Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why?
I agree.
I'm not sure those are the only options though. Couldn't you also embrace epistemological agnosticism for example.
I'd agree - it's a bias that should be avoided by anyone honestly seeking it - I'd say the most egregious example of this is climate change sceptics.
Indeed.
Well....I'd argue that a lot of sceptics have been sceptical about scepticism, but as with most things of that kind, you have to make some assumptions in order to function, as does everyone confronted by intractable philosophical problems (brain-in-a-vat etc).
It's not that sceptics don't do this, it's just that being sceptical about scepticism all the time doesn't really get you very far beyond intellectual self-abuse.
Tnmusicman said:When is it good to be sceptical about scepticism?
I can think of two scenarios - if you've never considered its limits before, but that should ideally be done early on. The 'but what if we're in the matrix duuuuude' kind of objections is ultimately sophomoric and pretty much irrelevant given that everyone naturally assumes the same axioms for dealing with existence (real intelligible universe etc). They're technically valid, but they don't get you anywhere, and there isn't really a viable way around that but to establish those axioms.
The other is when a particular stance is associated with the label 'skeptic', as in 'true skeptics doubt the existence of man-made global warming'. Here the argument risks becoming about identity politics instead of actual facts and truth.
Personally, I don´t have a problem reconciling "epistemological nihilism" (when it comes to philosophy) and pragmatically playing the game that my perceptions urge upon me.I hope you don't mind me jumping in here. I find that the word "skepticism" has been hi-jacked too; and I think Dave has a good point in the above. What I find is that most so-caled skeptics today only attempt to follow the above where it suits them. For instance, they do not attempt to deal with the skepticism of David Hume.
Hume gave arguments that we cannot know cause and effect is true and we cannot know that our perceptions correspond to an external, material world.
There are three options for dealing with Hume:
1) Show him wrong; answer his arguments.
2) Blindly believe in cause and effect and the correspondence of perceptions to external things, without evidence or argument.
3) Jump into epistemological nihilism.
I find most of today's "skeptics," go with option 2 and avoid Dave's above suggestion.
The term skeptic has really been hijacked lately it seems. I would suggest people who use the term to describe themselves go do a little reading about real skeptics like Pyrrho or Sextus Empiricus.
I don't know why someone would want to call them self a skeptic. It just seems to valueless. I would much rather consider what I am rather than what I lack. Hence why I have a humanism symbol, not an atheist one.
Personally, I don´t have a problem reconciling "epistemological nihilism" (when it comes to philosophy) and pragmatically playing the game that my perceptions urge upon me.
Just like there´s a time for realizing that the actors in movies don´t "really" fall in love or marry (or at least not necessarily), but this thought is taking the fun out of it while actually watching the movie.
Yes, that would be the extreme position resulting from questioning everything and denying any axiom whatsoever.Yea, kinda like that, except with epistemological nihilism you can't even say there are actors or anything that would make up a universe at all.
No, it´s not really a question of likelihood. It is two different positions that both have there place. When I am on the badminton court badminton is all that counts, and as soon I am leaving the court I know darn well that it´s completely unimportant.You can say there might be, but it is just as likely that there isn't;
...except that a god has never presented itself to me in my experience, so this wouldn´t qualify as the reality as my perception forces it upon me.and the same can be said about God!
No, it´s not the ambiguity that makes the game fun. The only fun you can get is from participating, no matter whether it´s a game or not.But that is what makes the game fun, right?
Yes, that would be the extreme position resulting from questioning everything and denying any axiom whatsoever.
Hmmm... You seem to be implying that you know that there is a badminton court and a place other than the badminton court. Given epistemological nihilism, no adventitious idea (about badminton courts or anything else) can be known to be true. That is what I mean by "likelihood." Adventitious ideas, as ideas, can be neither true or false. It is when we start to believe they are more than ideas, that the epistemological Nihilist gets into trouble.No, it´s not really a question of likelihood. It is two different positions that both have there place. When I am on the badminton court badminton is all that counts, and as soon I am leaving the court I know darn well that it´s completely unimportant.
So? What does your experience have to do with anything? You have an idea of God. If Descartes was wrong about his argument, then the idea of God is no more true or false than the idea of a badminton court. The truth value of both ideas is the same: Nil! You may like one and not the other, but you can't say anything past that; at least not as an epistemological nihilist....except that a god has never presented itself to me in my experience, so this wouldn´t qualify as the reality as my perception forces it upon me.
Is that true?No, it´s not the ambiguity that makes the game fun. The only fun you can get is from participating, no matter whether it´s a game or not.
The other position is not exactly fun but intellectually challenging. It also helps not to be too serious about the game at times when it´s not so enjoyable.
Epistemological nihilism denies the possibility of knowledge and the very existence of truth. An epistemological agnostic wouldn't make either of those assertion.
No, I did not necesserily disagree. Just elaborated.Well, since epistemological Nihilism denies the possibility of knowledge and truth, that would be pretty much the position. Or are you suggesting that there are axioms that the epistemological Nihilist can know to be true?
It was an analogy, you know (taken from within the broadly accepted idea of "reality").Hmmm... You seem to be implying that you know that there is a badminton court and a place other than the badminton court.
Well, since badminton in my analogy was exactly meant to be represent the very part that´s taken for real just for the fun of it, I don´t know where you got the idea that I meant to imply the opposite.Given epistemological nihilism, no adventitious idea (about badminton courts or anything else) can be known to be true. That is what I mean by "likelihood." Adventitious ideas, as ideas, can be neither true or false. It is when we start to believe they are more than ideas, that the epistemological Nihilist gets into trouble.
I was talking about accepting that which my perception/experience downright urges me to take for real for pragmatic purposes. This, obviously, doesn´t include stuff that I don´t perceive/experience.So? What does your experience have to do with anything?
No, actually I don´t. I have been made familiar with a lot of very different god concepts, though.You have an idea of God.
Of course - but I wasn´t talking about the truth value (whatever that may be). I was talking about pragmatically accepting that which my perception/experience suggests as being "real". Like, for pragmatic purposes I am playing the game that there is an "I/me/self" (which, in terms of epistemological nihilism, is an unacceptable axiom) - simply because this concept is so strong that I (If Descartes was wrong about his argument, then the idea of God is no more true or false than the idea of a badminton court. The truth value of both ideas is the same: Nil!
No, it´s got nothing to do with preferences. It´s got something to do with what I can´t help pragmatically accepting for real vs. what I can dismiss or ignore without running into any pragmatic problems whatsoever.You may like one and not the other,
Well, I just did say a lot past that, and what I said doesn´t clash with epistemological nihilism.but you can't say anything past that; at least not as an epistemological nihilist.
Would you seriously ask an epistemological nihilist this question?Is that true?
The assertion that he is agnostic on the whole matter of epistemology. Beyond that very little. It's not really a viewpoint that stimulates many assertions at all. Agnostics don't claim to know. Refraining from asserting things would be the most sensible route with such a way of thinking.
I guess they might assert the following as well:
There may be truth or there may not be truth. There may be knowledge or there may not be. I don't appear to have the required evidence or objective perspective to make a conclusive assertion of any real authority on the issue nor have i seen anyone else present evidence that would convince me that they can either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?