Groundlessness of all knowledge

[tonyrey]

Indeed, I don’t KNOW. Either my perceptions are only justified by my perceptions, or they are justified by something else. But what justifies belief in that ‘something else’? Is it perception, or yet another ‘something else’. We arrive either at infinite regress, or circularity.

The success of science is ample evidence that our perceptions are justified by their correspondence to physical reality.

Indeed, and I have no particular reason to trust my own judgment, any more than that of anyone else. Why should I give it any preference?

The answer depends on how often your judgment is vindicated. Usually, occasionally, or never?

But it MIGHT be true, and that is enough to unbalance all certainty. Perhaps. Nothing can be determined.

In your daily life do you actually behave as if nothing can be determined?

 

[Alindawyl]

“I will not engage in verbal controversy with the sceptic, because long experience has taught me that the sceptic’s ultimate skepticism is about the use of his own words and the reliability of his own intelligence.” - G.K. Chesterton

Long experience has taught me the same thing.

 

[mytruepower2]

A necessary consequence of my position, as you both note, is that it requres that one have no particular epistemological committment to the view it advances. Thus the opinion I advance is no more nor no less groundless than any other opinion.

See, that’s the problem. You can’t make the claim that your view is an opinion, or that mine is, or that your position requires less epistemic commitment than mine, or even that either one of us exists, unless you’re willing to admit that your own position is false, and some knowledge is not groundless.

And if you can’t make the claim that you exist, there’s really not much reason to argue with you. After all, why would I argue with someone who, for all he knows, doesn’t exist?

 

[wittgenstein]

We as humans can never have 100% certainty about anything. However, that does not mean that we are totally blind to reality. For example, I am not 100% sure that the world is not flat. I am 99.99999% sure it is not flat. It is 96% certain that aliens exist.* It is 10% certain that Elvis is still alive. It is 1% certain that en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character exists.

• Let’s take a VERY low estimate (one civilization per 100,000,000,000 stars) and apply the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation .There are 100,000,000,000 stars per galaxy, so that’s 1 civilization per galaxy. There are 100,000,000,000 galaxies!!! Therefore, the law of probability says that there are at least 100,000,000,000 civilizations! (All it takes is one to prove that there are other civilizations) True, that is not empirical evidence. However, either is saying “if you throw a coin 10,000 times it is VERY unlikely to come up heads every time”, empirical. 100 billion looks like kokogiak.com/megapenny/eleven.asp However; it is unlikely that they have visited us because of the vast distances.
  PS; For some reason the “bat boy” link does not work. Click on it anyway and then click the first link at that site.

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

Wittgenstein is an evil philosopher. Is Wittgenstein 99.9…% certain that he is 99.9…% certain? What about that 99.9…%? And…

Nihilism, time.

 

[mytruepower2]

We as humans can never have 100% certainty about anything. However, that does not mean that we are totally blind to reality. For example, I am not 100% sure that the world is not flat. I am 99.99999% sure it is not flat. It is 96% certain that aliens exist.* It is 10% certain that Elvis is still alive. It is 1% certain that en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character exists.

• Let’s take a VERY low estimate (one civilization per 100,000,000,000 stars) and apply the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation .There are 100,000,000,000 stars per galaxy, so that’s 1 civilization per galaxy. There are 100,000,000,000 galaxies!!! Therefore, the law of probability says that there are at least 100,000,000,000 civilizations! (All it takes is one to prove that there are other civilizations) True, that is not empirical evidence. However, either is saying “if you throw a coin 10,000 times it is VERY unlikely to come up heads every time”, empirical. 100 billion looks like kokogiak.com/megapenny/eleven.asp However; it is unlikely that they have visited us because of the vast distances.
  PS; For some reason the “bat boy” link does not work. Click on it anyway and then click the first link at that site.

Please be good to probability theory. It never did anything to hurt you, did it?

In probability theory, one guages the probability of an event being true, on the basis of mathematical formulae.

Now, when you ask "What is the probability that a coin will come up heads every time out of 10,000 times, what you’re really asking is “what is the probability that the coin will come up heads when flipped once, twice, three times, etc… to 10,000.”

If you flip the coin once, the probability of getting heads is, in theory, 50%. In practice, of course, we know that a lot has to do with how hard the coin is tossed, what side it’s tossed from, how far it has to fall, the angle it flips at and so forth, but let’s suppose it was 50%.

