Skepticism = Inner Peace

[Veritas Aequitas]

In ancient philosophy, skepticism was understood as a way of life associated with inner peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

ETA:
As pointed out the original OP question is vague;
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism
OP is edited with a focus of skepticism on the claims of philosophical realism and all philosophical issue grounded on philosophical realism, including epistemology, ethics, theism and the like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Surely inner peace is much treasured?
Any takers?

For any yes or no,
Discuss??
Views??

ps: While I oppose and reject philosophical realism, I personally do not accept philosophical skepticism totally.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Iwannaplato]

In ancient philosophy, skepticism was understood as a way of life associated with inner peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

Surely inner peace is much treasured?
Any takers?

For any yes or no,
Discuss??
Views??

So far this topic is too vague. Skepticism about what? What degree of skepticism?
One could be skeptical about everything and this would delay getting out of bed or concluding that you need to pee.
One could be skeptical about your ideas regarding anti-realism or moral realism.

Notice, for example, that the Wikipedia essay include Moral skepticism in skepticism

Moral skepticism (or moral scepticism in British English) is a class of meta-ethical theories all members of which entail that no one has any moral knowledge. Many moral skeptics also make the stronger, modal claim that moral knowledge is impossible. Moral skepticism is particularly opposed to moral realism: the view that there are knowable and objective moral truths.

One person's skepticism is often considered stubborness by others with the beliefs in question.

Skepticism might lead to peace, it might lead to anxiety. We assume we know things with great regularity, for example based on memory. To keep all of that up in suspended belief is unnecessary and likely distracting if not worse.

One trick pony cognitive attitudes are all problematical.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So far this topic is too vague. Skepticism about what? What degree of skepticism?
One could be skeptical about everything and this would delay getting out of bed or concluding that you need to pee.
One could be skeptical about your ideas regarding anti-realism or moral realism.

Notice, for example, that the Wikipedia essay include Moral skepticism in skepticism

Moral skepticism (or moral scepticism in British English) is a class of meta-ethical theories all members of which entail that no one has any moral knowledge. Many moral skeptics also make the stronger, modal claim that moral knowledge is impossible. Moral skepticism is particularly opposed to moral realism: the view that there are knowable and objective moral truths.

One person's skepticism is often considered stubborness by others with the beliefs in question.

Skepticism might lead to peace, it might lead to anxiety. We assume we know things with great regularity, for example based on memory. To keep all of that up in suspended belief is unnecessary and likely distracting if not worse.

One trick pony cognitive attitudes are all problematical.

The above is a fair point raised as a discussion.

Personally my focus of skepticism would be on the claims of philosophical realism and all philosophical issue grounded on philosophical realism, including epistemology, ethics, theism and the like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

[Veritas Aequitas]

Skepticism might lead to peace, it might lead to anxiety. We assume we know things with great regularity, for example based on memory. To keep all of that up in suspended belief is unnecessary and likely distracting if not worse.

Ignorance is bliss.
However, humans are programmed to get out of their ignorance, i.e. they are a programmed with the drive 'to know' greater knowledge of reality.

Because it is inherent all humans are driven to know and be rational, the impulse to know more raise the state of cognitive dissonances thus anxieties and angst which be very disturbing and inner pains.
To counter this skepticism of the old paradigm is one solution to inner peace.

Note the common and very necessary principle of cause and effect.
In flowing with this principle on end up with the regress problem and to avoid cognitive dissonance one hastily jumped to the conclusion the ultimate or first cause.
But one is unable to justify the real existence of an ultimate cause.
This would be a constant dilemma for any thinker with no rational solutions, thus the best course is to suspend judgment as a skeptic on this issue.

There are many cases, when one will be caught with a dilemma and thence the trigger of cognitive dissonances which cause terrible pains.
The best path immediately to avoid such cognitive dissonances to suspend judgment as a skeptic on this issue.
From there one can see more rational solutions based on critical thinking and wisdom to deal with any problem of skepticisms.

[Iwannaplato]

The above is a fair point raised as a discussion.

Thank you.

Personally my focus of skepticism would be on the claims of philosophical realism and all philosophical issue grounded on philosophical realism, including epistemology, ethics, theism and the like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Yes, I get that. And I think skepticism against realism is worthwhile (actually any ism, because now we are not talking about specific beliefs, but overriding metaphysical positions, whole systems, ones that claim to explain at least part of everything - I think in general skepticism against any ism can be productive and valuable (and interesting).

And, yes, I have noticed your skepticism against realism. There's the rub. Reality will be skeptical about other positions. I suppose the best would be, when one is dealing with isms, to be equally skeptical, at least in the beginning, even about one's own position.

Also, I think it is healthy to set skepticism to the side for long periods of time. Generally unhealthy at work, unless one is a customs inspector, for example.

[Iwannaplato]

Ignorance is bliss.
However, humans are programmed to get out of their ignorance, i.e. they are a programmed with the drive 'to know' greater knowledge of reality.[/quote]If I look around me I don't see that as a general rule. But, one could argue that it is human nature, but society, parenting and schooling have practices that inhibit this drive.

Because it is inherent all humans are driven to know and be rational, the impulse to know more raise the state of cognitive dissonances thus anxieties and angst which be very disturbing and inner pains.

Which leads to counterdrives to not even notice anomalies, poor justification, contradictions. You can't make waves if you don't notice the problems and contradictions, and a lot of people do want peace and safety. We seem to have a drive to avoid noticing cognitive dissonance (or we are trained to be that way).

