What matters is cause and effect. If the appearance of some cause and effect is coherent, then it’s reasonable to act upon that information.
This Pyrrhonism sounds to me like more of a logical puzzle meant to be solved than a real suggestion on living.
Dogma, exactly, not worth spending time with, except as an artifact of historyDoesn'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. I've answered this before.
Dogma, exactly, not worth spending time with, except as an artifact of historyDoesn'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. I've answered this before. Where?
I've answered this before.Where? I went through "Is Life a Curse" thread, which is mostly about finding value in living, but there is still good stuff in there, like post 235 or the link in 241. Also, at 221, I said there are things I can't quite describe, and you thought that was "interesting", but we didn't expand on it. I'm sure I've linked to my Munchausen's blog somewhere. Basically we are limited, we don't know everything, but we can increase our probability of being accurate. Looked at from the other direction, it is extremely unlikely that we would be terribly wrong about what is real. The reason we survive is that we are right at least some of the time about what is going to happen or what the consequences of our actions might be. http://winter60.blogspot.com/2015/05/out-of-philosophical-trilemma.html
Anyone who can say with a straight face, “I hate skepticism" isn’t worth responding to. It’s going to be a fast slide downhill from that point on.
Anyone who can say with a straight face, “I hate skepticism" isn’t worth responding to. It’s going to be a fast slide downhill from that point on.I’m implying philosophical (or what is known as radical) skepticisms. Something that assserts that since our theories and sense are flaws and tell neither truth or lie that we can’t trust them and must hold no views and take no sides.
I've answered this before.Where? I went through "Is Life a Curse" thread, which is mostly about finding value in living, but there is still good stuff in there, like post 235 or the link in 241. Also, at 221, I said there are things I can't quite describe, and you thought that was "interesting", but we didn't expand on it. I'm sure I've linked to my Munchausen's blog somewhere. Basically we are limited, we don't know everything, but we can increase our probability of being accurate. Looked at from the other direction, it is extremely unlikely that we would be terribly wrong about what is real. The reason we survive is that we are right at least some of the time about what is going to happen or what the consequences of our actions might be. http://winter60.blogspot.com/2015/05/out-of-philosophical-trilemma.html https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma Albert stressed repeatedly that there is no limitation of the Münchhausen trilemma to deductive conclusions. The verdict concerns also inductive, causal, transcendental, and all otherwise structured justifications. They all will be in vain. Therefore, certain justification is impossible to attain. Once having given up the classical idea of certain knowledge, one can stop the process of justification where one wants to stop, presupposed one is ready to start critical thinking at this point always anew if necessary. This trilemma rounds off the classical problem of justification in the theory of knowledge.
Therefore, ....You're still going around the internet looking for reasons to be miserable and do nothing about it. Go outside. Get a life. People do that without needing to prove anything.
Therefore, ....You're still going around the internet looking for reasons to be miserable and do nothing about it. Go outside. Get a life. People do that without needing to prove anything. Except this philosophy itself is affecting my ability to do that, so much so that I cannot sleep. I wonder if they are right and nothing can be known, then what? What to do? I can't shake the nagging thought that they might be right.
Anyone who can say with a straight face, “I hate skepticism" isn’t worth responding to. It’s going to be a fast slide downhill from that point on.I’m implying philosophical (or what is known as radical) skepticisms. Something that assserts that since our theories and sense are flaws and tell neither truth or lie that we can’t trust them and must hold no views and take no sides. Where do you draw the line between philosophical and practical skepticism? Apparently there comes a point when you become completely gullible and doubt nothing. No wonder you’re confused!
Anyone who can say with a straight face, “I hate skepticism" isn’t worth responding to. It’s going to be a fast slide downhill from that point on.I’m implying philosophical (or what is known as radical) skepticisms. Something that assserts that since our theories and sense are flaws and tell neither truth or lie that we can’t trust them and must hold no views and take no sides. Where do you draw the line between philosophical and practical skepticism? Apparently there comes a point when you become completely gullible and doubt nothing. No wonder you’re confused! But you need to also consider how hideously misused "skepticism" is - it's easy to see how some see it as skepticism = contrarianism and little more. Then folks double down by pointing to Pyrrho but reading about his ideas and seeing people who idealize him in action and they seem little more than headfuks - robbing skepticism of rationality. That's why I think perhaps we ought to focus more on fundamental Critical Thinking Skill rather than mud fighting about what skepticism means to whom . . .
I think the division is with Radical skepticism, which is different from scientific skepticism.
But I can’t ignore their points. I mean, clashing opinions and beliefs do cause suffering. Our senses can fail and be mislead. Even the evidence that we base our views on can be interpreted in many different ways. With all that and more, how can we claim anything solid like knowledge to build on? Even a post that was linked to video showed that the mind hallucinates reality, constructing it according to what our senses give us. We don’t see reality as it is just as it appears, which gives Pyrrho some weight.
Even right and wrong is dubious since it amounts to personal judgment about what ought to be. I just don’t see a convincing way to defeat him.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/skepanci/#H3
So, skepticism is an ability to discover opposed arguments of equal persuasive force, the practice of which leads first to suspension of judgment and afterwards, fortuitously, to tranquility. This makes Sextus’ version of Pyrrhonian skepticism dramatically different from other Western philosophical positions, for it is a practice or activity rather than a set of doctrines. Indeed, insofar as the skeptic is supposed to live without belief (adoxastôs), he could not consistently endorse any philosophical doctrine. But how is it possible to live without beliefs?