Now, two flips. Here, we have the probability divided in half. 25% probability you would get heads the first time and tails the second, 25% probability that you’d get the reverse of that, 25% probability that you’d get tails both times, and 25% both heads.

Now, three. Once again, the number of possible outcomes is doubled with the new coin flip, and so the chance of getting heads three times in reduced again, to 12.5%, and so on and so forth.

As I said, however. This may be sound mathematics, but actual coins can be tricky in that regard.

 

[Qoeleth]

“I will not engage in verbal controversy with the sceptic, because long experience has taught me that the sceptic’s ultimate skepticism is about the use of his own words and the reliability of his own intelligence.” - G.K. Chesterton

Long experience has taught me the same thing.

Hmmm… if the sceptic is prepared to doubt his own views (and, in fact, necessarily does so), wouldn’t that make him actually a more acceptable participant in controversy?

The reverse, a person who refuses to acknowledge that their own opinions might be wrong, would seem more problematic as as person with whom to engage in controversy.

Unless we acknowledge that we may be wrong, or misinformed, or there may be a better alternative to our views, or we may be perceiving things falsely, how can we engage in discussion at all?

 

[Qoeleth]

See, that’s the problem. You can’t make the claim that your view is an opinion, or that mine is, or that your position requires less epistemic commitment than mine, or even that either one of us exists, unless you’re willing to admit that your own position is false, and some knowledge is not groundless.

And if you can’t make the claim that you exist, there’s really not much reason to argue with you. After all, why would I argue with someone who, for all he knows, doesn’t exist?

Well, perhaps the view I articulated is not, strictly speaking, an opinion. Perhaps it is right, perhaps it is wrong. It would seem nothing can be determined. But even this assertion may be right, or it may be wrong.

I certainly do not rule out certain knowledge dogmatically. To do so would be to slip into the very dogmatic assertion which is being questioned.

I make no dogmatic claim that I exist. On the one hand, there seems to be something which I call ‘myself’. On the other hand, since this observation relies on the perception of the very ‘I’ whose existence is being considered, it is circular to consider the perceptions of such an ‘I’ as evidence. But then, on the other hand, what basis is there for rejecting circularity?

 

[petra22]

If you look back thru history, most things thought to be fact were eventually proven wrong, even when a majority of the population at one time bought into it.

Isn’t this a VERY broad statement??? Most things thought to be fact???

 

[mytruepower2]

Well, perhaps the view I articulated is not, strictly speaking, an opinion. Perhaps it is right, perhaps it is wrong. It would seem nothing can be determined. But even this assertion may be right, or it may be wrong.

I certainly do not rule out certain knowledge dogmatically. To do so would be to slip into the very dogmatic assertion which is being questioned.

I make no dogmatic claim that I exist. On the one hand, there seems to be something which I call ‘myself’. On the other hand, since this observation relies on the perception of the very ‘I’ whose existence is being considered, it is circular to consider the perceptions of such an ‘I’ as evidence. But then, on the other hand, what basis is there for rejecting circularity?

I think, if you’ll forgive this, that the matter of “dogma” is really something of a red herring. Even with respect to -actual- dogmas, such as the Real Presence, these statements don’t exist in a vacuum. There are good reasons to believe them, and good arguments in favor of them.

There can also be good arguments and reasons for believing that dogmas confirmed by a particular source are correct, just as there can be good reasons for believing anything. However, it is the evidence, not the dogma, where the belief is truly grounded.

The absolute bottom of every belief, however, is your theory of knowledge, which was why I began by stating mine. You’ll notice that at no point in the description of my theory of knowledge do I refer to anything as foundationally-true, unless it is a tautology (and therefore, true in every possible interpretation, by the very definition of what a tautology is.) This is a -very- bare bones theory of knowledge. I don’t even believe in “properly-basic beliefs,” except possibly, as I said, for tautologies. Yet, even on this theory of knowledge, which is consistent and rational, I can come to knowledge of certain truths, and ultimately, to truths about my relationship to God.

Furthermore, if you don’t hold to a view with any level of commitment, then you’re not making any philosophical claims at all, and indeed, are trapped in a sort of “non-claim box.” Yet, if you -do- hold to a view in the absence of evidence for that view or against its contrary, this could be seem as dogmatic by certain definitions of the term.

