I've been struck by skepticism

[Nooj]

How can we know what we know? Can we really know what we 'know'?

This chair I'm sitting on. I see it, I touch it. Is that empirical data trustworthy? Does it tell me anything true about the actual chair?

 

[SithDoughnut]

How can we know what we know? Can we really know what we 'know'?

This chair I'm sitting on. I see it, I touch it. Is that empirical data trustworthy? Does it tell me anything true about the actual chair?

If you boil it down, then it may be that nothing that we think exists actually exists. Perhaps including our own thoughts.

But don't worry, I've got a red smartie somewhere... they're supposed to help or something

 

[david_x]

How can we know what we know? Can we really know what we 'know'?

This chair I'm sitting on. I see it, I touch it. Is that empirical data trustworthy? Does it tell me anything true about the actual chair?

We can only know our perception. Like the blind men feeling different parts of an elephant, we may get it wrong.

 

[WhatGoesUpMustComeDown]

Is that empirical data trustworthy? Does it tell me anything true about the actual chair?

I'm inclined to think that 'trustworthiness' is irrelevant concerning the empirical 'data' that we perceive with the senses. Instead, the question ought to be: 'does that which I think I know account for that which I am perceiving?' - the only real difference between 'knowledge' and 'error' being the quality of correspondence to the senses.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Perhaps including our own thoughts.

What does this mean? As I understand it, thoughts exist as incorporeal experiences. That is, you don't find them out there somewhere in the world, but have them in that you experience having them. Then the existence of a thought is identical to having the experience of a thought. And as such it is impossible to be mistaken about having a thought as it is being had. I can misremember my thoughts and my thoughts can be mistaken in their subjects and conclusions, but I can't think that I'm thinking something other than what I am actually thinking.

 

[KTatis]

I was watching a video the other day and it stated that everything is a hologram. Our senes are all backwards. Our eyes dont see correctly they see everything upside down and our brain flips the image right side up. Moreover, everything is nothing more than vibrations atoms vibrate really fast to create the world around us. and if atoms are 99.9% empty them what are we touching when lovers hold hands? They say if you were able to take one atom from anywhere in the univeres and discard it as to where it dosen't exist anymore then the universe would also fall apart and cease to exist.

 

[BobW188]

Get up from the chair and sidestep until it (or its appearance, or illusion) is no longer under you.

Now bend your legs to the perpendicular and lower yourself rapidly.

I think you'll soon have developed at least a tenative hypothesis.

 

[david_x]

Do a barrel roll!

 

[JoobaJooba]

Read "The Problem of Knowledge" by A.J. Ayer. It's the most clearly written modern work on epistemology and the problem of skepticism, in my opinion. Extremely readable, and not too long.

 

[SUM]

That’s because the chair is not empirical knowledge, it’s a priori. It is necessary to distinguish knowledge from opinion or perceptions. The problem here is that how can we actually know that we have knowledge of a thing as everything learned is learned through perception. Conclusion get out of the world of Forms, it will drive you nuts.

 

[USincognito]

How can we know what we know? Can we really know what we 'know'?

This chair I'm sitting on. I see it, I touch it. Is that empirical data trustworthy? Does it tell me anything true about the actual chair?

You've left skepticism behind and gotten into philosophy. Skepticism is a process of asking for evidence before accepting something. This could be something as simple as reading the fine print before signing a loan document. Questioning the nature of reality and the reliability of your senses to discern it is a bit beyond the perview of skepticism.

 

[The Nihilist]

I'm pretty disappointed that this thread isn't about philosophical school of Skepticism.

 

[Received]

I think if you separate knowledge from pragmatism, this is the problem you're left with. We can't know that we know; we do make the assumption that our knowledge is valid, however, because it's more pragmatic for us. Without accepting this assumption, we wouldn't be able to make any significant interactions with the world.

 

[quatona]

How can we know what we know? Can we really know what we 'know'?

This chair I'm sitting on. I see it, I touch it. Is that empirical data trustworthy? Does it tell me anything true about the actual chair?

There is no chair outside your mind. It´s your concepts, and if anyone would know about your concepts it should be you.

 

[Gracchus]

There is no chair outside your mind.

Does that mean you are sitting on your brains?

 

[quatona]

Does that mean you are sitting on your brains?

No, this is not what it means.

 

[klasvaakie]

Knowledge, truth, reality...it's all your point of view. So if the chair you are sitting is perceived as real to you...then it is very real...to you and all who perceive it as real

 

[The Nihilist]

How can we know what we know? Can we really know what we 'know'?

This chair I'm sitting on. I see it, I touch it. Is that empirical data trustworthy? Does it tell me anything true about the actual chair?

Heidegger handled this problem better than anyone else I've ever read, and I have a bachelor's degree in this nonsense. Essentially, the answer is that whether or not the chair is real, you still need someplace to sit. Yeah, it was more nuanced than that, but it's been a good long while.

 

[rmccubbin]

Reliability of the senses and a knowable environment are presuppositions of a Christian world view that enable empirical investigation. Within a materialistic construct even your personality is an illusion, how much more so anything external.

 

[Isambard]

Romanticism is the answer!