Do sceptics enjoy being sceptics?

[tonyrey]

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.

I enjoyed being sceptical of Hume’s scepticism to such an extent that it resulted in my thesis being accepted! :idea:

 

[tonyrey]

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.

So they enjoy being uncertain - and totally uncommitted because it makes them invulnerable!

 

[tonyrey]

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.

It is always easier to destroy than create but they end up destroying their own argument!They are left with precisely nothing…

 

[WillP]

If so why?

A very interesting question. It certainly causes me to be reflective as I consider myself to be skeptical. Here are some of my thoughts in considering the question:

1. Being skeptical is something similar to being curious.My earliest memories have been to wonder and question things On the downside,. If something didn’t make sense to me, it seemed to frustrate me and wear on me. It made me uncomfortable.
2. On the upside, being skeptical, it seems to me, operated to enhance my confidence.It felt like I had a better “grip” on how things worked, particularly in social contexts.

3.Personality wise, it made me less tolerant of people who unthinkingly relied only upon superstion or magic in making their decisions, particularly critical decisions. For example, had an Uncle who was going through a gut wrenching time in his life, and, instead of going to a lawyer or tax consultant, he went to a fortune teller for advice. I thought how naieve can this 50 year old man be with the one most important set of decisions he has to make for his family. I was just glad I was his nephew and not his kid.

4.Also, personality wise, it made me more competitive and a better thinker. I feel like I, at least, approach problems rationally and not blindly even if I don’t have the warm fuzzy feelings of “someone up there liking me”. Accordingly I am more self reliant and trust myself more.

1. Altogether, being skeptical is something that just is part of my nature. I feel good about my decisions and I don’t feel deluded by fantasy or magical thinking. So I’d say it is mentally healthy this way.

 

[WillP]

You can’t be wrong if you never take a position on anything.

I think you confuse skepticism with indecisiveness.

It is one thing to live in a state of perpetual ambiguity and never able to make up one’s mind. That is indeed unhealthy.

It is also just as bad to be gullible and accept propositions without critical assessment. People who do so lack curiousity and find complacency in the word of some authority figure. For instance, consider the folks from a few decades ago who became so enamored with their “leader” that they committed mass suicide in Jonestown. Somewhat more benign although just as pernicious was that cult following of Jim and Tammy fame who sucked people dry of their life savings. These were not skeptics. They were true believers.

Skeptics, at least the type to which I hope I belong, question the basis for propositions and when risks are taken, they are calculated. Benifits verses costs are weighed always before jumping into something, and, they form beliefs based on what makes sense. To be skeptic is the opposite of being gullible, I would think.

 

[tonyrey]

I think you confuse skepticism with indecisiveness.

It is one thing to live in a state of perpetual ambiguity and never able to make up one’s mind. That is indeed unhealthy.

It is also just as bad to be gullible and accept propositions without critical assessment. People who do so lack curiousity and find complacency in the word of some authority figure. For instance, consider the folks from a few decades ago who became so enamored with their “leader” that they committed mass suicide in Jonestown. Somewhat more benign although just as pernicious was that cult following of Jim and Tammy fame who sucked people dry of their life savings. These were not skeptics. They were true believers.

Skeptics, at least the type to which I hope I belong, question the basis for propositions and when risks are taken, they are calculated. Benifits verses costs are weighed always before jumping into something, and, they form beliefs based on what makes sense. To be skeptic is the opposite of being gullible, I would think.

How does the sceptic know where to draw the line?

 

[WillP]

How does the sceptic know where to draw the line?

One must use his common sense, don’t you think?

 

[tonyrey]

One must use his common sense, don’t you think?

Common sense is notoriously deceptive!

 

[WillP]

Common sense is notoriously deceptive!

Well, unfortunately, it all we have to rely on. If you feel the need to correct me, and, say, that we can rely upon faith, then I would submit that what you mean is not “faith” but “hope”. I could see where you might rely upon the “hope” that there is a god or angel out there who wants to protect you. But at the end of the day, if one is truly honest with his intellect and --common sense— does that really make a lot of sense?

I realize you are a man of faith and you may think I am being ugly in expressing these views, but, I am simply trying to be “straight up”. I actually grew up RC. I was taught from pre-school catholic gradeschool and 8 yrs of Jesuit high school and university. It is not as though I just woke up one day and decided I resented all the discipline I had and wanted to rebel against my upbringing. I actually listened and paid attention to what was being taught. It was just that it never made sense to me in light of history, and, the sciences I was taught. Maybe I was born with a curiousity malfunction. I don’t know.

