Avoiding the pits of extreme skepticism

es will deny an external reality. however the denial is towards an attribute of reality. reality is not disputed. just its location and form. irrelevant distinctions as far as i am concerned. an affirmation of self is implicit in any form of denial/negation. actions presuppose an actor.

i thus observe 2 objects. why focus on one? is something being taken for granted here? on what basis? what assumptions? perhaps some hold that everything is merely experience? i find that untenable. furthermore, semantics allow for an expansion so...why the hell not?

es is a untenable and contradictory position . the skepticism should be cranked down a notch or two

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ad nauseum is what characterizes this thread now
still ok tho

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmm.. Seems the same to me.

Faith. (assumption)

Faith.

Indeed. It's all I have to work with though. Same goes for everyone really - as far as I can tell of course. It's just that most people apply faith without recognizing they've done so.

I'd play it but apparently I've broken the record.

No I don't think it's ES unless you indulge the regress. If it seemed like the light turned off, good enough. "how it is" is ultimately unknowable and thusly, irrelevant.

"How it seems" is paramount however, when the sense of impending danger strikes - *shrug* I'm just sayin....

Why not wonder how it seems to another?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

how does one avoid an infinite regress?

deep deep shit
ahh
stop counting?

/cackle

 

Well, decide implies that one makes a decision but not necessarily a correct one. One does not become stuck. Distinguish implies that the decision is correct.

Why not at times then have faith that one can tell how it is directly? I can see how caution might make one take a step back and start with seems, but I can't see why one must take that step back. I assume this is also based on faith that it is better to assume it only seems first.

I prefer to use the word intuition.

But don't some people seem to be better at faith. How do they do this?

But don't you sometimes assume you know? And doesn't it turn out you are right,sometimes. And aren't their people who are better at sensing how it is? Doesn't this imply that one can know?

 

No, no. It was good I asked. I found that he goes one layer with seems. He feels, based on faith, that this is a good depth, the place to draw the line and 'know'.. I think this is interesting.

 

So not maya.
the two objects: self and object of experience? I wasn't sure.

Semantics allow for expansion. I wasn't sure of this either. Does this mean language offers ways of formulating conclusions: perhaps especially with the verb 'to be'?

And I agree with the conclusion, perhaps even more so. I don't think skepticism is a good general outlook, even mild ones. It is so outside looking in, as if not already in, and as if we must choose beliefs instead of finding we can choose experiences and come to beliefs when we are so wet it is clear water is wet so why stand on the shore trying to determine if those who seem to have swum could be right in their perception that water is wet.

 

So if you consider the seems thing you'll maybe see how they equate in my lil world.

Tentatively distinguished, the tenative part being ingrained in my perspective such that in this context, distinquish and decide seem the same?

Well I think that happens all the time, but believing it doesn't make it true, even if events afterwards seem to confirm you had it right. All it means for sure is that your shit seemed to work for then, which is how we learn stuff. If it works enough times, then "hey this is how it is". Could be said of a rain dance or a scientific experiment.

Well you don't have to unless you're honest. It's just that it's all faith, so really it's crap and if you're honest you should have the balls to admit that you know it's crap, but the crap is meaningful - so crap or not, it's the crap you have. I don't think you have to take the step. I think if you care to understand all this shit, you should want to - or at least allow it.

No. It's based on a tenative model I've set up, and what seem like implications of it that I cannot be honest and escape. So it's really based in "self" faith, and the ramifications of it, as best I can analyze them at the moment.

Ok.

How specifically? Not sure if you're shooting to the religion tangent or insanity.

If it's what I think you mean, I think it largely circumstantial.

Yes. In retrospect I always find arrogance in this. Sometimes arrogance is beautiful though, at least to me.

It seems so, sure.

It sure seems like it, yeah.

Yes. I'd add however, well a few things:

- people "know" anyway, philosophy be damned. (imo, they don't really know but 'believe' strongly enough to wholly squelch doubt, which can have a wide range of repucussions, and is indeed basically imperative for functionality in the world. I do it all the time.

- that one cannot "know" the objective doesn't mean they cannot "know" their perspective. i just think it's imperative to recognize that one's perspective isn't necessarily authoratative.

- other things that I'm too lazy to cook up atm.

 

OK.

Yes, but some are better than others. And each of us is better in some 'guesses' or areas of guessing than others, and we stay this way. Is there not a pattern of not simply being in contact with seeming but rather with what is?

It's not that I don't 'do' what you are saying. But I also do something else. I also trust that I can get directly to what is.

I recognize that with some people I wish they would do as you say. I recognize also that with some people I wish they would trust that they are noticing what is more and wish they would stop qualifying it. I notice that one can be trained to take that step back through cruelty, though this is not the only way to take that step back.

And speaking of honesty. I notice that everyone else makes claims to have direct access to what is or lives like this also. It seems honest to admit this.

yes, and I think self-faith is good. And I do not want to push you back more steps or even coax you out if that's where you feel good.

neither, I think. I mean their faith in their ability to distinguish and decide. And doesn't their extra faith seem justified, even though it seems misplaced in others?

