The Practical Impossibility and the Theoretical Absurdity of Skepticism
In the world of Philosophy, there are always two groups of philosophers willing to exchange their ideas to rebut what the other group asserted; the believers and the skeptics.
Believers are those with positive outlook in all fields of philosophy. These are the ones who are successful enough in presenting and defending their own doctrines which, until now, is still used in many Universities teaching Philosophy and all its fields. Examples of these philosophers are Aristotle, Socrates and Thomas Aquinas, whose works and doctrines are still very important today.
On the other hand, there will always be skeptics who fail to believe whatever it is that comes their way. In Epistemology, skeptics are those who assert that truth cannot be achieved in any way possible. Universal skeptics doubt or deny the validity of knowledge and assert that they cannot be convinced by any argument.
In this article, we are not trying to convert skeptics themselves but we will show them that skepticism is simply an absurdity in the field of Philosophy as well as in day to day living; we will show them that skepticism is an improper approach to attain the truth and thus logically, it is intrinsically wrong.
Why is Skepticism a Practical Impossibility?
No man in his sound mind can ever live without certainty of any sort. Even the most renowned skeptic cannot deny the fact that he exists and that he can feel anything he touches, he can taste anything he puts in his mouth, he can hear a sound, he can see when he opens his eyes and can feel sad and happy. It is because it’s difficult to negate or get away entirely from the nature of being human.
What can a man do if he tries to deny anything he can see, touch, feel, hear and taste? Nothing. Therefore, it is a practical impossibility that a man can live without practical certitude in any way. And the fact that he knows exactly what his name is, is evident that he is certain what he is called.
Why is Skepticism Theoretical Absurdity?
No man can ever doubt or deny principles, arguments or every thing; not even in a very speculative way. And this has been proven by skeptics themselves due to their inconsistencies. In fact, skeptics are trying to convince everyone that we cannot attain the truth, and they are certain about it. In other words, they are trying to convince us that everyone cannot be certain, BUT they are certain about it.
Now, skeptics must either have valid reasons for their doubt or have no valid reasons at all. The case is, if they have valid reasons they know something which is valid and true but that will make them not skeptics anymore. However, if they do not have reasons to support their arguments, then they do not have reason to doubt everything.
Conclusion
Not all skeptics remained skeptics along the way because they knew that it is just a philosophic absurdity and that their arguments and doctrines will lead them nowhere if they continue to doubt in anything. The point is, it would always better to believe in something or someone, than to roam the world without having something or someone to believe in.
As for the skeptics out there or those people who are trying to believe they are skeptics, here are passages from St. Augustine to make you think;
“If I err, I exist. For one who does not exist, cannot err; and by the very fact that I err, I exist. Since, therefore, I exist, if I err, how can I err about my existence when it is certain that I exist if I err?”
“If he doubts, he lives; if he doubts, he remembers why he doubts; if he doubts, he understands that he doubts; if he doubts, he wants to be certain; if he doubts, he thinks; if he doubts, he knows that he does not know; if he doubts, he judges that he must not give a hasty consent.”
Filed Under: Metaphysics & Philosophy
I think Socrates and Aristotle would have been very 'skeptic' in regards to Thoma d'Aquino's beliefs...
It is important to see skepticism for what it is. It is more of a philosophical tactic than a school of thought. It is a way of stripping a particular philosophical problem down to its bare bones. There is a vast difference between an everyday skeptic and a philosophical skeptic. While it is true that skepticism taken too far becomes self-defeating, that does not mean it is worthless, indeed skepticism is a necessary tool of rational thinking, argumentation and discourse. It places a BS filter on philosophical theorizing. It constrains what can be said to be knowledge and as such is both useful practically and theoretically.
The author of this article might as well say that logic is a great evil. After all, it suffers the same problems as skepticism when taken too far. And if the author is willing to throw out logic (read rational thought) then I don't think there's much left to talk about.
That all aside, I don't know how else to say it... DOUBT is GOOD! Blind, unreasoned, unthinking acceptance of ANYTHING is EVIL.
Believers are those with positive outlook in all fields of philosophy. These are the ones who are successful enough in presenting and defending their own doctrines which, until now, is still used in many Universities teaching Philosophy and all its fields. Examples of these philosophers are Aristotle, Socrates and Thomas Aquinas, whose works and doctrines are still very important today.
This is simply not accurate. Those who love wisdom (a philosopher by definition) are to some degree always skeptical. A natural part of loving wisdom is to ensure its integrity. Skepticism is a process that tests one's beliefs. If you do not test your beliefs (in some way) how can you possibly know if they are true? How can a wise person, a person with wisdom, ignore the question of the truthfulness of their beliefs?
To me, it sounds like you are describing a fool and not a seeker of wisdom.
(Alright I'll let this one go, but let me say it again one more time, this article really doesn't get the point or importance of skepticism.)