I’m genuinely interested in seeing how you’ll address these problems, because philosophers face them in different ways. Some decide the cost is just too high, and begin to make statements again, while others bite the bullet, and just accept the consequences of their worldview, no matter how crippling they may be. Either way, the result reveals a great deal about the person in question. It’s fascinating.

 

[drafdog]

There is an injunction in scripture to refrain from arguing with a fool.

Reb Levi

 

[Qoeleth]

I think, if you’ll forgive this, that the matter of “dogma” is really something of a red herring. Even with respect to -actual- dogmas, such as the Real Presence, these statements don’t exist in a vacuum. There are good reasons to believe them, and good arguments in favor of them.

There can also be good arguments and reasons for believing that dogmas confirmed by a particular source are correct, just as there can be good reasons for believing anything. However, it is the evidence, not the dogma, where the belief is truly grounded.

The absolute bottom of every belief, however, is your theory of knowledge, which was why I began by stating mine. You’ll notice that at no point in the description of my theory of knowledge do I refer to anything as foundationally-true, unless it is a tautology (and therefore, true in every possible interpretation, by the very definition of what a tautology is.) This is a -very- bare bones theory of knowledge. I don’t even believe in “properly-basic beliefs,” except possibly, as I said, for tautologies. Yet, even on this theory of knowledge, which is consistent and rational, I can come to knowledge of certain truths, and ultimately, to truths about my relationship to God.

Furthermore, if you don’t hold to a view with any level of commitment, then you’re not making any philosophical claims at all, and indeed, are trapped in a sort of “non-claim box.” Yet, if you -do- hold to a view in the absence of evidence for that view or against its contrary, this could be seem as dogmatic by certain definitions of the term.

I’m genuinely interested in seeing how you’ll address these problems, because philosophers face them in different ways. Some decide the cost is just too high, and begin to make statements again, while others bite the bullet, and just accept the consequences of their worldview, no matter how crippling they may be. Either way, the result reveals a great deal about the person in question. It’s fascinating.

I am not dogmatic about not being dogmatic. Scepticism commits neither to the position of the Academics (in the late Classical sense), who claim that knowledge is impossible, or the Dogmatists, who claim that it is. One is uncertain even about one’s uncertainty, and then in turn uncertain about that uncertainty, etc.

I exclude articles of Faith from the domain of Scepticism. God transcends the domain of demonstrable knowledge, so “Faith” seems to be not a matter of epistemic commitment, but rather of disposition. It would seem to be impious to treat matters like the Real Presence as mere ‘facts’ or ‘knowledge’, which can be proven or doubted, since they are Divinely revealed. It is worth noting that Phyrro, the founder of Scepticism, was made High Priest by the citizens of Elis, who obviously saw no conflict between his Scepticism and relationship with God (the gods).

Articles of Faith are not simply bits of knowledge among other bits of knowledge. Somehow, it is wrong to treat Divine Truths, like the mystery of the Trinity, like any other mundane questions, with arguments for and against, etc.

Pascal’s wager shows that, the honest absence of certainty, and even the absence of a means of assessing relative ‘probabilities’, a disposition of practical “Faith” is the only outcome. Lactantius (one of the first Latin Christian philosoper), too, said the knowledge was proper to God alone- and therefore contended that Socrates came closest to the truth of all the pagan philosophers, in conceding that he did not know.

God alone, who alone Truly Exists, is the only thing about which certainty can be entertained, since everything else is flux and shadows. Strong commitment to any opinions, knowledge, beliefs, except, for that of God, would seem to be idolatry, and to risk pride, conflict and groundless loss of peace. Since all things except for God change, pass away and are essentially insubstantial (including we who perceive and form judgments), what certain knowledge can there be apart from God?

Is this crippling world-view, or a tremendously liberating one? Commitment to opinions, preferences and ‘knowledge’ could, in fact, make people not only unhappy (if they don’t ‘get their own way’), but proud and contentious. If all mundane things are considered as uncertain, and all views of equal truth claims, then there is no cause for disturbance.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Is this crippling world-view, or a tremendously liberating one? Commitment to opinions, preferences and ‘knowledge’ could, in fact, make people not only unhappy (if they don’t ‘get their own way’), but proud and contentious. If all mundane things are considered as uncertain, and all views of equal truth claims, then there is no cause for disturbance.

Being societal creatures, our thoughts come in the form of words and images that convey meaning both within and between ourselves. By enhancing communication the goal of seeking Truth can be helped by harmonious relations.
Towards the goal, I would like to offer some thoughts on knowledge and its grounding:

Firstly is the idea that, reflecting the nature of He who transcends it, the basic nature of the universe is relational. The perfect relationship being a loving one.

We can know the world in different ways. We know our beloved through sensual contact and complex interpersonal interactions that include, for example, discussions and arguments, eating together, playing, visiting, and other potentially interesting and possibly boring activities. We know God in a similar manner: through readings, prayer, contemplation and participation in the activities of His Church.

Knowledge also involves the personal and shared, organized collection of perceptual and cognitive experiences that we gather through the manipulation of the world.

Our understandings are shaped by the particular senses, which bring the world to light.
Science relies principally on extensions of our visual capability. Vision reveals a different world from that which appears through the other senses. We “touch” the world through sight, but it is at a distance.
Approach the world visually, it easily comes to mind to split it up in terms of subjective-objective. In the tactile, it is a bit awkward to do so, and when we get to the gustatory, which involves the incorporation of what we visually and tactlilely define as external into that which is internal, it is even harder to do.
In the world of sound, we get more a sense of events coming in and out existence, in contrast to the more transformational visual world. The clock’s marking the pasage of time through its ticking is a vastly different experience than that involving the movement of its arms across its face.

I would understand sceptisicm as being an important part of that more sophisticated and elaborately developed realm of the intellectual.
As to a global scepticism, it may help in the quest for some sort of understanding of what is universal by flipping one out of the philosophical water, so to speak: like a fish swimming in the ocean, unaware of the major aspect of its all-encompassing world until it somehow meets air. A “crippling world-view” can become a “liberating one”.

This approach might be similar to that of a Zen koan. IMHO, however it is not as powerful.
In Zen, the student asks the fully enlightened master, “What is the meaning of life?”, to which the master responds Truthfully, “Three pounds of flax.”
The student achieves satori.
Because the outcome is transcendent and eternal, it does not matter if it takes 2 seconds, or 2 years, or 2 lifetimes (if there were such a thing); what occurs is that the analytic mind burns itself out, trying to find the transcendent truth, which is beyond its capacity.
The student realizes the Truth of the enveloping eternal moment manifesting itself in the mundane reality of hanging out, talking and thinking, right there.
“Three pounds of flax.”: the all encompassing “mind”, in union with all creation, all time, streaming from the Godhead that Is, within and beyond all.

i have to thank an argumentative Buddhist poster who reminded me of old ideas that should should be dusted off every decade or so.

 

[wittgenstein]

Please be good to probability theory. It never did anything to hurt you, did it?

In probability theory, one guages the probability of an event being true, on the basis of mathematical formulae.

Now, when you ask "What is the probability that a coin will come up heads every time out of 10,000 times, what you’re really asking is “what is the probability that the coin will come up heads when flipped once, twice, three times, etc… to 10,000.”

If you flip the coin once, the probability of getting heads is, in theory, 50%. In practice, of course, we know that a lot has to do with how hard the coin is tossed, what side it’s tossed from, how far it has to fall, the angle it flips at and so forth, but let’s suppose it was 50%.

Now, two flips. Here, we have the probability divided in half. 25% probability you would get heads the first time and tails the second, 25% probability that you’d get the reverse of that, 25% probability that you’d get tails both times, and 25% both heads.

Now, three. Once again, the number of possible outcomes is doubled with the new coin flip, and so the chance of getting heads three times in reduced again, to 12.5%, and so on and so forth.

As I said, however. This may be sound mathematics, but actual coins can be tricky in that regard.

The above is from post 46. Where you can see the entire context of our conversation and how it relates to the subject matter of the thread.
½^10,000 in other words one over 2 to the 10,000 power is the odds of heads coming up 10,000 times. Yes, that does not equal the odds of their not being intelligent life in the universe. That was not my point, my point is that both (the odds of a coin landing heads 10,000 times) and their not being intelligent life in the universe are both astronomical.
It is outrageously conservative to say that there is only one civilization per galaxy (see Drake equation). With that extremely conservative estimate, one arrives mathematically at 100,000,000,000 civilizations in the universe. However, we can still say that the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of other intelligent civilizations in the universe, even if we divide that number!!! Let’s say by even a million! That’s 100,000 civilizations! Remember that all it takes is one other civilization for one to say that alien life exists.
My point is that, yes the law of probability does not give results of 100% (that’s rather obvious, if probability did give odds of 100% it would not be probability, it would be certainty.). However, when something is astronomically unlikely to occur (such as a coin landing on heads after 10,000 throws or there not being other intelligent life in the universe), one can safely assume that such things will not occur. Therefore, it is safe to assume that intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations exist.
However, it is unlikely that they have visited us as the distances are too great.

 

[mytruepower2]

The above is from post 46. Where you can see the entire context of our conversation and how it relates to the subject matter of the thread.
½^10,000 in other words one over 2 to the 10,000 power is the odds of heads coming up 10,000 times. Yes, that does not equal the odds of their not being intelligent life in the universe. That was not my point, my point is that both (the odds of a coin landing heads 10,000 times) and their not being intelligent life in the universe are both astronomical.
It is outrageously conservative to say that there is only one civilization per galaxy (see Drake equation). With that extremely conservative estimate, one arrives mathematically at 100,000,000,000 civilizations in the universe. However, we can still say that the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of other intelligent civilizations in the universe, even if we divide that number!!! Let’s say by even a million! That’s 100,000 civilizations! Remember that all it takes is one other civilization for one to say that alien life exists.
My point is that, yes the law of probability does not give results of 100% (that’s rather obvious, if probability did give odds of 100% it would not be probability, it would be certainty.). However, when something is astronomically unlikely to occur (such as a coin landing on heads after 10,000 throws or there not being other intelligent life in the universe), one can safely assume that such things will not occur. Therefore, it is safe to assume that intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations exist.
However, it is unlikely that they have visited us as the distances are too great.

Ah, okay. Good. Yes, I agree that the odds of other intelligent life forming within traveling distance of us is most unlikely, though that isn’t a subject I’ve studied in great detail.

 

[mytruepower2]

I am not dogmatic about not being dogmatic. Scepticism commits neither to the position of the Academics (in the late Classical sense), who claim that knowledge is impossible, or the Dogmatists, who claim that it is. One is uncertain even about one’s uncertainty, and then in turn uncertain about that uncertainty, etc.

The problem here is that you’re either committed to being uncertain, in which case it’s not uncertainty, or you’re not.

If you’re -not- committed to your uncertainty, then, to be honest, you should only be uncertain some of the time. However, this means that you would be certain about things sometimes, during the times when you weren’t committed to uncertainty, and during those times, you’d have to answer all the problems I mentioned.

I exclude articles of Faith from the domain of Scepticism. God transcends the domain of demonstrable knowledge, so “Faith” seems to be not a matter of epistemic commitment, but rather of disposition. It would seem to be impious to treat matters like the Real Presence as mere ‘facts’ or ‘knowledge’, which can be proven or doubted, since they are Divinely revealed. It is worth noting that Phyrro, the founder of Scepticism, was made High Priest by the citizens of Elis, who obviously saw no conflict between his Scepticism and relationship with God (the gods).

If faith were a matter of disposition, I would never have any hope of getting to Heaven. Yet, we can believe something, even if we don’t feel like believing it.

For example, I don’t feel like believing that I can’t set things on fire with my mind. Yet, I believe that I can’t set things on fire with my mind for other reasons than my disposition.

God is not demonstrable, in terms of him acting in a way that we can verify through experimentation, but this is only for the same reasons that human free will can’t be demonstrated in the same way.

To say that God transcends reason would be to say that God, by his nature, is illogical and unreasonable. I refuse to believe this. Belief in God is eminently reasonable.

Articles of Faith are not simply bits of knowledge among other bits of knowledge. Somehow, it is wrong to treat Divine Truths, like the mystery of the Trinity, like any other mundane questions, with arguments for and against, etc.

I don’t see why.

Pascal’s wager shows that, the honest absence of certainty, and even the absence of a means of assessing relative ‘probabilities’, a disposition of practical “Faith” is the only outcome. Lactantius (one of the first Latin Christian philosoper), too, said the knowledge was proper to God alone- and therefore contended that Socrates came closest to the truth of all the pagan philosophers, in conceding that he did not know.

Pascal’s wager says nothing of the kind. What it demonstrates is that even if the evidence for and against the existence of God were equal, we should still believe in God. However, Pascal never raised any issues about -certainty.- At least not in this argument.

