Avoiding the pits of extreme skepticism

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by greenberg, Nov 14, 2007.

  1. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Ok, then let's make up more silly terms. How about defining the pitfalls of "extreme ignorance?"
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Same thing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Radical and extreme are two different things, yet I can see how radical could be applied to skepticism.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    So, two made up meaningless terms are one and the same.

    Your imagination works remarkably well. A whole lot of practice, I suspect.
     
  8. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    well
    it might be important
    i have time

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    how the frikkin hell did q get the girl?
     
  10. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575


    pardon. is this still the case? if the primary characteristic assigned is one of rationality, i would assume this to be the criteria used

    pardon the tardiness
    energy is depleted
    for what its worth

    hmm
    if heidegger's presence still confuses, i shall elaborate in detail
    in turn, you present reasons for professed distaste


    is it possible to acknowledge some validity to the superlative in dispute?
    i believe doing so does not automatically justify usage in this context
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2007
  11. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    pardon
    this is more efficient than my muddle

    ryle's regress

    if read, what would you say? stick to original contention? modify and stuff?

    edit: i imagine this contention to imply error and/or fallacy

    a futher grounding....

    ...Crabtree said it is interesting to note that some thinkers are "pro-regress," in the sense that they consider this an interesting phenomenon and want to understand and describe what it means. While others are "anti-regress" and want desperately to get rid of this problem. For example, John Searle might be considered an "anti-regress" thinker, because Searle claims that if we view consciousness as an "observer" then we are left with the homunculus problem (smaller and smaller homunculi one inside the other, like the famous Russian dolls). Overall, Crabtree suggested that the survival group must come to a satisfactory agreement with respect to the infinite regress of observers, if it is to bring forth an adequate theory of survival. During the second part of his presentation in the afternoon Crabtree summarized five positions that he hoped would stimulate a fruitful discussion in the group. He started by quoting a letter by William James to his more literary brother Henry concerning the nature of stubborn empirical facts:

    "How you produce volume and after volume the way you do is more than I can conceive, but you haven’t had to forge every sentence in the teeth of irreducible and stubborn facts as I do. It’s like walking through the densest brush wood." crabtree
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2007
  12. Grantywanty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,888
    I notice you say nothing about 'an extremely severe version of skepticism'. Extreme skeptic is also found rather easily in philosophy journals. Try both skeptic and skepticism also with 'c'. You consider a lot of people, a good number of them professional philosophers, to be using terms they are using are incorrect. I will ignore you from here on out assuming you are taking your campaign wider in the world trying to convince people with better credentials than us and not wanting to distract you from this important work.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2007
  13. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    We already rely on the connection between the "body" and the "mind" anyway, in order to feel better. The difference is only in how scrupolously we do it.

    If we have a wound, we heal it - so that the wound would heal and we would feel better.
    If we have a tummy ache, we tell ourselves to "stay positive" - so that we would feel better.
    If we have worries, we drink alcohol or eat candy - so that the worries would go away and we would feel better. Or we go and talk to someone about our worries, in the hopes that we would feel better.

    And so on.
     
  14. Grantywanty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,888
    Yes, I think that is what he (the ES) assumes. Even in the gradients posited in the article every organism (that does not photosynthesize or have some sort of sifting mechanism for getting sustenance for the envionment will have tendencies toward motion and restlessness. To inhibit a tendency is to have a belief. The ES never moving is sure of something. Therefore he is not an ES.

    The article is fascinating!!!! I will digest over a long, long series of meals and get back to you. Perhaps another thread. Thank you for that!

    I am unwillling to make this bargain so we are both free.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2007
  15. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    Checking the terms of analysis if they are properly defined might take a while, yes. But this is an all-or-nothing approach that is ultimately prepared to undo even itself. It can be an act of using extreme skepticism on extreme skepticism itself. After one has done that, one is either insane, or enlightened.

    But the approach has some very everyday uses as well. It works marvelously when it comes to dealing with things like "God" and "self". Not to mention its common use in science.


    Ah, but then the mind must excell first.
     
