My Rant Against "Skepticism".

[Illuminaughty]

Now, I am not saying there is not a difference, I just haven't seen it yet; so I am a little agnostic about it.

Not nihilist about it though?

 

[Illuminaughty]

Regarding the above does the Epistemological agnostic know that to be true?

I doubt they would answer with a yes

edit or no for that matter.

 

[quatona]

I must confess I am not entirely sure what exactly "epistemological nihilism" posits.
I have read the definition "[...]denies the possibility of knowledge and truth" (Nihilism [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]).
It seems that the first part can be said about "epistemological agnosticism", too, but not the second part about "truth". If I am not mistaken, "epistemological agnosticism" doesn´t deny the possibility that a statement is true (it just denies the possibility of knowing if it´s true).

 

[Gadarene]

So, we are all skeptical about lots of things, given the first meaning of the word above, but very few deal with the problems presented by skepticism, and do opt for mere assumption and blind faith, as you indicated.

Most may not explicitly deal with the problems of skepticism, but those who do end up taking the same axioms to function, so again, it is an irrelevant objection in practical terms.

 

[Brady111]

Quatona, after reading you reply I can see several areas where we seem to be talking past each other. perhaps we need to go back and see what the main point of our discussion is.

I went back to our first posts that we wrote to each other and I think the main point we started discussing is your attempt to maintain that some how the cognitive dissonance between epistemological Nihilism (the inability to know that any adventitious idea relates to an external world) and living as though those ideas do correspond to an eternal wold is somehow cohesive and coherent.

Would you agree with this? and if not, then what do you see as the main topic we are discussing?

 

[Brady111]

I doubt they would answer with a yes

or no for that matter.

So, there position then would be that of blind faith?

What is the difference again between epistemological nihilism and epistemological agnosticism?

 

[Gadarene]

My Friend, after reading you reply I can see several areas where we seem to be talking past each other. perhaps we need to go back and see what the main point of our discussion is.

I went back to our first posts that we wrote to each other and I think the main point we started discussing is your attempt to maintain that some how the cognitive dissonance between epistemological Nihilism (the inability to know that any adventitious idea relates to an external world) and living as though those ideas do correspond to an eternal wold is somehow cohesive and coherent.

Would you agree with this? and if not, then what do you see as the main topic we are discussing?

We're not talking past each other. The problem is, you're using loaded terms and trying to get people to agree with them.

It isn't cognitive dissonance, for one thing, nor is it blind faith. I've already said that I think most people who do confront these issues (and I've made it clear that everyone should) end up making the same assumptions in order to function.

So apart from making no difference whatsoever to debate as everyone is operating on the same basis, it is neither cognitive dissonance nor blind faith as long as someone is aware that treating the universe as real, consistent, intelligible are axiomatic rather than proven.

 

[quatona]

My Friend, after reading you reply I can see several areas where we seem to be talking past each other. perhaps we need to go back and see what the main point of our discussion is.

I went back to our first posts that we wrote to each other and I think the main point we started discussing is your attempt to maintain that some how the cognitive dissonance between epistemological Nihilism (the inability to know that any adventitious idea relates to an external world) and living as though those ideas do correspond to an eternal wold is somehow cohesive and coherent.

Would you agree with this? and if not, then what do you see as the main topic we are discussing?

I basically agree with it - except that I wouldn´t call it cognitive dissonance and that I didn´t mean to say anything about cohesiveness or coherence.

I´m not sure which standards you use here, and if they aren´t actually superimposing your paradigms upon mine.
Care to answer a question:
Is crying when someone dies in a movie (even though you know they didn´t really die) a token of cognitive dissonance, of incohesiveness and incoherence, by your standards?

 

[Brady111]

I must confess I am not entirely sure what exactly "epistemological nihilism" posits.
I have read the definition "[...]denies the possibility of knowledge and truth"

It seems that the first part can be said about "epistemological agnosticism", too, but not the second part about "truth". If I am not mistaken, "epistemological agnosticism" doesn´t deny the possibility that a statement is true (it just denies the possibility of knowing if it´s true).

I think you will find that the definition is not making an ontological statement but an epistemological statement. If you can't know anything, you can't know if anything is true. The second part is the necessary consequent to the antecedent condition.

