Doubt & Skepticism

[WanderingTaoist]

Sorry to post two threads, one right after another, but it struck me that I would love to hear people's thoughts about skepticism. It's something of a broad topic, but I think it's important nevetheless.

Specifically, I guess, to get the conversation going: What do you think are the acceptible limits of skepticism? It would seem that one could keep doubting and doubting and doubting until one arrives at a solipism. Which is an unattractive philosophy, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not true (unless you're an extreme aesthete, I suppose). From cognito ergo sum to cognito ergo sum, ergo solo sum I suppose. One of the things I find strangely maddening about Descartes is that I feel like once he calls everything into doubt, "I think therefore I am" becomes doubtful as well. At most one might say "Something Is." After all, what is the "I" that thinks? Is it a different "I" for every thought? What about emotions? A different "I" for each emotion? The Buddhist perspective of no-self certainly adds an interesting element to any discussion of Cartesian skepticism and solipism!

Personally, I think skepticism is like red wine: in small amounts, it's good for your health, but in large quantities it can be dangerous for everyone involved. Extreme skepticism t is essentially a refusal to accept life as life. Which isn't exactly a cardinal sin in my book, but it's about as close to a cardinal sin as anything gets for me ;). Again, I realize that is not a logical argument at all.

But enough from me, what are your thoughts on skepticism?

[marleylinguistics]

when i begin to doubt things i look at them from a different perspective

this may not make as much sense here as id did in my head :)

[Fool Zero]

(WanderingTaoist):
It would seem that one could keep doubting and doubting and doubting until one arrives at a solipism. Which is an unattractive philosophy...

Which is why I don't think of solipsism as a place to "arrive" at, but as one to pass through on the way to whatever comes after it.

[locomotive]

you wouldn't want to be miserable.

The limit should be when skepticism gets in the way of producing an answer ,since that is what you are trying to get.

[WanderingTaoist]

when i begin to doubt things i look at them from a different perspective

That's a good way of looking at the early stages of doubt :). Doubt usually comes about once we realize that there are, in fact, different perspectives.


you wouldn't want to be miserable.

The limit should be when skepticism gets in the way of producing an answer ,since that is what you are trying to get.

Interesting. Happiness trumps logic, in the end. I rather like that myself :) .

On the other hand, there are those who will contend that what they are looking for is not just any answer, but the truth, however miserable it might make them.

Which is why I don't think of solipsism as a place to "arrive" at, but as one to pass through on the way to whatever comes after it.

That's a very good way of putting it! I'm inclined to agree, especially since I've never heard of anyone who honestly advocates solipism. If they did, why would they bother talking to people who probably don't exist anyway? They'd have to be a little crazy.

Perhaps the reason why solipism has not caught on is as Fool Zero and locomotive seem to suggest; perhaps even though it is a position that one supposedly arrives at through reason, it is in its essence a thouroughly unreasonable position. From this it would seem that there are things for which it is reasonable to doubt, other things for which it is unreasonable to doubt. One shouldn't doubt unreasonably, unless, of course, one is given a reason.

[locomotive]

"Happiness trumps logic"
When we seek we are making ourselfs miserable because we are trying to move yet we stand still. The natural tendancy is to relax again (give up). Envisioning a mystery you merely poke at it since you feel allot of resistance. trying to leave the piece makes your frown angry.
If only people learned to work without stressing themselfs. If only people would learn to think without hurting themselfs. Then morality would be abundant.

edit: I think <_<

[WanderingTaoist]

When we seek we are making ourselfs miserable because we are trying to move yet we stand still. The natural tendancy is to relax again (give up). Envisioning a mystery you merely poke at it since you feel allot of resistance. trying to leave the piece makes your frown angry.

That reminds me of a passage in the Hua Hu Ching: "Scrambling about trying to find inner peace, you lose your inner peace."

edit: I think

And I think you are right.

When the skeptic can doubt doubt itself, they have passed through the dark gate of skepticim.

[______]

When the skeptic can doubt doubt itself, they have passed through the dark gate of skepticim.
Where's nam when you need him? :lol: :P

[Fool Zero]

(locomotive): The limit should be when skepticism gets in the way of producing an answer ,since that is what you are trying to get.

An answer? It seems to me that some answers are more satisfactory than others. Personally, I'd rather have no answer and know I have no answer, than think I have an answer that later turns out not to work after all.

If skepticism (or anything else) can keep me asking questions instead of settling for an early (but less than satisfactory) answer, I'd say that's probably all to the good.

[Fool Zero]

(WanderingTaoist):
That reminds me of a passage in the Hua Hu Ching: "Scrambling about trying to find inner peace, you lose your inner peace."

Or, as it's rendered here (http://www.betaparticle.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=214): "If you scramble about in search of inner peace, you will lose your inner peace."