  16. Grantywanty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,888
    In practical terms though, doesn't each analysis just lay out more skin for the ES to peck at?

    How much one tightens the bubble - these are the things I know - around oneself still ends up being an act of intuition. I am not saying that it is wrong or not useful. It feels very incomplete to me. Certainly a great athelete is going to be trained in specific movements that are repeated and probably also explained in terms of effects, perhaps sometimes in great detail - for motivation, to directly help the nervous system - via images, say - align with the intent of the movement. Yes. But any athelete and especially great ones will have built in movements no coach is going to touch, but rather simply praise, and certainly never was to, with the athlete that is, take apart and analyse - perhaps in a book for others. We can restrict ourselves to movements we understand the efficacy of in terms of verifiable effects. We could restrict behavior to only that which science has verified as effective. We could restrict understanding to only entities and effects that science has verified, but 1) this would eliminate quite a few things unnecessarily 2) at what point in the history of science did this become the best approach?




    I meant it in general but also as a compliment.

    Just noticed your new thread.

    What about those questions in relation to the ES?
    Why listen to someone who say no one can know? that you cannot be sure? (and who makes you feel bad ta boot)
    Why take him/it seriously enough to run back and analyze?
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2007
  17. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    See my reply to Grantywanty above.

    But, now that you have brought up the problem of regress -


    I've been reflecting on this and I shall reply in short notes style:

    (1) We must distinguish between the Internal Skeptic or Internal Skepticism (IS; that nagging voice inside the head, or the persistent doubt) and the External Skeptic (ES; a person who keeps doubting and naysaying).
    The ES is relatively easy to get rid of, there is usually at least one pragmatic solution to refrain from communicating with a person; the ES can be ignored.
    The same doesn't hold true for the IS. To silence the IS, different strategies might have to be employed than for the ES.

    (2) The IS is a product or part of the same mind as my "I" (I am going to use the first person singular here, for the sake of easier expression; but you might see fit to apply these words to yourself as well). As such, the occurence of IS can be taken as a manifestation that I have been doing something wrongly, that I should perhaps be doing something else or in a different way. As such, the IS is a manifestation of my lack of education, knowledge, skill or care. In that case, it is those that should be addressed, not the skepticism per se.

    (3) Seeking to solve the problem of skepticism as such ultimately means seeking to solve all problems (as it is because we have problems that skepticism arises).
    A workable solution to skepticism will have to address the desire or assumption that all problems need to be solved.

    (4) Aiming for a philosophical/theoretical solution of the problem of skepticism reveals a deeply seated and trusted naive realism that it is possible to adequately represent reality with words and concepts.

    (5) Aiming for a philosophical/theoretical solution of skepticism reveals the deeply seated and trusted conviction that the problem of skepticism can and should be resolved without the involved persons having to change in any significant way.
     
  18. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Yah seems so.

    Well again it seems so, but I don't think that thinking can validate that objectively is all. In terms of trying to prove absolutes, all sorts of ridiculous arguments can be introduced that you can't disprove either.

    For the sake of annoyance, let's just say you're just part of my mind and don't really exist. I'm some universally imaginative creature that thinks you but you don't "really" exist. You're a drama I've made up. Or maybe I could just be completely unreasonable and claim not to exist myself.

    Given these retarded premises, logic and reason basically vanish. I cannot logically prove that any of these are incorrect... since were I to accept the premise I'd have no choice but to believe one of those, but I can reject them based on utility quite readily while still respecting that someone else, for reasons I don't have to care about, could readily accept them and in their own framework of what I'd consider stupidity - feel perfectly logical. It also explains why they'd feel that way.

    I think everyone probably does. Have you ever found reason to doubt though, when reflecting on something you found to be "what is"? Do you respect that "what is" to you is necessarily tenative (if you've ever experienced doubt) and that since you are its source, you cannot objectively verify your findings? Of course, I don't mean to obsess on that shit, but in this context it seems quite important to me. I can't get past the simple thing where if you're you and you want to verify that what you see is real, you can't be "unyou" to have an objective source of verification. First you have accept that there are objective sources to do so, but it was you that had to do the verification and you're still you, so you're screwed right there. Make any sense whatsoever?