Since both the epistemological nihilist and epistemological agnostic both hold to the antecedent condition (as you point out), the consequent follows necessarily for both of them, too.

 

[quatona]

I think you will find that the definition is not making an ontological statement but an epistemological statement. If you can't know anything, you can't know if anything is true. The second part is the necessary consequent to the antecedent condition.

I do see how epistemological nihilism - if trying to make an ontological statement as well as an epistemological statement - would expose itself to justified criticism. Now, it´s not like because positions are stupid they aren´t held by anyone.

On another note, whenever an idea is referenced onto itself in order check its consistency we need to be careful not to employ false equivocations. E.g. in this case we must take care that "knowledge" isn´t used in two different meanings during one and the same deduction. E.g. it´s questionable whether EN really posits that you can´t know anything at all (anything is true). It seems to be a bit more specific.

Since both the epistemological nihilist and epistemological agnostic both hold to the antecedent condition (as you point out), the consequent follows necessarily for both of them, too.

Well, if in your terminology epistemological nihilism and epistemological skepticism are synonyms I am not sure why you didn´t keep to the term that was being discussed, and felt that introducing "epistemological nihilism" would help with anything?
Personally, I don´t know whether epistemological nihilism is making an ontological statement, but I know that epistemological agnosticism isn´t. So I would be hesitant to replace a term that clearly is meant to signify the position in question by a term that possibly adds something to it.

 

[Brady111]

Quatona,

Just a quick note to let you and others know I am out of town and can't answer. I will reply on Sunday night or Monday.

Thanks

 

[Illuminaughty]

I was serious in asking you if you felt nihilist about the question. There is a lot of baggage with that term. I wouldn't be surprised if you felt it to be a less accurate means to convey your point than the term agnostic and that's why you used one rather than the other.

A skeptic is by definition a seeker. A nihilist seeks nothing because there is nothing to seek. To the nihilist there is no truth, no knowledge, and no meaning*. To a skeptic, who might also define him or herself as an epistemological agnostic, this wouldn't necessarily be the case. A skeptic might also make pragmatic or utilitarian use of theories, axioms, etc. if they appear to be useful to him. They may pragmatically use them while acknowledging that they could be wrong ( see Fallibilism) ,continuing to stay skeptical of the human ability to find absolute objective truth, and while staying open to the possibility of running into theories that seem even more useful. A skeptic might use the equation E=MC squared for example if using it appears to result in a technological device that seems to work in the desired manner.

* Skeptics can create their own meaning too without violating their skepticism whereas a nihilist couldn't.

 

[Illuminaughty]

The reason I used the terms "appears" and "seems" so often in that response :

Thus, the Pyrrhonian does not assent to the proposition "Dion is in the room" in a dogmatic way as that would purport to describe a non-evident reality which lies beyond the "appearance" [φαινόμενον, phainomenon] of Dion being in the room. The Skeptic simply goes along with the appearance just as "a child is persuaded by...his teacher." (PH I, 229). It is for this reason then that Sextus says the Skeptic lives undogmatically in accordance with appearances and also according to a "fourfold regimine of life" which includes the guidance of nature, compulsion of pathe (feelings), laws and customs, and instruction in arts and crafts. The Skeptic follows this course of life while suspending judgment concerning the ultimate truth of the non-evident matters debated in philosophy and the sciences (PH I, 17).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixtus_Empiricus#Philosophy
​

 

[Illuminaughty]

I believe the Pyrrhonians go with appearances and withhold judgments in part because it allows them to obtain the state of ataraxia. It's kind of goal oriented like Epicureanism.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I believe the Pyrrhonians go with appearances and withhold judgments in part because it allows them to obtain the state of ataraxia.

Yes, the Epicureans and Stoics also valued ataraxia, although they achieved this in different ways.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Brady111]

Most may not explicitly deal with the problems of skepticism, but those who do end up taking the same axioms to function, so again, it is an irrelevant objection in practical terms.

The problem is, until YOU deal with the problems of skepticism, you can't assert there is a "they." You can't assert there is an external world. You don't get a pass. So what makes you think that your perceptions correspond to an external world?

"Axiom," you keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means. Perhaps you can provide us with a few examples.

Thank you

 

[Gadarene]

The problem is, until YOU deal with the problems of skepticism, you can't assert there is a "they."

I have, and I can.