Which leads me to wonder: why would anyone be scrambling about in search of inner peace if they hadn't already lost it? -- unless, of course, that's meant as a paradox. In that case, I think I like your version better: the scrambling doesn't (eventually, if you're not careful and/or lucky), lead to the losing. It already IS the losing.

(WanderingTaoist, earlier):
... I've never heard of anyone who honestly advocates solipism.

I've often seen the threat of solipsism used as a sort of bogeyman: :nono: "You'd better agree with me and do as I say, or you 'll end up a solipsist [or a communist, or a terrorist] and won't that be awful!"

[scameter]

Well, oddly enough, I've been thinking about doubt recently myself. And I've come to conclude that doubt is an emotional way of thinking. When we doubt something, it is not because of logic or reason; it is because we feel that it is not true in some respect. It is about the feeling, not reason, unlike questioning, which is a logical version of doubt. And, I think that skepticism utilizes the dualed pair of emotional doubt and emotionless questioning, and this is why that skeptics are capable of eithering being more nihilistic, thinking that everything is untrue and that nothing can possibly be true (doubt), and why skeptics can also be questioners who use rationality and logic to question existence in all respects.

[WanderingTaoist]

"You'd better agree with me and do as I say, or you 'll end up a solipsist [or a communist, or a terrorist] and won't that be awful!"

Ah, straw-men! Gotta love 'em! :D

If skepticism (or anything else) can keep me asking questions instead of settling for an early (but less than satisfactory) answer, I'd say that's probably all to the good.

Well said. There is definitely such a thing as healthy skepticism! It's just like good choleserol, only, more abstract!


Which leads me to wonder: why would anyone be scrambling about in search of inner peace if they hadn't already lost it? -- unless, of course, that's meant as a paradox. In that case, I think I like your version better: the scrambling doesn't (eventually, if you're not careful and/or lucky), lead to the losing. It already IS the losing.

Heh, very good point. It's interesting the slight difference of translation can make! To perhaps back up the first interpretation, I believe the Hua Hu Ching also says "You can never lose the Tao. But you can find it."

Well, oddly enough, I've been thinking about doubt recently myself. And I've come to conclude that doubt is an emotional way of thinking. When we doubt something, it is not because of logic or reason; it is because we feel that it is not true in some respect. It is about the feeling, not reason, unlike questioning, which is a logical version of doubt. And, I think that skepticism utilizes the dualed pair of emotional doubt and emotionless questioning, and this is why that skeptics are capable of eithering being more nihilistic, thinking that everything is untrue and that nothing can possibly be true (doubt), and why skeptics can also be questioners who use rationality and logic to question existence in all respects.

That's definitely an interesting analysis! I think you make a very good point. It seems to me that many radical skeptics seem to be under the impression that everything must be rationally proved somehow, never questioning the basis for this belief. Is their insistance on rational proof rational, or irrational?

Descartes might be able to prove everything mathematically (he wasn't!), but there's no way he could mathematically prove that it is necessary to mathematically prove everything.

[Thomas Knierim]

Wandering Taoist: Personally, I think skepticism is like red wine: in small amounts, it's good for your health, but in large quantities it can be dangerous for everyone involved.

Good comparison. You could also say it is like medicine. Scepticism has healing propreties in small to moderate doses and toxic properties in large doses.

With Descartes laying the foundation for modern scepticism, you could easily think that it is an outgrowth of rationalism. I believe this is partly true. Even the scientific method, the epistemic methodology on wich our society is now based, is an outgrowth of scepticism. But of course, scepticism was there before Descartes. It is historically much larger.

There are two things, I personally find disturbing about scepticism. One is the doctrine that all knowledge is ultimately uncertain. The other is the view that moral values are subjective or even arbitrary. I disagree with both of these views. It would take fairly long to explain, so just let me say that there is absolute truth, as well as absolute moral truth in my opinion.

Scepticism has an ugly cousin which -during the past 100 years- has grown much in strength and popularity. That cousin's name is relativism. It is perhaps a consequence of the cultural, scientific, and societal developments of the 20th century, which left many traditional world views shattered.

Ironically, relativism is a reactionary movement, a backwards oriented view, which ties in with classical sophism.

Cheers, Thomas

[WanderingTaoist]

There are two things, I personally find disturbing about scepticism. One is the doctrine that all knowledge is ultimately uncertain. The other is the view that moral values are subjective or even arbitrary. I disagree with both of these views. It would take fairly long to explain, so just let me say that there is absolute truth, as well as absolute moral truth in my opinion.


If you have the time, I'd love to hear your explanation for why/how absolute truth and absolute moral truth exists. I agree with you on both points, but I'm curious to see your justification for them. :)


Scepticism has an ugly cousin which -during the past 100 years- has grown much in strength and popularity. That cousin's name is relativism. It is perhaps a consequence of the cultural, scientific, and societal developments of the 20th century, which left many traditional world views shattered.

