Do sceptics enjoy being sceptics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s quite satisfying to not often be so flagrantly wrong about the nature of reality.
A true sceptic can’t sure he isn’t wrong - which could spoil his enjoyment because he becomes sceptical about whether he’s enjoying himself… 😉
 
A true sceptic can’t sure he isn’t wrong - which could spoil his enjoyment because he becomes sceptical about whether he’s enjoying himself… 😉
You can’t be wrong if you never take a position on anything.
 
Good question. I wonder why I am under constant attack for being Catholic, yet others endure.
 
I would say they do…well not full enjoyment…but it must be nice to never be wrong. But it’s like poker…

You can’t lose if you never put it in the pot, but you can’t really ever win either.
 
After reading Sextus Empiricus various books, I have recognised myself as sympathizing with scepticism (in its classical sense). That is to say, I do not assert positive dogmas with certainty, and make no objective truth claims- but am happy to entertain varying positions more or less equally, even if inconsistent.

I am not a scpetic in the sense of not having faith- since I don’t regard God or the Jesus as ‘propositions’ or dogmas, to which assent is given or withheld. But I am sceptical about rationality, science and history and any approach which claims to have, or to approach, objective knowledge.

I quite enjoy being a sceptic, and feel it has helped me in the Christian virtues of humility, detachment and compassion. Particularly, it promotes the ability to suspend judgment of the unknown, to suspend judgment of others.
 
The skeptics are narcissists like movie stars and celebrities in the entertainment business.

They seek adulation, praise, applause.

Being skeptical about most positions will usually find many people who agree with the skeptic’s opinion. Posting skeptical remarks on the internet like on this website is an easy way to find like minded individuals to form a kind of club.

You can tell the skeptics don’t really believe in what they’re saying because they don’t present a plausible philosophical system. The heart of skepticism is denial of any truth.
 
The skeptics are narcissists like movie stars and celebrities in the entertainment business.

They seek adulation, praise, applause.

Being skeptical about most positions will usually find many people who agree with the skeptic’s opinion. Posting skeptical remarks on the internet like on this website is an easy way to find like minded individuals to form a kind of club.

You can tell the skeptics don’t really believe in what they’re saying because they don’t present a plausible philosophical system. The heart of skepticism is denial of any truth.
The denial of any truth is certainly no part of the Sceptic School, but the Academic School. The Dogmatic school asserts that it knows the truth, the Academic school asserts that truth cannot be known. The Sceptic school (of Pyrrho and Empiricus) does neither.

The Sceptic School is conscious that its own position has no basis on which it affirm itself, but rather cancels itself:
For whereas the dogmatizer posits the things about which he is said to be dogmatizing as really existent, the Sceptic does not posit these formulae in any absolute sense; for he conceives that, just as the formula “All things are false” asserts the falsity of itself as well as of everything else, as does the formula “Nothing is true,” so also the formula “No more” asserts that itself, like all the rest, is “No more (this than that),” and thus cancels itself along with the rest. And of the other formulae we say the same. If then, while the dogmatizer posits the matter of his dogma as substantial truth, the Sceptic enunciates his formulae so that they are virtually cancelled by themselves, he should not be said to dogmatize in his enunciation of them.
 
While I have never “embraced” skepticism, I have often employed skeptical arguments with much enjoyment. Part of it is the satisfaction that when you play by the skeptics rules, the skeptic can never lose an argument. The other part is that it is immensely satisfying to get people to actually think about their reasoning which is always a result of skepticism employed well. IMHO, David Hume was the single greatest mind of the Enlightenment. If you fail to deal with him by brushing him aside with a snide remark about skepticism (not that these aren’t technically true), then you are in some ways profoundly missing an opportunity at intellectual growth. To sum up, if you have ever played Devil’s Advocate and enjoyed it, the enjoyment is very similar to the enjoyment of skepticism.
 
Sceptics do take a position, one of doubting. They would most likely be skeptical concerning whether they enjoy being skeptical. And then skeptical of whether they are skeptical.
That’s the point. There’s no one thing you could ever pin them down on and say “you were wrong about this.” It’s all one big never-ending cycle of nihilism and doubt.
 
I would say they do…well not full enjoyment…but it must be nice to never be wrong. But it’s like poker…

You can’t lose if you never put it in the pot, but you can’t really ever win either.
👍 In other words you have nothing to look forward to. Scepticism applies to the future as well as the past and present…
 
Good question. I wonder why I am under constant attack for being Catholic, yet others endure.
That’s because scepticism is a form of disease. It is intellectually contagious and equivalent to septic-ism… :cool:
 
That’s the point. There’s no one thing you could ever pin them down on and say “you were wrong about this.” It’s all one big never-ending cycle of nihilism and doubt.
I’m sure some people enjoy cycling around in circles - but not forever! 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top