You can't assert there is an external world. You don't get a pass.

I can, and I do.

So what makes you think that your perceptions correspond to an external world?

I don't, it's an axiom.

"Axiom," you keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Coming from someone deadset on shoehorning blind faith into this discussion somehow, I think I'll live.

Perhaps you can provide us with a few examples.

A statement assumed to be true, to allow subsequent conclusions to be made.

E.g.

The universe exists
The laws of logic hold
The universe allows for consistent observation

 

[Brady111]

I basically agree with it - except that I wouldn´t call it cognitive dissonance and that I didn´t mean to say anything about cohesiveness or coherence.

OK, I'll go with that.

I´m not sure which standards you use here, and if they aren´t actually superimposing your paradigms upon mine.

Then we must examine that more carefully. I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth, that would be unsanitary. But I thank you for recognizing that there are different standards. For the record, my standards will usually refer back to logic. What about you?

Care to answer a question:
Is crying when someone dies in a movie (even though you know they didn´t really die) a token of cognitive dissonance, of incohesiveness and incoherence, by your standards?

No, it is not. When someone cries at a movie or when hearing a particular song or reading a poem, it is because that resonates with a particular emotion in the person, not because of any cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance occurs when two conflicting beliefs are compartmentalized, then recognized as conflicting. So, here are the two beliefs of the person in our conversation: 1) living as though the his perceptions correspond to an external, material world. 2) recognizing he has no way to know that such a world even exists.

You know what I find interesting, no one here has even attempted to actually answer Hume. Don't you find that interesting? Instead people have tried to put a smiley face on nihilism.

 

[Brady111]

Well, if in your terminology epistemological nihilism and epistemological skepticism are synonyms I am not sure why you didn´t keep to the term that was being discussed, and felt that introducing "epistemological nihilism" would help with anything?
Personally, I don´t know whether epistemological nihilism is making an ontological statement, but I know that epistemological agnosticism isn´t. So I would be hesitant to replace a term that clearly is meant to signify the position in question by a term that possibly adds something to it.

Skepticism and epistemological nihilism are not the same. Skepticism is a set of arguments that may or may not be answered. It is my contention that they cannot be answered from certain theories of reality; in particular, any atheistic theory of reality. Thus, the the only other options are blind faith, or epistemological nihilism.

So, the antecedent condition is, unanswered (or unanswerable) arguments from skepticism; and the consequences are, blind faith (e.g. Hume and Bertrand Russell) or epistemological nihilism. Sort of like wet grass s the consequent of the antecedent condition, rain. So we can say, if it rains on your grass, your grass will get wet. but rain and wet grass are not synonyms.

 

[Brady111]

I was serious in asking you if you felt nihilist about the question. There is a lot of baggage with that term. I wouldn't be surprised if you felt it to be a less accurate means to convey your point than the term agnostic and that's why you used one rather than the other.

A skeptic is by definition a seeker. A nihilist seeks nothing because there is nothing to seek. To the nihilist there is no truth, no knowledge, and no meaning*. To a skeptic, who might also define him or herself as an epistemological agnostic, this wouldn't necessarily be the case. A skeptic might also make pragmatic or utilitarian use of theories, axioms, etc. if they appear to be useful to him. They may pragmatically use them while acknowledging that they could be wrong,continuing to stay skeptical of the human ability to find absolute objective truth, and while staying open to the possibility of running into theories that seem even more useful. A skeptic might use the equation E=MC squared for example if using it appears to result in a technological device that seems to work in the desired manner.

* Skeptics can create their own meaning too without violating their skepticism whereas a nihilist couldn't.

I think an equivocation or two is occurring here. I already pointed out in past posts the deference in someone who is skeptical or agnostic about certain things and philosophical skepticism which has as one of its consequences, epistemological nihilism. You did not counter with people who were agnostic about certain things, but your counter was with epistemological agnosticism.

Being agnostic about certain things is not an answer to philosophical skepticism, nor is it a consequence of philosophical skepticism, since the that type of agnosticism deals with particulars and philosophical skepticism deals with universals, Epistemological nihilism also deals with universals. My question is how does epistemological agnosticism (which implies a universal) differ from epistemological nihilism? This has yet to be answered.

So, the answer to your first question is that you can't be nihilist about a particular issue or item, since nihilism in a universal position.