The Argument Essay: The Philosophy Of Skepticism

Without knowing that there are philosophies that try to explain the idea of Skepticism, I have always tried to not claim anything or accept anything that could not be proven to me in some way (Detrick, “In Search of Truth: Western Philosophy”). This can be a problem for some people when it comes to religion, but the facts that have been produced, have me able to accept the idea of Christianity in most instances. That being said, I now know that I am also a little agnostic because, I believe, “that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty (Detrick, “In Search of Truth: Western

W: What are sceptics? Sceptics are those who believe we have not come to the final answer, so they continue to research and learn about it to no end (185). This state in sceptics is perpetuated by uncertainty in a final answer, so further pondering and research is done on it (185).

The words “certainty” and “doubt” have many varying connotations and implications given a specific context. Even though the definitions of these two words are considered polar opposites of each other, there is one connection between the two that is undeniable: both certainty and doubt can be taken with a grain of salt, as they are all merely just opinions specific to the person that those concepts are presented to. Adding on to that, there is also a concept relating to this; the idea that there is always “the certainty of doubt” and that they are merely two sides of the same coin.

René Descartes was a skeptic, and thus he believed that in order for something to be considered a true piece of knowledge, that “knowledge must have a certain stability,” (Cottingham 21). In his work, Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes concludes that in order to achieve this stability, he must start at the foundations for all of his opinions and find the basis of doubt in each of them. David Hume, however, holds a different position on skepticism in his work An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, for he criticizes Descartes’ claim because “‘it is impossible,’” (qtd. in Cottingham 35). Both philosophers show distinct reasoning in what skepticism is and how it is useful in finding stability.

Skepticism is something that we all have to one degree or another. Some of us who carry some Limited (Local) Skepticism might question whether we can really know if the news anchor is giving us correct information or if the five day forecast is really on track this time regarding the rain it is predicting. Others subscribe to the Global Skepticism view; that is, they would argue that we cannot know anything at all, and, therefore, we can’t have knowledge of anything (Feldman 109). As a global skeptic, we would not only challenge the same things that limited skeptics confront, but we would challenge the very essence of our being. If this form of skepticism is valid, we would have to reexamine

Skepticism is one of the most important debates in philosophy, skepticism could be describe as the doubt or refusing attitude towards reality and knowledge. This idea of doubting knowledge has been around since the 1st century BC with the foundation of the Greek skeptic school known as Pyrrhonism. Since that time, the idea of skepticism has remained the same and many people from our time still questioning themselves about reality; "How can I be certain about reality, if I cannot even trust my own senses?". One of the many examples of this belief is Rene Descartes and his famous "Dreaming Argument"; where he states that everything that we know is only part of a dream, a dream where nobody wants to wake up because we feel comfortable on it and we are afraid that reality could be cruel. However, due to the fact that skepticism is a very controversial idea, another group of people emerged to denied skepticism.

and avoid the postulation of final truths. This is not necessarily quite the same as claiming that truth is impossible, but is often also used to cover the position that there is no such thing as certainty in human knowledge (Mastin). Hume divided skepticism on two types: moderate and radical. Moderate scepticism usually maintains that we can know that something is true but only by certain methods, for instance, only by inference or, in other words, implication. According to this form of scepticism, it is usually allowable to accept our common, everyday beliefs. Radical scepticism, however, wants to say that we can never have knowledge of anything regardless of the particular method or theory that a philosopher might endorse (VHS).

Jonathan Vogel wrote Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation as a solution to accept the real world hypothesis over any skeptical hypothesis. Vogel presents a compelling argument for a definitive reason to accept that the world we are experiencing is in fact the real world. I believe that Vogel’s argument falls short of proving a reason for accepting the real world hypothesis over a skeptical one. In this paper I will clearly explain Vogels argument, explain some important concepts to understand, and attempt to refute the argument.