 

[tonyrey]

*Common sense is notoriously deceptive! *

I don’t think you’re ugly at all! I admire you for stating exactly what you do and don’t believe. I have faith but that doesn’t come into my philosophy which is restricted to reason. What I do **know **for a fact is that science is based on the Christian belief that the universe has a rational basis and we can understand its workings because we are rational beings. (Stanley Jaki has explained this in detail.)

Science tells us precisely nothing about the most important things in life, i.e. the nature of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty or love, nor **why **we or anything else exists because it is restricted to how things occur. Persons don’t even come into the picture so there must be “something rotten in the state of Denmark”, i.e. the science-is-sufficient ideology.

 

[WillP]

I don’t think you’re ugly at all! I admire you for stating exactly what you do and don’t believe. I have faith but that doesn’t come into my philosophy which is restricted to reason. What I do **know **for a fact is that science is based on the Christian belief that the universe has a rational basis and we can understand its workings because we are rational beings. (Stanley Jaki has explained this in detail.)

Science tells us precisely nothing about the most important things in life, i.e. the nature of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty or love, nor **why **we or anything else exists because it is restricted to how things occur. Persons don’t even come into the picture so there must be “something rotten in the state of Denmark”, i.e. the science-is-sufficient ideology.

I enjoy being challenged and questioned. So thanks for that.

 

[tabycat]

I think there are two types of sceptics: Ones who would not admit that they could be wrong and ones who admit directly/indirectly that they could be wrong. How to teel the differentice? The first ones don’t enjoy being sceptics and they are the ones with an eight foot bigfoot and nessie on their backs. The other type will admint that they could be wrong about whatever, I think they do enjoy, maybe just a little bit, being a sceptics.

 

[Gorillaman]

One must use his common sense, don’t you think?

Don’t you think God is the most common sense answer ther could be?

 

[Qoeleth]

I think there are two types of sceptics: Ones who would not admit that they could be wrong and ones who admit directly/indirectly that they could be wrong. How to teel the differentice? The first ones don’t enjoy being sceptics and they are the ones with an eight foot bigfoot and nessie on their backs. The other type will admint that they could be wrong about whatever, I think they do enjoy, maybe just a little bit, being a sceptics.

Technically, though, the first type would not be Sceptics- but either Dogmatists, or Academics.

Dogmatist- Asserts truth can be known, and that they know it.
Academic- Asserts the truth cannot be known.
Sceptic- Does not assert anything, even not asserting definitely that nothing can be asserted.

The goal of Scepticism is ataraxia, peace of mind: “By suspending judgment, by confining oneself to phenomena or objects as they appear, and by asserting nothing definite as to how they really are, one can escape the perplexities of life and attain an imperturbable peace of mind.”

Pyrrho was the first Sceptic, having studied with the Indian Gymnsophists and the Magi. He faced all dangers and hardship with indifference, given that of their true goodness or badness, he could know nothing. Diogenes Laetrius relates the following story: “When his fellow-passengers on board a ship were all unnerved by a storm, he kept calm and confident, pointing to a little pig in the ship that went on eating, and telling them that such was the unperturbed state in which the wise man should keep himself.”

 

[Gorillaman]

Technically, though, the first type would not be Sceptics- but either Dogmatists, or Academics.

Dogmatist- Asserts truth can be known, and that they know it.
Academic- Asserts the truth cannot be known.
Sceptic- Does not assert anything, even not asserting definitely that nothing can be asserted.

The goal of Scepticism is ataraxia, peace of mind: “By suspending judgment, by confining oneself to phenomena or objects as they appear, and by asserting nothing definite as to how they really are, one can escape the perplexities of life and attain an imperturbable peace of mind.”

Pyrrho was the first Sceptic, having studied with the Indian Gymnsophists and the Magi. He faced all dangers and hardship with indifference, given that of their true goodness or badness, he could know nothing. Diogenes Laetrius relates the following story: “When his fellow-passengers on board a ship were all unnerved by a storm, he kept calm and confident, pointing to a little pig in the ship that went on eating, and telling them that such was the unperturbed state in which the wise man should keep himself.”

You can’t be a pig, even though it would be awesome…I love pigs. But I digress haha. We as humans are given a set of feelings thoughts emotions…and it’s not our job to find a way to slice off anyone of those limbs but to harness them…that is the key.

 

[tonyrey]

I enjoy being challenged and questioned. So thanks for that.

I’m glad you’re not sceptical about that!

 

[Qoeleth]

Here is a mildly amusing exceprt from Lucian of Samosata’s “Sale of Creeds”, in which what various philosophies offer their adherents is parodied. This is the Sceptic’s turn:

Zeus. What have we left?

Her. There is Scepticism. Come along, Pyrrhias, and be put up. Quick’s the word. The attendance is dwindling; there will be small competition. Well, who buys Lot 9?

