Definitely the most fascinating thing when it comes to skepticism is not that severely philosophically doubtful people are present – it is the opinions that come from guiltless principles and get to amazing deductions. Rationalists like Locke argue that “all knowledge is based on reason (and the reasoned analysis of certain innate concepts and ideas that are possessed and understood by everyone). ” Therefore, the inherent uncertainty of sensory experience (i. e. optical illusions and hallucinations) cannot provide a solid foundation for knowledge.
Normally, a skeptic starts from several of explanations for a single situation but they will always end in wrong conclusions. Skepticism can take you to fertile results if you contemplate the following and consider the Sorites Paradox. First of all, admit these three properties. If you have two eyes – and can see clearly- that means you are not blind. And if you have mostly no eyes or cannot see either, then you are not blind. Likewise, if you take off one eye, this does not make you completely blind.
So keep taking your two eyes off. Agreeing with this evidence, you should not get blind . However; you would get blind (www. philosophytalk. org). In addition, if we make reference to Descartes’ Meditations dispute. What Descartes argument means is that “the kind of evidence we have for our beliefs underdetermines what to believe (60). ” Hence, we could use Bertrand Russell’s example. Imagine you had some kind of hallucinations consequence from some kind of drug or substance.
In this case, how could someone differentiate their ‘dream’ life from their ‘real’ life? Since the skeptic never accepts that we are actually having a dream in the place of living. In fact, the skeptic states that our existing evidence does not regulate the chance that it could be a dream instead of real life. Idealism is definitely a good solution for skepticism. Moreover, skepticism creates the difference among our thoughts or observations and things that provide importance to these thoughts and perceptions such as dreams or any life experience.
So, demanding that the universe is part of our ideas would separate the problematic of skepticism. For example, there is nothing concluded about the existence of a chair than just the impression that the table is there. During decades, many philosophers and skeptics have always had an extremist position as a way to give strength to their opinions. Though, idealism is actually more absurd than skepticism and our commonsense should allow us to reject it (Philosophical Reporter (4:50): Polly Stryker interviews Michael Shermer, the director of Skeptic Society).
I believe that many skeptical opinions do not necessarily have to be based on a strong formation of knowledge. We can believe whatever we want– whether or not those beliefs are based on a complete form of knowledge? If knowledge is hypothetically that type of belief-with that kind of authority- whatever it is, that sustains skeptical opinions, then we probably do not count the privilege of having that “knowledge. ” Nevertheless, we believe in several things and some of those beliefs are more or less acceptable by argument and/or evidence.
Undoubtedly, many of the things we believe in are “strong enough” for this life with a list full of different and infinite purposes, even if the skeptic is right that none of them deserve the honorific label “knowledge” (Stroud, 96). Whenever we believe in something, we risk more than having some kind of knowledge . When I purely believe something and do not any doubt it and actually have evidences to support it, then that is when I cannot even have the thought or idea that my belief could be wrong for a certain reason. So Knowledge is in a way stronger than that.
One cannot know that p, unless p is the case (Nozick, 109). There are serious doubts about the reliability of sensory experience on human beings in the development of ideas, and the possibility of ‘certain knowledge’ is definitely questionable. So, while experiences are the foundation for knowledge and certainty, we cannot fully trust our experiences, and cannot hope to accomplish certainty in our knowledge of the world. Reasoning a bit, we can realize that knowledge would always be dependable from the passing of time, and that knowledge could change anytime as well.
Different kinds of advances, transformations and variations could lead knowledge to be moldable in anyway in any area depending on what we believe now and what we will believe later based on science or the resemblance of the past. All knowledge is a product of human experience, and is not possible that people are born with innate ideas . On the other hand, beliefs will always be based on the criteria of each people that comprise a whole different world, and our beliefs would hardly change the way we see and justify things that surround us in a period of five years or less.
I do not think that knowledge is as important as it seems. I tend to believe that the rational part does everything. We want all of our beliefs to be constant under the stress that the rational pressure causes. When those balanced belief are being formed, our goal is to reach those beliefs that are receptive to all the stress of rational beliefs and that even after all that force of a rational belief, they can keep themselves firm.
Perhaps a belief that is privileged of having such receptiveness to reasons and could appreciate the stability of not having any pressure by any rational beliefs, and then it would gain the honor to be named knowledge. * www. Philosophytalk. org * Nozick, Robert. An Analysis of Knowledge. Philosophical Inquiry. Indianapolis. Hacket Publishing Company Inc. 2007 * Stroud, Barry. Philosophical Scepticism and Everyday Life. Philosophical Inquiry. Indianapolis. Hacket Publishing Company Inc. 2007 * Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. Philosophical Inquiry. Indianapolis. Hacket Publishing Company Inc. 2007.