In comparing ancient skeptics Titus Lucretius Carcus and Wang Ch’ung they come from two different backgrounds one of higher education another that had no former learning or training yet have great theories of mythology and philosophy of what was to be or could be in a person life. Special fears that shaped their lives and caused them to be superstitious and even skeptical in the way they lived their own lives. Skepticism is considered “is an attitude of doubting the truth of something, such as a claim or statement.” (Webster Dictionary, 2016).

Rene Descartes was a brilliant man and led the way for modern philosophy. When it came to the role of skepticism, he doubted everything to find a basic truth, if any. He came to a conclusion for two beliefs, the dreaming world and the evil demon, the dreaming world was if anything, this could all be a dream, while the evil demon keeps you from the truth, by deceiving. God plays a big role for resolving his doubts because for a lesser being to have doubts, we must originate it from a greater being (god). Since god is good he would not allow the evil demon to have his way, clearing all doubt for Descartes.

The core concepts of ancient skepticism is suspension of judgment, which is why they are knows as “those who suspend” meaning that their investigations lead them to suspended judgment (Vogt). The skeptic’s aspire to not support anything. Like the Stoics and Epicureans the skeptics followed a practical goal, inner peace and independence (Ricken 220). I believe that living with this ideology of life is not possible. Suspending judgment is just a nicer way of saying suppressing judgment. Judgment is a natural survival guide our bodies create. Our judgment tells us whether we are in danger, or safe. Surprising a natural drive will have serious cognitive effects on our brain and I believe it is impossible to completely suppress judgment. This is why I believe that ancient skepticism is not a practical way in life but if they were to revise it and represented the ideology would practicable. If the ancient skeptics removed the part about suspending judgment and instead of suppressing judgment they took the original judgment investigated their thoughts until they have received sufficient evidence to the point they could make fair. I believe the ancient skeptics had the start to really good idea with curiosity of investigating everything that is presented to them but I don’t believe that it’s possible to live suppressing

Philosophical skepticism, according to Scottish philosopher David Hume, is asking whether human beings can perceive the world around us with any degree of accuracy. Practicing this school of thought means that a person initially never believes anything to be true, but at the same time, does not say everything is necessarily false; instead, he maintains a position of doubt. The final source of truth for a skeptic is experience. In terms of skepticism vs. rationalism vs. romanticism and their usage today, the school of skepticism is the strongest way of thinking, drawing the best conclusions. Rationalism, which uses reason and logic for its basis, is flawed, according to skeptics, in that their "rational thought" is swayed by desires. As for romanticism, which moves away from the emphasis on science and focuses more on the freedom and creativity of mind (and idealism, where reality varies per person), it is not always applicable in a world that seeks definite answers.

The classical version in skepticism is called Pyrrhonism. It was named after an early advocate known as Pyrrho (365 BCE – 270 BCE) became so frustrated between two arguments, not being able to choose which to follow due to reasonable views on both side, and decided to make a decision to drop his concerns with the subject. With this, he figured that the frustration that came with picking sides and choosing what to believe was not worth it and believed that you cannot be certain about the truth. Once admitting this to himself, he achieved the inner peace he was looking for that was later called ataraxia.

This philosophical study will defend the premise of skepticism in relation to the epistemology of testimony. Skepticism provides a more evaluative and complex response to the reductionist acquisition of knowledge by rejecting any form of absolute knowledge. Reductionism provides a holistic way to describe the functions of knowledge in theories proposed by Descartes, yet these functions can be further reduced to more obscure or even non-existent causalities. More so, antireductionism is not a sufficient means of describing the underlying functions of knowledge, since it seeks to define the absolute foundations of a system of thought in a non-holistic manner. This is why skepticism is

‘The end goal of the Pyrrhonian skeptic is to promote suspense of judgment because they claim that it is in our opinion and personal truths that we develop desires, painful efforts, good and bad, fear, and disappointment. To accept everything as is, will bring bliss and peace of mind.’ The Pyrrhonian skeptic views skepticism as a good thing for they have the skill of finding for every argument and equal and opposing argument, this will bring suspension of judgment on any issue considered by the