-Knowledge- is not proper to God, since other beings possess knowledge. For example; the knowledge that God exists. It would be correct, however, to say that all proper knowledge is had by God.

God alone, who alone Truly Exists, is the only thing about which certainty can be entertained, since everything else is flux and shadows.

Since you hold to the belief that God exists, this should be simple to resolve.

Did God create the universe? Yes or no? If no, then who did? If yes, then that’s a truth, and therefore, there is truthful information other than merely “God exists.”

Furthermore, -why- did God create the universe? Out of charity, you say? Charity wants what’s best for the other. What is best for us is to know God fully, so God gave us minds and senses that can perceive the truth.

In order to argue against the truth of our senses, even if you believe God’s existence to be “properly basic” (which I think is a ridiculous extravagance,) you must find some way to explain why both our minds and our senses were constructed by God to lie to us, and yet, explain this without incriminating God as the source of all lies. In this sense, your position will be harder than that of the conspiracy theorist, since he can reasonably impugn the conspirators without destroying his own case.

If all mundane things are considered as uncertain, and all views of equal truth claims, then there is no cause for disturbance.

On the contrary. If everything is uncertain, there’s no reason for us to live in any way -except- constant disturbance. It’s uncertain whether we’ll take our next breath. It’s uncertain whether that bottle of Tylenol is really rat poison. It’s uncertain whether I’ll suffer any consequences for committing horrible sin X. It’s uncertain whether that car rushing at me will stop short. By blocking off all avenues of knowledge, philosophical skepticism prevents anyone from having -any- peace of mind, or being able to feel safe enough to be happy. After all, on this view, at any moment, it’s uncertain whether or not an anvil might pop into existence over my head for no reason. How could anyone be happy living under such a debilitating view of knowledge?

This is one of the many things that Jesus came to save us from; empty, chaotic uncertainty. In fact, this is one of the first things dispelled by truth, and who better to dispel it than he who said “I am the truth.”

Wasn’t it Pilate; the man who condemned Jesus to death, when he knew it was wrong, who then asked him “what is truth?” Belief in God is inseparable from belief in authentic truth.

 

[Qoeleth]

The problem here is that you’re either committed to being uncertain, in which case it’s not uncertainty, or you’re not. .

Can’t one be uncertain about being uncertain? And even uncertain about that uncertainty?

If faith were a matter of disposition, I would never have any hope of getting to Heaven. Yet, we can believe something, even if we don’t feel like believing it.

For example, I don’t feel like believing that I can’t set things on fire with my mind. Yet, I believe that I can’t set things on fire with my mind for other reasons than my disposition.

God is not demonstrable, in terms of him acting in a way that we can verify through experimentation, but this is only for the same reasons that human free will can’t be demonstrated in the same way.

To say that God transcends reason would be to say that God, by his nature, is illogical and unreasonable. I refuse to believe this. Belief in God is eminently reasonable…

Let me elaborate on the difference between articles of Fatih and non-religious knowledge. Imagine something you thought was true “The earth revoles around the sun.” Now, this could, conceivably, be disproven. But consider an elemtn of Faith- ‘God is One’. This, by it’s nature, cannot be disproven, since it is outside the realm of mere reason. So, when we talk about the Trinity, we are not trying to prove why God is three person, rather than, say four or five, on the basis of normal epistemic or dialectical rules. Rather the doctrine of the Trinity is like a Divein Mystery. It is there to admire, to contemplate, to wonder at. But not to disprove or to prove.

If everything is uncertain, there’s no reason for us to live in any way -except- constant disturbance. It’s uncertain whether we’ll take our next breath. It’s uncertain whether that bottle of Tylenol is really rat poison. It’s uncertain whether I’ll suffer any consequences for committing horrible sin X. It’s uncertain whether that car rushing at me will stop short. By blocking off all avenues of knowledge, philosophical skepticism prevents anyone from having -any- peace of mind, or being able to feel safe enough to be happy. After all, on this view, at any moment, it’s uncertain whether or not an anvil might pop into existence over my head for no reason. How could anyone be happy living under such a debilitating view of knowledge?

I find Scepticism leads to peace. Let me give you an example of how it works. Say someone is assigned a job like cleaning toilets. A non-sceptic might adopt an opinion “This is good”- and so be pleased. Or “this is bad” and so be unhappy.