    So I just bring the only thing I see that honestly solve the problem. 'i report what i think is'.

    So I agree it seems to follow that pattern yeah, and it would seem that our agreement warrants some sustance to the assertion "that's how it is", but really I think we're just indulging in argument from popularity when we agree on it, as our agreement now expands to two of us who have assumed each other to exist and still suffer the objective validation issue, at least as I see it of course.

    But sure yeah maybe we're onto something. Bah this duality is annoying sometimes, but I try to tenaciously recognize.

    Yeah it IS an annoying habit, I do it more than I should... I feel compelled to be clear, and sidetrack myself into oblivion, then just go goofy on that ass when I realize what I'm doing.


    I tell myself it's how I gauge another's language. I think that's true, but maybe I'm justifying something. *shrug* IMO, that's not EC, it's just honesty, and I have to accept that my subconscious could have twisted anything I say. I don't dwell on it though unless something comes up to make me question it.


    Hmmm. So you say cruelty dimishes the observer (in the subject of the cruelty)?


    Jerry falwell and OBL both make lots of claims as to what is. Lots of people would have or force you to adopt their IS. I think you always have to allow for people to question your assumptions, and to recognize what they are - or you end up like those pricks. It's just respect for the process as I see it. The cost of which is "IS". "is" however, being perfectly acceptable and highly valuable.

    Well it's implicit to most things is all I was getting at, I don't think I meant it quite as broadly as you're thinking.


    Lol. As IF. Damnit, I'm 38, married with children. There's no going back. Hehe.


    What's interesting about that to me is that the brain seems to decide anyway, unless you object consciously or subconsciously whatever it is doesn't jive with something else you've already assumed to "is". Faith is automatic in that sense, which is why I think it's so hard to notice there. So really I don't think they have to bother justifying it unless circumstances (as they see them of course) demand it.



    Hmmm... I over generalized I think. I meant as in "something people have bad brains or circumstances that result in their brains being good". Probably a non-statement that I've now used around a hundred words on maybe. Pardon.

    Well every "is" I ever is a peek into another vantage point on some necessarily unKNOWable common medium to me, so no problem. Big 'know' being the absolute type. I think people are way too obsessed with it. It's just a label. To KNOW as you know it is to KNOW as you know it. Still all you, even though we may agree to KNOW what we thing is the same shit.

    I'm still not sure what you think is happening with those who are very skilled (or intuitive, etc.).

    Well that's actually very hard to explain and of course I'm not entirely sure. I have some thoughts on it that I can't quite verbalize at the moment.
     
  19. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Have you considered that the chemical composition of your mind must change slightly at least in the act of you thinking?
     
  20. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    Not if you are German and your name starts with an H!
    !


    Jeremy Wariner, at of Viewimages. com

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Jeremy Wariner, at of Viewimages. com

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    In that case, it was rather indirect. Thank you anyway.


    Yes.
    It seems that the solution to the problem of skepticism will be more of a psychological and active one, instead of a philosophical or theoretical one.
     
  21. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    it does
    acknowledged by ..."....perhaps both are at play"
    i felt rather stupid writing that. it seemed so obvious

    ok
    alternative to es.. the current status quo aka a provisional wysiwyg. accept things are the way they present themselves to you unless shown to be otherwise.
    a naive realism

    i feel even stupider

    now
    if i were to justify this naivety shit..........i accept me to be true aka "I." i then extend this courtesy to the objects i apprehend. occam would approve since denial appears to be a needless complication. while the degree of confidence is lower than the one assigned for self, the objects of our perceptions tend to occupy a spot way up on the probability gradient
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2007
  22. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    I hereby declare that any skepticism that goes on for more than one minute is proof of idleness and that the person experiencing such skepticism should be doing something else, whereby they already know what this something else is.
     
  23. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    there is no solution to skepticism
    maya, the world as an illusion could very well be. after all, we do abstract and whatnot, ja?
    ever touched 2? occam would then insist we extend the same attribute to apparent physical objects

    bottom line is ...we are fucked either way
     

Share This Page