Never a skill?

Sometimes getting out of bed in the morning seems arrogant to me, for me. And yes, sometimes arrogance is beatiful. (I have to throw in some ises now and then to be consistent and honest)

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

1) it is very good to know your perspective. Sometimes this seems even harder than knowing what is going on outside oneself.
2) not necessarily, except when it is. (and I do try to be cautious of this when it seems like the consequences will be drastic - of course this shows a lot of faith in my ability to decide or distinguish that)

 

.. Or: In the morning, the mind is still somewhat rested from the night's rest, like a rather calm pond. Upon waking up, we start to think, and this is then like stirring the pond, throwing pebbles into it, wind blowing over it.

 

Hold your horses!

This "additional element", this "warrant", this knowing that I know correctly, that I know I have arrived at my knowledge in the right way - this is what interests me.

Like on a math or physics test, where you have the have the right result and you have to demonstrate you have arrived at it the right way, using the right formulas and being able to explain why you used those formulas - and not by cheating or a lucky guess.

This requirement becomes very complex though when it comes to dealing with issues of reality and imagination as such.

 

Horses held. It seems I misrepresented you but I am not quite sure from this post. Let me know.

 

I would say: By checking the terms of one's analysis. This is actually the quickest path to stop any mulling over, but it can be very brutal sometimes.

Ie. When you are about to analyze something, check if all the terms are properly defined. If they are not, abort the analysis, for an analysis based on poorly defined terms will not yield conclusions you could rely on.

The problem is of course that we are so used to think a lot, so used to ponder, wonder and mull over, our mind is like a super-heavy freight train at 150 km/h. Trying to stop it will take a lot of energy, and us knowing it goes in the wrong direction won't make stopping it any easier.

 

Can you please sum up your reasons why you think extreme skepticism is an untenable position?

 

Only one reason is required, that of the definition of skeptical.

 

You haven't misrepresented me. I just wanted to point out where my concerns about whether I know the truth about someone else's experience stem from.

 

I think I have another alternative:


Given that the person holds that only the truth is what is worth adhering to and relying on:

Extreme skepticism is the manifestation of the unconscious or intuitive realization that intense assuming or taking for granted took place.

Skepticism does not occur unless it is possible for it to occur. That is, for skepticism to occur, there must be something which was assigned the status of truth, and there must be the suspicion that that which was assigned the status of truth is not the truth or that that status was not assigned in the right way.

If the person keeps only to what they know is true and knows they have arrived at this knowledge the right way, extreme skepticism will not occur.
(If the person keeps mostly, but not in every way, to what they know is true and knows they have arrived at this knowledge the right way, some skepticism will occur.)


So in order to avoid extreme skepticism, keep only to what you know to be true and that you know to have arrived at the right way.
The criterion for preferring this over extreme skepticism is Truth is always better than assumption.


The difficulty with this solution is of course that the number of statements or states which satisfy the requirement "what one knows to be true and that one knows to have arrived at the right way" is very small. Perhaps even so small as to make the solution inviable.
But such are the consequences of holding Only the truth is what is worth adhering to and relying on and Truth is always better than assumption.

 

You seem to be demonstrating the pitfalls of extreme scepticism.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I really don't think checking the terms of the analysis is a complete, at the very least, response to a problem encountering ES in oneself or another. I think this leads to a very long process that cannot satify the ES or will not be acknowledged to have done so. You can meet responses like "that seemed logical, but we don't know if that is the case" "you have this motivation for seeing it that way and what seems correctly analyzed is not" "you have built your case on ________ but in the intervening steps you made several errors; these steps in your argument only seem right in retrospect. How can we trust our sense of what is no longer immediately present." And then there is more work to do. If you do not think there is more work to do you have essentially made some assumptions about these assaults on your position or trust in certain things.

We believe assuming is OK. Not always, but sometimes.

We can point out that the ES does also, as his or her assaults are coming from judgements about what is possible, for example. But the ES need never acknowledge these points. In fact a voice in the head sometimes does not. It is a shifting inconsistant presence.

To give it an excellent mind's serious attention more than once in a lifetime is a loss.

 

You seem to be saying that the term 'extreme skeptic' or 'extreme skepticism' should not be used. However a look on the internet will find examples in a wide range of discussions and also in some rather respectable philosophy journals. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses 'Radical Skepticism' and 'an extremely severe form of skepticism'. Perhaps one of those phrases will make you happier.
The phrases are used, sometimes with a 'c' instead of the 'k', rather widely. They work in discussions, though often the position of ES is considered untenable. I think most of us agree that it is untenable. But why it is untenable is part of the purpose of the thread. Also the psychological issue of how one deals with ES when it occurs in the mind. In that situation one is not dealing with a text outlines a position. You are dealing with an ongoing set of statements and questions that can undermine a sense of well being. It is a process over time, rather than a position laid out all at once. How one defends oneself against this and does not get tripped up or stopped by this seems to me was a large part of the intent of the thread.