But the Sceptic will say something like this- “Perhaps this is good (to do humble work, c.f. the Gospels), or perhaps it is bad (because it may be unpleasant, or regarded as socially demeaning). But even if it distrubs my physical sense or ‘pride’, why should that be regarded as objectively bad? Someone else may regard is as physical enjoyable, and certainly it is more enjoyable than being hit with a stick, and therefore its qualities are all entirely relative, and largely social constructions. There is no basis for determining whether this is good or bad, or even pleasant or unpleasant. And furthermore, although I perceive this to be taking place, there is no way of knowing whether, and to what extent, my perceptions correspond with reality, since phenomenon and noumena may be completely separate, or even antithetical. Furthermore, it is open to question whether I exist at all, since it is only my own perceptions which support such a hypothesis, and therefore the case for my existence is circular. And it is also open to serious question whether the world itself exists, since it is changing, and therefore has only ‘becoming’ rather than ‘true being’, which is proper to God alone. And again, the only evidence of the existence of the universe is from within the universe itself, and thus the case for its existence is entirely circular. And perhaps all this is the will of God, which should be accepted with joy. Or perhaps it is simply the random interplay of atoms, which can be accepted with indifference. On the other hand, it does not seem to accord with the majority or ‘common-sense’ opinion of what is desirable, so, if I am assigned to other duties, I equally couldn’t care less. Perhaps this is all a dream anyway. Nothing can be determined. And even this uncertainty itself is open to severe doubt.”

Thinking thus, and similarly about all things in life, one find’s perfect peace.

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed, I don’t KNOW. Either my perceptions are only justified by my perceptions, or they are justified by something else. But what justifies belief in that ‘something else’? Is it perception, or yet another ‘something else’. We arrive either at infinite regress, or circularity.

The answer depends on how often your judgment is vindicated. Usually, occasionally, or never?

But it MIGHT be true, and that is enough to unbalance all certainty. Perhaps. Nothing can be determined.

In your daily life do you actually behave as if nothing can be determined?

No response!
[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed, I don’t KNOW. Either my perceptions are only justified by my perceptions, or they are justified by something else. But what justifies belief in that ‘something else’? Is it perception, or yet another ‘something else’. We arrive either at infinite regress, or circularity.

The answer depends on how often your judgment is vindicated. Usually, occasionally, or never?

But it MIGHT be true, and that is enough to unbalance all certainty. Perhaps. Nothing can be determined.

In your daily life do you actually behave as if nothing can be determined?

No response!
[/QUOTE]

 

[Qoeleth]

The success of science is ample evidence that our perceptions are justified by their correspondence to physical reality.

The answer depends on how often your judgment is vindicated. Usually, occasionally, or never?

In your daily life do you actually behave as if nothing can be determined?

Please accept my apologies for not responding. I will endeavour to provide provisional answers.

The success of science: The data of science are perceptions. Then the success of works of science are also gauged only by perceptions. True- electric light bulbs appear to work. But what grounds does one have for trusting the whole complex of perceived data? Other perceived data? But that is purely circular.

Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that much of the science of the past appeared to work, or did work, but we now know that its premisses were often false. It seems reasonable that at some future date, our current science may be considered absurd, as we would now consider alchemy or astrology, for example, which were at one time considered ‘sciences’.

The vindication of judgment: Sometimes it is vindicated. Sometimes not. I suppose other people have many different judgments to me. They might be more right then me. Or they may not. Who could determine? Not me, since I will tend to prefer my own judgment. And not the other person, since they also have a vested interest. If a third party is called in to make a judgment, either he has no opinion (in which case he cannot decide), or he will favour the opinion of either me or the other, in which case he is a partisan.

And the very statement that judgment is possible is itself a judgment, and therefore presupposes what it seeks to establish.

I am not sure of the basis of my action in daily life, if indeed that have a basis. In moral matters, I try to obey Divine Law, since we cannot rule out the chance of eternal punishment, and Divine Law cannot be doubted. My mundane actions may be the result of free will, or may be all pre-determined. One might argue that since Sceptic philosophy entails no dogmatic assertions, it cannot be used as the basis of decision.

However, as in the previous post, I illustrate practically how it can be used to attain tranquillity of mind, but systematic non-commitment to preferences or opinions.