Illuminated Skepticism VS Dead Skepticism

[AionPhanes]

I have been doing a little thinking about the wonderful paradoxical world of skepticism lately. Not sure how to start this so I will just go right out and make my major point right at the get go: I've come the conclusion that there are two major forms of skepticism, that despite their appearance of being kissing cousins on the outside, are of a totally different orientation on the inside. The "bad" or rather dogmatic, heresy hunting, manner of skepticism I'm going to call "dead skepticism" and the good, open, humble form I will "illuminated" or "divine skepticism." These two categories do have a lot in common with what was once called academic skepticism and pyrrhonian skeptism respectively but the two are not exact fits.

Illuminated Skepticism is often possessed by those with irrepressible imagination. Artists, musicians, or even just geeks who read to much sci-fi, fantasy or who play pen and paper role playing games (ok, I guess I will reluctantly add computer RPGs for the youngsters.) are more likely to fit the bill than say straight laced lawyers, politicians or cops. It's almost always connected with a sense of Amor Fati (or Amor Pronoia) and wonder rather than a belief that one knows "the truth" that "no one other than us select group of true skeptics has any clue about." They would rarely ever insult another person beliefs because they struggle with their own beliefs. In point of fact they are not completely sure if they know or not. They give that same benefit of the doubt to others.

Basically I think the Illuminated type follow the golden rule of Philosophy that I just invented (or perhaps I read it somewhere and forget that I read it?):

1. Never mock anything you don't perfectly understand.

They might also embrace the second rule that appears to apply to everyone, or at least everyone who isn't a fully realized Sage or Buddha, or something of that Nature:

2. Don't think you perfectly understand many, if any, thing, at all.

I'm not sure if this one is a rule but my intuition points in this direction as well:

3. When you do understand something it's almost impossible to mock it.


A good modern example of Illuminated Skepticism (or at least he appears to be on many occasions) would the atheist author of "Why Science is Wrong about Nearly Everything," and host of the podcast Skeptico, Alex Tsakiris. I was blown away by his interview on the Aeonbyte Gnostic Radio program. Old Kierkegaard seems to fit the bill on the Christian side. Maybe even Pascal but I'm not as sure with him.

I'm tempted to leave an example of dead skepticism but I don't want to turn this into a flame war.

PS, If I have haven't added anything useful that isn't already taken up by the Pyrrhonian skeptic vs Academic Skeptic thing then I apologize but at least it's something to post about. Also, as a side note. I've been just as fascinated by the Skeptics great debate partner in the Roman world lately as well- the Stoics. When it comes to ethics and and how to live a life of Virtue without being pulled under by the weight of suffering they have some top rate advice. They really helped save me from depression and anxiety. They and the Platonist who are my first love that is.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am not sure we have to understand things perfectly to understand them. Knowing beer gets you drunk implied we understand drinking beer causes drunkeness. We need not have a "perfect understanding", that just pointless. Maybe Descartes aimed atperfection in "I think, therefore I am." But for us mere mortals engaged in norlam activity I think that skill in epistemic justification comes in shades of grey, rather than a black or white "all or nothing" scenario.

Like Wittgenstein said, the fact that my knowledge is not necessary knowledge, does not imply that its threrefore a necessary conclusion I dont know anything.

I can know, but my claim to knowledge is contingent, fallible, imperfect.

 

[AionPhanes]

I am not sure we have to understand things perfectly to understand them. Knowing beer gets you drunk implied we understand drinking beer causes drunkeness.

I think I see your point. I believe you may be implying something similar to what Pyrrho himself noted regarding "appearances". We have no choice but to act. Our acts tend to be based on appearances and we should have the humility to accept them as appearances. It's a waste of energy being so stubborn as to be adamantly, and forever, set on our appearances with the idea "this is true and all else is false" ( to use the phrase the Buddha was often portrayed using). At the very least it's good to have the humility to refrain from insulting the appearances held to by others and thereby playing the orthodox thought police. You end up being the great foe of imagination and inquiry. Like Einstein, one of my science heroes, use to say; "imagination is more important than knowledge." Don't kill it with dogmatism.

We need not have a "perfect understanding", that just pointless.

I'm not so sure it would be pointless but we do have to work with what we have none the less.

But for us mere mortals engaged in norlam activity I think that skill in epistemic justification comes in shades of grey, rather than a black or white "all or nothing" scenario.

I would say "no doubt" but then I might not be skeptical enough. I do agree with you though.

 

[Gene2memE]

Never mind, not worth it...

 

[AionPhanes]

Never mind, not worth it...

Not worth what? I apologize if I inadvertently misrepresented what you were trying to get across. Was that the problem? I'm cool with you ending the discussion if that's what you want too so please feel free not to respond to this post if you don't feel like it . I wont cry too much j/k.