Avoiding the pits of extreme skepticism

[Grantywanty]

How about this: If it seems x to me, but y to you... who is right? If we agree are we necessarily both right?

In the first case we could war over the fact that we are both right, and what would be determined is not what is right, but who is willing to war more. If we agree that we are both right and then someone disagrees with us, isn't it the same case except for now we form a group with whom to war upon those who dissent with our newly found popular opinion and authority?

I don't think this fits all experience. It seems like a subset of perception and behavior.

 

[greenberg]

Nah. How would you know I am not in touch with the real.

Because to someone insisting on the objective reality vs. subjective reality distinction, one cannot be in touch with the real.
Objective reality being the Holy Grail.

 

[peta9]

I don't really understand this. Perhaps a concrete example would help me.

It's about your consciousness. Every idea or concept.

There are things we all can agree that "is" and there are things that just 'seem' or believe but not all agree or have different beliefs. Because it's personal, call it the uniqueness of the soul, fingerprint etc.

Others speculation means nothing, it's how you perceive of the concept and what it means to you.

There can't be total empathy unless the concept is accepted by you because it resonates with you. You can sympathize but not necessarily adopt it or you could adopt parts.

 

[peta9]

Yes and no.

I think a large portion of the problems one deals with are simply inherited from the society one was raised in. Those problems aren't really of one's own making. Because we are taught to think about some things, to consider some issues to be problematic, and others not. This sort of conditioning comes simply with being taught a language and growing up within a society.

And some of these problems are formulated in a manner that says that they are important to us. Well, some of them actually are, and some might be suspicious and spuriously attributed to us. But how can we now, when our sense of self has already developed around these problems?

I think we are very creative and yes, we are shaped by society but we also have immense ability to form concepts and think outside the box, find solutions or seek out ways to nurture that need for growth or whatever we are seeking to find, know, or become. Not that it will be easy or we won't have blindspots because we all do, but i think it's a lifelong process.

 

[Grantywanty]

There can't be total empathy unless the concept is accepted by you because it resonates with you. You can sympathize but not necessarily adopt it or you could adopt parts.

I found your post very complicated and confusing, so I picked out one piece. I have felt empathy. What concept must I have accepted?

 

[greenberg]

I was being polemical, but every day I read people and you do also I would guess. Certain top poker players and detectives see through more bluffs than not.

Sure, but I'm not sure about my readings.
*slaps self for being facetious*
My point is, I don't consider my readings to be absolute.

But in general to allow yourself to be certain. I think this is stifled a lot by many of us.

Yes - but certain about what? What is it that one ought to be certain about, what is worth to be certain about?

Yes, you get to be human, and saved.

We seek to figure out ways of salvation even at the cost of our "humanity".

I'm not sure I got this.

I meant in a more radical sense. Christians and some other theists get to keep their sense of self, don't have to deconstruct it, and still can consider themselves saved.
Some others need to deconstruct the self, give up clinging to notions of "humanity" in the pursuit of salvation from suffering.

Oh, come on.
For example, I don't know much about nuclear physics. In the eyes of people interested in nuclear physics, I am narrow and shallow.

I didn't get this either. I doubt nuclear physicists would consider narrow and shallow. But maybe you felt this was a logical extension of what I was saying. If so, it went over my head.

I meant that as far as nuclear physics goes, nuclear physicists would rightfully consider me narrow and shallow, since I don't know much about nuclear physics.
And similar obviously goes for all other fields. Anyone pursuing any goal is in some way narrow and shallow.

 

[peta9]

I found your post very complicated and confusing, so I picked out one piece. I have felt empathy. What concept must I have accepted?

If you felt empathy for something, then you did accept it. it resonated with you, you identified with it, etc.

it could be anything that you empathize or identify with.

 

[greenberg]

It's about your consciousness. Every idea or concept.

There are things we all can agree that "is" and there are things that just 'seem' or believe but not all agree or have different beliefs. Because it's personal, call it the uniqueness of the soul, fingerprint etc.

Others speculation means nothing, it's how you perceive of the concept and what it means to you.

It's not that others' speculation means nothing. If we're talking about something, we obviously have at least that in common.

And as I said earlier, we haven't invented our problems, but have picked them up in some form in society, and then, perhaps, put a personal spin on them.

