding what you choose and you reject skepticism, what’s stopping you? Just pick something and run with it since you have no criteria to deal with. I don’t know what else to suggest to you. You are an empty slate. Anything goes. LL
It's just hard for me to overcome because there are bits to the premises that are true, but I don't want to really get on board with their conclusion. I know what they CLAIM, but I doubt anyone has ever reached such a state by following them. It honestly seems impossible really, and doesn't the philosophy itself contradict it's self? Though I can understand that what is RIGHT is really just what people believe is so and plenty of people have caused ruin fighting for what they think is right. Even our criteria for good is subjective, sigh. I just don't know what to do about all of this. I think their response to you saying it's an excuse to do nothing is "why must something be done?" Why is it right to do this or that? I really hate skepticism (philosophical). Especially the Munchausen Trilema
If you hate skepticism, then why don’t you just close your eyes and pick something? Since you have no standards regarding what you choose and you reject skepticism, what’s stopping you? Just pick something and run with it since you have no criteria to deal with. I don’t know what else to suggest to you. You are an empty slate. Anything goes. Have you tried Scientology? LL
Yeah well, just don't. They weren't that smart back then. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism
LOL :-D
Yeah well, just don't. They weren't that smart back then. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism
LOL :-D So you laugh, but what can you possibly have against Scientology! You hate skepticism, so you should be able to swallow anything, lock, stock and barrel. Why not Scientology? How can you see anything wrong with it? What’s the problem? I could see it if you didn’t hate skepticism, but given your complete dismissal of it, why do you reject the opposite of skepticism? It would seem to be right up your alley. No skeptic I know would ever join Scientology. You would feel feel right at home there with lots of other people who also hate skepticism. Don’t you want to be with people who think the way you do? I don’t get it. If not Scientology, maybe Mormonism. There’s another religion for anti-skeptics. Come to think of it, all religions are anti-skeptic, but some more than others. If they weren’t they’d have no members. So I think your best bet is the most extreme religion there is that draws in other people like you who are extreme anti-skeptics. What’s the downside? Obviously you don’t want to take a chance on joining a religion only to find out there are hated skeptics in it! That would be horrible.
Yeah well, just don't. They weren't that smart back then. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism
LOL :-D So you laugh, but what can you possibly have against Scientology! You hate skepticism, so you should be able to swallow anything, lock, stock and barrel. Why not Scientology? Hiw can you see anything wrong with it? What’s the problem? I could see it if you didn’t hate skepticism, but given your complete dismissal of it, why do you reject the opposite pf skepticism? It would seem to be right up your alley. No skeptic I know would ever join Scientology. You would feel feel right at home there with lots of other people who also hate skepticism. Don’t you want to be with people who think the way you do? I don’t get it. If not Scientology, maybe Mormonism. There’s another religion for anti-skeptics. Come to think of it, all religions are anti-skeptic, but some more than others. If they weren’t they’d have no members. So I think your best bet is the most extreme religion there is that draws in other people like you who are extreme anti-skeptics. What’s the downside? Obviously you don’t want to take a chance on joining a religion only to find out there are hated skeptics in it! That would be horrible. This is about philosophical skepticism and the negation of being able to know anything. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pyrrho_and_pyrrhonism The main principle of Pyrrho’s thought is expressed in the word acatalepsia, implying that one cannot possibly know the true nature of things. For any given statement the opposite may be advanced with equal reason. Secondly, it is necessary in view of this fact to suspend one’s judgment (epoche). As Timon expresses it, no assertion can be known to be better than another. Thirdly, these results are applied to life in general. Since nothing can be known, the only proper attitude is ataraxia, or "freedom from worry." The proper course of the sage, said Pyrrho, is to ask himself three questions. Firstly one must ask what things are and how they are constituted. Secondly, one must ask how he is related to these things. Thirdly, one asks what ought to be her attitude towards them. Pyrrho's answer was that things are indistinguishable, immeasurable, and undecidable and no more this than that, or both this and that, and neither this nor that. Therefore, he said, the senses neither tell truths nor do they lie.[2] Therefore one knows nothing. One only knows how things appear to him, but of their inner substance people remain ignorant. The impossibility of knowing, even in regard to one's own ignorance or doubt, should lead the wise one to withdraw into himself. He should avoid the stress and the emotions that naturally accompany vain imagination. This theory of the impossibility of knowledge is the first and the most thorough exposition of agnosticism in the history of thought. Its ethical results may be compared with the ideal tranquility proposed by the Stoics and the Epicureans. An alternate interpretation is that Pyrrho was not strictly speaking a skeptic according to the skeptic's own standards—even though he was considered to be a skeptic in antiquity—but that he rather was a negative dogmatist. Having a view of how things are in the world makes Pyrrho a dogmatist; denying the possibility of knowledge makes his dogma negative.[3]

Dogma, exactly, not worth spending time with, except as an artifact of history

Dogma, exactly, not worth spending time with, except as an artifact of history
Doesn't it have some truth to it though? I mean since we only see things as they appear to us, how can we make claims about the nature of things? Also you might want to check the talk page of the rationalwiki link.