The short answer is that one may simply follow appearances and withhold judgment as to whether the world really is as it appears. This seems plausible with respect to physical perceptions, but appearances for Sextus include evaluations, and this creates a complication. For how can the skeptic say “this appears good (or bad) to me, but I don’t believe that it is really good or bad”? It seems that there is no difference between evaluative appearances and evaluative beliefs.
One possible response to this problem is to say that Sextus only targets sophisticated, philosophical theories about value, or about physics or logic, but allows everyday attitudes and beliefs to stand. On this view, skepticism is a therapy designed to cure the disease of academics and theoreticians. But it seems that Sextus intends his philosophical therapy to be quite widely applicable. The skeptical life, as he presents it, is an achievement and not merely the recovering of a native innocence lost to philosophical speculation. (See Burnyeat and Frede [1997], Brennan [1999] for the debate regarding what the skeptic is supposed to suspend judgment about.)
Any answer to the question about how the skeptic may live without beliefs will depend on what sort of beliefs we think the skeptic avoids. Nevertheless, an elaboration on living in accordance with appearances comes in the form of the fourfold observances. Rather than investigate the best way to live or even what to do in some particular circumstance, Sextus remarks that the skeptic will guide his actions by (1) nature, (2) necessitation by feelings, (3) laws and customs, and (4) kinds of expertise (PH 1.23-24). Nature provides us with the capacity for perception and thought, and we may use these capacities insofar as they don’t lead us to dogmatic belief. Similarly, hunger and thirst will drive us towards food and drink without our having to form any explicit beliefs regarding those physical sensations. One need not accept any nutritional theories to adequately and appropriately respond to hunger and thirst. Laws and customs will inform us of the appropriate evaluations of things. We need not actually believe that the gods exist and that they are benevolent to take part in religious ceremonies or even to act in a manner that is (or at least appears) pious. But note that the skeptic will neither believe that the gods exist nor that they do not exist-he is neither a theist nor an atheist, but agnostic in a very robust sense. And finally, the skeptic may practice some trade or profession without accepting any theories regarding his practice. For example, a carpenter need not have any theoretical or geometrical views about doors in order to be skillful at hanging them. Similarly, a doctor need not accept any physiological theories to successfully heal his patients. The further question, recalling the dispute explored in Burnyeat and Frede [1997], is whether the skeptic merely avoids sophisticated, theoretical beliefs in employing these observances, or whether he avoids all beliefs whatsoever.
Therefore, ....You're still going around the internet looking for reasons to be miserable and do nothing about it. Go outside. Get a life. People do that without needing to prove anything. Except this philosophy itself is affecting my ability to do that, so much so that I cannot sleep. I wonder if they are right and nothing can be known, then what? What to do? I can't shake the nagging thought that they might be right. If that's true, and I doubt it, then anything could effect you like that. The thought of a meteor hurtling to earth could take over your thoughts. I can't provide a logical solution to your problem. Your problem is obsession.
It’s not obsession, if you read the above post you can see that there is some logical sense to what they are saying. That’s what makes it so hard to dismiss.
The Munchausen trilemma and the fact that there are hundreds of theories out their makes the claim of knowledge dubious. It almost like I have to lie to myself to say I know anything. Ultimately to answer “how do you know" you have to settle on something unsatisfactory.
It’s not obsession, if you read the above post you can see that there is some logical sense to what they are saying. That’s what makes it so hard to dismiss. The Munchausen trilemma and the fact that there are hundreds of theories out their makes the claim of knowledge dubious. It almost like I have to lie to myself to say I know anything. Ultimately to answer “how do you know" you have to settle on something unsatisfactory.Your quoted post answers your question: "For example, a carpenter need not have any theoretical or geometrical views about doors in order to be skillful at hanging them. Similarly, a doctor need not accept any physiological theories to successfully heal his patients." You decide to obsess over any detail you want. You are limited to the sum of all human knowledge, and that doesn't go back that far or answer the question of how our brains got how they are. If this is a problem for you, then your problem is with being human.You can obsess all you want. You got the ultimate answer to the ultimate question. You state it above, right after "ultimately". Anything past that is just complaining about it.
But I don’t get it though, does that make Pyrrhonism correct and therefor one must live by it? How do people move past this and deal with the unsatisfactory aspects of the trilemma?
The answer is that there is no answer. You get that there is nothing to get. There is just what there is.
Anyone who can say with a straight face, “I hate skepticism" isn’t worth responding to. It’s going to be a fast slide downhill from that point on.I’m implying philosophical (or what is known as radical) skepticisms. Something that assserts that since our theories and sense are flaws and tell neither truth or lie that we can’t trust them and must hold no views and take no sides. Yesm something like what creationists say when they say they believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. If you can bring yourself to understand critical thinking, yku will know there is no difference between philosophical and practical skeptocism. You just don’t like where philosophical skepticism leads you. It trashes too many of your dearly held fantasies. You also need to understand what empirical evidence is. You need to be ready to give up on impossible ideas. You are apparently not ready and may never be, just like YECs.
It’s not obsession, if you read the above post you can see that there is some logical sense to what they are saying. That’s what makes it so hard to dismiss. The Munchausen trilemma and the fact that there are hundreds of theories out their makes the claim of knowledge dubious. It almost like I have to lie to myself to say I know anything. Ultimately to answer “how do you know" you have to settle on something unsatisfactory.You just dismiss all theories that have no empirical evidence behind them. It’s not hard if you’re willing to give up your fantasies. Put everything to the empirical evidence test and dismiss everything that doesn’t pass the test. Also try to learn the difference between a scientific theory and pretense. Lois