My understanding of extreme skepticism, for example, is hardly my own invention. What's mine about it is only that my sources for reading up on skepticism are not all the same as yours.

But an important point that I think you are getting at is this:

A person can solve a problem only as it exists for themselves.

This can either be done immediately with whatever cognitive and other tools are currently at one's disposal.

But sometimes, especially with more intricate problems (such as extreme skepticism, solipsism, ...) it is necessary to read up on what others have said about them. Because one's own current definition of a problem might be formulated in an incomplete manner which renders the problem unsolvable without additional education.

Also, while there might be objective attempts to resolve or refute something, it is not necessary that these objective attempts will apply to the state of the problem as it exists in one's own mind or experience.
For example, I know of some objective refutations of solipsism, and technically, they're very good - but they don't resolve the problem of solipsism as it exists in my mind. But as I am pretty sure I haven't invented the problem of solipsism myself, I think I have good chances to look into other people's solutions and find something that might help me.

 

[peta9]

It's not that others' speculation means nothing. If we're talking about something, we obviously have at least that in common.

And as I said earlier, we haven't invented our problems, but have picked them up in some form in society, and then, perhaps, put a personal spin on them.

My understanding of extreme skepticism, for example, is hardly my own invention. What's mine about it is only that my sources for reading up on skepticism are not all the same as yours.

But an important point that I think you are getting at is this:

A person can solve a problem only as it exists for themselves.

This can either be done immediately with whatever cognitive and other tools are currently at one's disposal.

But sometimes, especially with more intricate problems (such as extreme skepticism, solipsism, ...) it is necessary to read up on what others have said about them. Because one's own current definition of a problem might be formulated in an incomplete manner which renders the problem unsolvable without additional education.

Also, while there might be objective attempts to resolve or refute something, it is not necessary that these objective attempts will apply to the state of the problem as it exists in one's own mind or experience.
For example, I know of some objective refutations of solipsism, and technically, they're very good - but they don't resolve the problem of solipsism as it exists in my mind. But as I am pretty sure I haven't invented the problem of solipsism myself, I think I have good chances to look into other people's solutions and find something that might help me.

I agree

 

[(Q)]

After wading through much of the nonsense in this thread, I've found that no one's taken the time to define ' extreme skepticism ' but seemingly promote it's avoidance relentlessly.

 

[wesmorris]

Let me attempt to help you greenburg:

First and most important, though I hate to dig this out... it's and easy to relate to means:

I think, therefore I am.

IMO, this is not logical. Thinking does not necessarily establish identity - especially when that thinking is indeed questioning how identity is established... which is really an easy question to answer IMO.

It's (sometimes rather arbitrarily) assumed.

As such; "I am" suffices.

I went into this crap in great detail in a thread I called "the taoist trap" a year or two ago.

IMO, logic and reason are both flatly useless without some form of assumptions to base them upon. The same goes for a person's identity (given that they're willing to take skepticism that far). "self" need not be a logical conclusion: it's an assumption that works given circumstance. If it seems like there must be self upon which to formulate persona, and there's no utilitarian means by which to conclude otherwise, then self is a valid assumption. Self has perception. As such, perception must be honed between "useful" and "not so much". It's a process that's alway in the background for me... bah, anyway...

Oh, and I don't think there's any such thing as a truly objective argument.

What I give you I do selfishly and with great bias. With it, I validate my own truths and have no other "truths" to give you. Of course I'm willing to some degree to change my truths and biases, but not beyond "self", as IMO.. without it, nothing else makes sense. So for it's unbelievably strong utility: self is quite a reasonable assumption, so long as you recognize that ulitimately, it will always be as such - assumed.

Meh I'm tempted to go on but I've gone far enough for the moment.

 

[wesmorris]

After wading through much of the nonsense in this thread, I've found that no one's taken the time to define ' extreme skepticism ' but seemingly promote it's avoidance relentlessly.

way to add to the conversation. how about something topical and with substance?

how do you think people are promoting "avoiding extreme skepticism", or since you are so keen on definitions, how would you define extreme skepticism?

Or are you just being snarky?

 

[wesmorris]

It felt like reality was jumping. If you can do that in my house I will be more swayed by your argument.

Do what?

I don't agree. It's like you are trying to say the word 'is' should be replaced by 'seems' in all cases.

I'm saying that it really IS that way, but people's egos generally circumvent that little inconvenience, as for most of the time it's pretty pointless to differentiate. How it IS, IS how it seems as far as people know....

I see no reason to add another layer to my world.

So don't then. What's it to me? *shrug*

It would imply that 'is' is somewhere on the other side of or masked by.

It's called "observational distance", and yeah it is.

Or if we lose the idea of 'is' altogether I think we lose 'seems' also.

Why? You can assume you're you and speak authoritatively about how it SEEMS to you without requiring an "IS" at all, were you so inclined... but you've said you aren't, so I guess I understand. Sorry for your loss.

Seems meaning 'seems to be'. Nothing would seem to be since that would be saying it was like something we never experience.

"seems to be to me", more appropriate. And I don't understand your second sentence there at all. SEEMS like nonsense to me, so should I say it IS? And if it IS, is that how it seems to you? Are you sure?

Chew on that

Indeed.

 

[(Q)]

way to add to the conversation. how about something topical and with substance?

how do you think people are promoting "avoiding extreme skepticism", or since you are so keen on definitions, how would you define extreme skepticism?

Or are you just being snarky?

I think I have added more in one post than anything written thus far, and that was to simply ask what definition was being used for 'extreme skepticism'

I can't define something that does not appear to have a meaning.

 

[wesmorris]

Nah. How would you know I am not in touch with the real.

And you would know? I can neither say you are or aren't.

It might only seem, according to your own judgement of your experience, that I must be wrapped by seeming.

True. Actually I'm saying you are whether you say so are not, and that it's a consequence of individuality.

You have no idea.

False, I have an idea... I just don't need to prove it because it's a pointless excercise.

I of course cannot prove to you I am in contact with the real.

Of course.

But I can easily disregard someone who claims they are only in contact with seeming.

And to you this is advantageous somehow? It protects your assumptions so you do not have to question them. Nicely played, but the problem with your smugness is that perhaps you discount what IS real, as you are in the same position with relation to me as I to you, and so since I'm careful to dilineate my assumptions, as in "this is how it seems to me", you find it easy to ignore. Such is your choice, but from my perspective - to your potential loss, as perhaps I'm in touch with reality and you aren't.

Which.. if you let it sink in for a while, brings us full circle and fully support my argument... at least that's how it seems to me.

 

[wesmorris]

I think I have added more in one post than anything written thus far, and that was to simply ask what definition was being used for 'extreme skepticism'

I can't define something that does not appear to have a meaning.

So you don't think the OP reasonably defines the topic?

 

[wesmorris]

I'd like to add that it seems like I am now in a dialogue with two people who think that really we only know about what seems to us as individuals. But both of you are trying to convince me that this IS THE WAY IT IS. And with quite a bit of certainty.

I love that about this stuff. Actually I'm not really trying to convince YOU of anything. I'm arguing because I enjoy the topic and interaction. I like the mental gymnastics of it. I do think it's true, but I do not KNOW it to be true, and enjoy bantering on the topic. *shrug* Besides, I can convince you of NOTHING. You convince yourself of what works for your circumstances, and that's that. I can however, say stuff about how things appear to me to be, and that I think it's that way for everyone.

Why aren't Peta and Wes saying it seems to be like this?

Lol, I can't speak for peta, but I've been saying that the whole time haven't I? It seemed that way.

You keep telling me what is really going on for me too?

I do? I might tell you what I think is really going on for you, but fuck if I'd really know eh? Still, my ideas exist, and I spout them when it seems like a good time to do so. Hell you might even gain something from it, perhaps not. *shrug* I'm not forcing you to type am I?

 

[wesmorris]

I don't think this fits all experience. It seems like a subset of perception and behavior.

Then please provide one example of where it's not applicable.

 

[wesmorris]

If how things seem isn't enough for you, if you can't live with that reality... what do you do but make one up and say that's "how it is"? eh? It seems to me that everyone does this before realizing what they've done... and that not very many people realize what they did and try to understand it.

 

[(Q)]

So you don't think the OP reasonably defines the topic?

Show me where it is defined, please?