Your post pretty much illustrated the connection between these two philosophical beliefs: if everything can be called into doubt except for the fact that I exist, then I can't really know anything except for my own "values". Thus, everything is relative to the individual, since they can only ever know what works for them, not what works for the world.

Scepticism and relativism: cousins in the inbred family of Nihilism. :P

[scameter]

That's definitely an interesting analysis! I think you make a very good point. It seems to me that many radical skeptics seem to be under the impression that everything must be rationally proved somehow, never questioning the basis for this belief. Is their insistance on rational proof rational, or irrational?
Descartes might be able to prove everything mathematically (he wasn't!), but there's no way he could mathematically prove that it is necessary to mathematically prove everything.

:D Excellent way of putting it! And I agree with that way entirely.

Scepticism and relativism: cousins in the inbred family of Nihilism.

All of which are really only good in moderation. :)

[cosmocentipede]

There is one key problem with the indubitable proposition "I am, I exist." That is that one must give a qualified definition of what it means to be, to exist, in order for us to accept it. Upon examination we might find in fact that "is not" is pure abstraction, useful for limited communication, and there are really only varying forms of "is". The loss of a real "is not" necessitates the destruction of the conventional meaning of "is". Therefore "I am, I exist" and "I am not, I do not exist" are equally false propositions. Our being cannot be pinned down by limited description, thus any attempt to do so will produce an extremely partial and essentially falsifiable view.

Doubt taken to the extreme leads to doubt of one's own doubt and becomes absurd in the process. The only answer in limited terms is faith. Faith is trust in the universe, the way, or the divine depending on your preference; which ultimately means trust in yourself. Trust, or faith cannot really be made into a rational argument because it is ultimately an unfalsifiable position. If everything is fundamentally all right according to your view, because you have faith that it is, then nothing can refute you except for your own doubt. A lack of faith in the universe, coupled with the inability to logically conclude one is separate from the universe, translates into a lack of faith in oneself wherein one cannot have faith, or trust, in one's own lack of faith. Psychologically, this is a disharmonious state of being. Therefore, we may argue, faith is more rational than a lack of faith, regardless of its unfalsifiable nature, because it produces a psychological state of greater equilibrium and is more conducive to living harmoniously. How rational is rational thinking if it produces a state of dis-ease in one's own being? The wider our view gets the more rational an irrational view becomes for peace of mind based on the principle that when we find out something hurts us we should stop doing it. But rational and irrational are essentially forms of is and is not, so both must be dropped before real understanding is possible. In this light, what we call faith really is not faith, that is why we call it faith.

To be and not to be are like the front and back of a Mobius strip. In the words of an Ancient: "From one comes two. Do not even keep the one."

[WanderingTaoist]

There is one key problem with the indubitable proposition "I am, I exist." That is that one must give a qualified definition of what it means to be, to exist, in order for us to accept it.

I agree with you, one can infer nothing about what x is merely from knowing that x exists. Congradulations Descartes, you've proved you exist. The real questions are a ) You are, but what are you? and b ) was really necessary to prove one's existence in the first place?

The loss of a real "is not" necessitates the destruction of the conventional meaning of "is".

Without "is not" it seems like one gets caught up in a sort of Parmenidean intellectual paralysis. As you eloquently put it, To be and not to be are like the front and back of a Mobius strip.

I like your insights into the relationship between faith, knowledge, and rationality; if one attempted to find proof or demonstrations of everything one encountered, the list of things to be proved would be infinite. As Chuang Tzu said, "To use the limited to pursue the unlimited is folly."You simply don't have enough time on earth to prove everything, unless you can prove everything in one proof. Descartes tried with his proof for the existance of God (basically just Anselm re-packaged), but it failed utterly.

[bito]

A lack of faith in the universe, coupled with the inability to logically conclude one is separate from the universe, translates into a lack of faith in oneself wherein one cannot have faith, or trust, in one's own lack of faith. Psychologically, this is a disharmonious state of being. Therefore, we may argue, faith is more rational than a lack of faith, regardless of its unfalsifiable nature, because it produces a psychological state of greater equilibrium and is more conducive to living harmoniously. How rational is rational thinking if it produces a state of dis-ease in one's own being? The wider our view gets the more rational an irrational view becomes for peace of mind based on the principle that when we find out something hurts us we should stop doing it. But rational and irrational are essentially forms of is and is not, so both must be dropped before real understanding is possible. In this light, what we call faith really is not faith, that is why we call it faith.

This tickles my mysticism-makes-sense-because-it-doesn't-make-sense button perfectly!

:thumbsup: