Avoiding the pits of extreme skepticism

ja,....initialization and mechanism of a thought. cognitive stuff really.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well?
knock yourself out

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can't. It's a meaningless phrase. :shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

remove the "extreme"?

 

It may be logically untenable, but it is possible to discuss it as a philosophical question (since this is a philosophy forum)

"Extreme skepticism holds that no knowledge is possible, but this is logically untenable since the statement contradicts itself. The first important skeptical view was held by Democritus, who saw sense perception as no certain guide to objective reality. The Sophists were the earliest group of skeptics. Protagoras taught the relativity of knowledge, and Gorgias held that either nothing could be known, or if anything were known, it could not be communicated. Pyrrho, regarded as the father of skepticism, later held a similarly extreme position, seeing reality as inaccessible. Arcesilaus taught that certitude is impossible and only probable knowledge is attainable. In the Renaissance, skepticism is seen in the writings of Michel de Montaigne, Pierre Charron, and Blaise Pascal. For René Descartes skepticism was a methodology that allowed him to arrive at certain incontrovertible truths. At the end of the 17th cent., Pierre Bayle skeptically challenged philosophical and theological theories. David Hume, a leading modern skeptic, challenged established assumptions about the self, substance, and causality. The skeptical aspect of Immanuel Kant's philosophy is exemplified by his agnosticism; his antinomies of reason demonstrate that certain problems are insoluble by reason. To some degree skepticism manifests itself in the scientific method, which demands that all things assumed as facts be questioned. But the positivism of many scientists, whether latent or open, is incompatible with skepticism, for it accepts without question the assumption that material effect is impossible without material cause."

http://www.answers.com/topic/skepticism

 

Perhaps, but I don't see that. Most here are discussing it as if it were matter-of-fact.

Greenberg even goes so far as to provide causes for extreme skepticism, albeit fallacious, but nonetheless, provides them under the pretext that the term is defined.

 

That is because he is discussing, theoretically, the pitfalls of extreme scepticism.

If you see the posts that responded to him, this "fact" was automatically understood as an exercise in delving into the pitfalls that may be associated if the assumption is that absolute knowledge is not possible.

It is standard practise in philosophy to hypothesise on thinking improbables and their outcomes, which is how the scientific method, empiricism and experimentation have not only evolved (with their resident pitfalls and assumptions and inferences), but further, any refinements which bridge the gap between subjective perception and objective reality will be made.

Perhaps you could think of some pitfalls of the fact that this knowledge is not possible or may never be perfected?

 

strange that
a biol/socio/psych explanation for an intellectual exercise
i shall introduce a motion to the apa to include in the dsm, the disorder known as es

 

That is, quite simple, skepticism. There is no need to add 'extreme' as it merely serves as melodramatic nonsense.

 

Does that mean you consider scepticism to be strewn with pitfalls?

 

yikes
still pondering
pardon

/kowtow

 

man!
you two making out again?
ewwww

 

Not only that. It seems to me that many people, or even perhaps everyone, has periods of extreme skepticism. Periods where everything seems pointless and doubt prevails.

For example, a person in a state of depression or under duress can think in ways that could philosophically best be described as extreme skepticism.

I imagine it might be possible to entertain a philosophy of extreme skepticism without ill effects, given that the person doing that is otherwise well and healthy.

But in some circumstances (like when one or more of the aforementioned 14 causes are in place), entertaining extreme skepticism becomes damaging.

 

Have you noticed how consistently following through with some philosophies seems to lead to "psychotic", disassociated states?

For example, consistently following through with solipsism or nihilism seems to lead to the person becoming dysfunctional, unable to take care of themselves.

 

Ah, to focus on words and deliberately avoid finding meaning. Perfect example, yes.

 

reason oneself into actual insanity?

 

Manic depression is an example of how linear thinking can really get you in trouble. "and it that's true then....and if that's true then..."

 

Yes.

Edit:
I think that the connection between how one thinks (what one's philosophy is) and how one lives the everyday life is something to look into.
I think this connection is sometimes being underestimated - as if one could have any philosophy and still do well in life. The comfort we live in might be misleading us into believing the latter. But someone living in demanding circumstances cannot afford particular philosophies like solipsism or nihilism if they wish to survive.

 

Unless knowledge is tenative, leading to:

Which is wrong, or I couldn't have read it and rejected it unless it didn't communicate anything which nullifies itself way before I bother.

Which may or may not be true, but certainly can seem one way or another depending on perspective.

Which is the natural evoution of the first thing above. The hitch that was missed IMO, is that "probable knowledge" is virtually actually knowledge... subjectively. As such, it's really a statement about logic - that that accuracy of logical basis cannot be known. I say it need not be known, cannot be certainly known - but this becomes irrelevant as it is all that can be known and as such, can become quite certain even though it could be flawed. This is basically why knowledge is necessarily subjective and tenative, though of course many would insist otherwise. This grants us, IMO - 100% authority in the knowledge of "how x seems".

Which is more a statement of the human condition IMO, than something one "adopts".

Which is quite unscientific really. Stating one's assumptions is fundamental to the process. Of course since this is always assumed it'd be sort of repetetive... but I think most assume it to the point that if you bring it up "hey you forgot to state this assumption", you will be scoffed upon. On the other hand though, I generally don't find much utility in rejecting that assumption, as it seems to me there is no compelling reason to reject it, especially considering the general utility of "scientific results".

 

I ponder though...

Can that really happen, or did the insanity in question lead to all the questions?

So perhaps that brings this answer to the question posed in the OP down to one simple word:

Sanity.

Or as my homies tell it:

"Stay sane bitches!"

*kowtow*
*dorky pose*

- out.