Ninth D. I. Tell me first, though, what do you know?

Sc. Nothing.

Ninth D. But how’s that?

Sc. There does not appear to me to be anything.

Ninth D. Are not we something?

Sc. How do I know that?

Ninth D. And you yourself?

Sc. Of that I am still more doubtful.

Ninth D. Well, you are in a fix! And what have you got those scales for?

Sc. I use them to weigh arguments in, and get them evenly balanced, They must be absolutely equal–not a feather-weight to choose between them; then, and not till then, can I make uncertain which is right.

Ninth D. What else can you turn your hand to?

Sc. Anything; except catching a runaway.

Ninth D. And why not that?

Sc. Because, friend, everything eludes my grasp.

Ninth D. I believe you. A slow, lumpish fellow you seem to be. And what is the end of your knowledge?

Sc. Ignorance. Deafness. Blindness.

Ninth D. What! sight and hearing both gone?

Sc. And with them judgement and perception, and all, in short, that distinguishes man from a worm.

Ninth D. You are worth money!–What shall we say for him?

Her. Four pounds.

Ninth D. Here it is. Well, fellow; so you are mine?

Sc. I doubt it.

Ninth D. Nay, doubt it not! You are bought and paid for.

Sc. It is a difficult case. . . . I reserve my decision.

Ninth D. Now, come along with me, like a good slave.

Sc. But how am I to know whether what you say is true?

Ninth D. Ask the auctioneer. Ask my money. Ask the spectators.

Sc. Spectators? But can we be sure there are any?

Ninth D. Oh, I’ll send you to the treadmill. That will convince you with a vengeance that I am your master.

Sc. Reserve your decision!

 

[tabycat]

Technically, though, the first type would not be Sceptics- but either Dogmatists, or Academics.

Dogmatist- Asserts truth can be known, and that they know it.
Academic- Asserts the truth cannot be known.
Sceptic- Does not assert anything, even not asserting definitely that nothing can be asserted.

The goal of Scepticism is ataraxia, peace of mind: "By suspending judgment, by confining oneself to phenomena or objects as they appear, and by asserting nothing definite as to how they really are, one can escape the perplexities of life and attain an imperturbable peace of min

Are scaplics any happier if they call themselves dogmatists or acadimics?

 

[tonyrey]

Here is a mildly amusing exceprt from Lucian of Samosata’s “Sale of Creeds”, in which what various philosophies offer their adherents is parodied. This is the Sceptic’s turn:
Zeus. What have we left?

Her. There is Scepticism. Come along, Pyrrhias, and be put up. Quick’s the word. The attendance is dwindling; there will be small competition. Well, who buys Lot 9?

Ninth D. I. Tell me first, though, what do you know?

Sc. Nothing.

Ninth D. But how’s that?

Sc. There does not appear to me to be anything.

Ninth D. Are not we something?

Sc. How do I know that?

Ninth D. And you yourself?

Sc. Of that I am still more doubtful.

Ninth D. Well, you are in a fix! And what have you got those scales for?

Sc. I use them to weigh arguments in, and get them evenly balanced, They must be absolutely equal–not a feather-weight to choose between them; then, and not till then, can I make uncertain which is right.

Ninth D. What else can you turn your hand to?

Sc. Anything; except catching a runaway.

Ninth D. And why not that?

Sc. Because, friend, everything eludes my grasp.

Ninth D. I believe you. A slow, lumpish fellow you seem to be. And what is the end of your knowledge?

Sc. Ignorance. Deafness. Blindness.

Ninth D. What! sight and hearing both gone?

Sc. And with them judgement and perception, and all, in short, that distinguishes man from a worm.

Ninth D. You are worth money!–What shall we say for him?

Her. Four pounds.

Ninth D. Here it is. Well, fellow; so you are mine?

Sc. I doubt it.

Ninth D. Nay, doubt it not! You are bought and paid for.

Sc. It is a difficult case. . . . I reserve my decision.

Ninth D. Now, come along with me, like a good slave.

Sc. But how am I to know whether what you say is true?

Ninth D. Ask the auctioneer. Ask my money. Ask the spectators.

Sc. Spectators? But can we be sure there are any?

Ninth D. Oh, I’ll send you to the treadmill. That will convince you with a vengeance that I am your master.

Sc. Reserve your decision!

Thanks for that entertainment! A slippery customer who came to regret his scepticism…

 

[Arizona_Mike]

If one uses one of the more common (if loose) definitions of skeptic, i.e., one who demands proof of supernatural claims, one can still be a skeptic and a theist. Two of the best known modern skeptics in this area were believers, Martin Gardner (a deist) and Harry Houdini (a practicing Jew who believed in God and the afterlife.)