Note the common and very necessary principle of cause and effect.
In flowing with this principle on end up with the regress problem and to avoid cognitive dissonance one hastily jumped to the conclusion the ultimate or first cause.
But one is unable to justify the real existence of an ultimate cause.
This would be a constant dilemma for any thinker with no rational solutions, thus the best course is to suspend judgment as a skeptic on this issue.

I think most people can manage quite well without every worrying about realism vs. antirealism. Even to decide to suspend judgment isn't necessary for them.

This is philosophy forum so beginning from noll, so to speak, is a different story, and people who are interested in philosophy will get more out of such suspension. It is also useful for a society that some people explore these things in the relevant fields.

There are many cases, when one will be caught with a dilemma and thence the trigger of cognitive dissonances which cause terrible pains.
The best path immediately to avoid such cognitive dissonances to suspend judgment as a skeptic on this issue.

Actually I disagree with this, at least as it is worded.
To suspend judgment is to allow the cognitive dissonance to be there. Most people avoid cognitive dissonance. They want an answer and they want the answer they already have -usually one passed down to them by those authorities they respect (and/or who have power over them). This is how they avoid feeling and sitting with cognitive dissonance.

But to suspend judgment is to allow the cognitive dissonance to be present, and like any challenge one can learn to reduce the suffering and fear around this. One learns that it is ok to notice what seem like anomalies, even in cherished beliefs.

If we are thinking of Pyrronists, for example, they would advocate for suspension of disbelief to avoid conflict, amongst other things. In other words, one should stop advocating for a position. Are you ready to do that? To suspend your judgments regarding realism and antirealism? Objective morals and moral relativism?

Some quotes

Not more, nothing more (a saying attributed to Democritus[18])
Non-assertion (aphasia)
Perhaps, it is possible, maybe
I withhold assent
I determine nothing (Montaigne created a variant of this as his own personal motto, "Que sais-je?" – "what do I know?")
Everything is indeterminate
Everything is non-apprehensible
I do not apprehend
To every argument an equal argument is opposed

This would suggest not advocating for a position, at least on many things.
That one does not prove or demonstrate, in any final way, because to every argument an equal argument is opposed.

Should you follow such a set of heuristics, your posting would be completely different.

Note: I am not saying you should do this, or shouldn't follow these kinds of suggestions, for that matter.

Just trying to tease out what this actually means and I don't really see anyone here living by the classic suspension of belief heuristics.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ignorance is bliss.
However, humans are programmed to get out of their ignorance, i.e. they are a programmed with the drive 'to know' greater knowledge of reality.

If I look around me I don't see that as a general rule. But, one could argue that it is human nature, but society, parenting and schooling have practices that inhibit this drive.

Surely you are not oblivious to the fact that every normal child have this drive to ask why, why, why, why ...

Asking “why” typically starts about the time children are 2 years old and continues through the age of 5 years old.
https://news.sanfordhealth.org/parentin ... s-ask-why/#:~

So it is an inherent in human nature except that drive to know got more subtle as one ages or that drive is thwarted by upbringing and negative nurture factors.

Because it is inherent all humans are driven to know and be rational, the impulse to know more raise the state of cognitive dissonances thus anxieties and angst which be very disturbing and inner pains.

Which leads to counterdrives to not even notice anomalies, poor justification, contradictions. You can't make waves if you don't notice the problems and contradictions, and a lot of people do want peace and safety. We seem to have a drive to avoid noticing cognitive dissonance (or we are trained to be that way).

The cognitive dissonance trigger subliminal pains and angst that drive one to find consonance [do whatever it takes, e.g. theism, philosophical realism, and so on] to soothe the pains.

Note the common and very necessary principle of cause and effect.
In flowing with this principle on end up with the regress problem and to avoid cognitive dissonance one hastily jumped to the conclusion the ultimate or first cause.
But one is unable to justify the real existence of an ultimate cause.
This would be a constant dilemma for any thinker with no rational solutions, thus the best course is to suspend judgment as a skeptic on this issue.

I think most people can manage quite well without every worrying about realism vs. antirealism. Even to decide to suspend judgment isn't necessary for them.

This is philosophy forum so beginning from noll, so to speak, is a different story, and people who are interested in philosophy will get more out of such suspension. It is also useful for a society that some people explore these things in the relevant fields.

They may not bother with the realism vs antirealism dichotomy, but majority by evolutionary default will be inclined to theism, philosophical realism of all kinds to soothe the very painful [subliminally] cognitive dissonance emerging from an existential crisis.

There are many cases, when one will be caught with a dilemma and thence the trigger of cognitive dissonances which cause terrible pains.
The best path immediately to avoid such cognitive dissonances to suspend judgment as a skeptic on this issue.

Actually I disagree with this, at least as it is worded.
To suspend judgment is to allow the cognitive dissonance to be there. Most people avoid cognitive dissonance. They want an answer and they want the answer they already have -usually one passed down to them by those authorities they respect (and/or who have power over them). This is how they avoid feeling and sitting with cognitive dissonance.

But to suspend judgment is to allow the cognitive dissonance to be present, and like any challenge one can learn to reduce the suffering and fear around this. One learns that it is ok to notice what seem like anomalies, even in cherished beliefs.

If we are thinking of Pyrronists, for example, they would advocate for suspension of disbelief to avoid conflict, amongst other things. In other words, one should stop advocating for a position. Are you ready to do that? To suspend your judgments regarding realism and antirealism? Objective morals and moral relativism?

Certain cognitive dissonance can be resolved while others are inevitable and unavoidable.
My point is with reference the management and modulation of the inherent inevitable cognitive dissonances such that the associated pains are mitigated.

Some quotes

Not more, nothing more (a saying attributed to Democritus[18])
Non-assertion (aphasia)
Perhaps, it is possible, maybe
I withhold assent
I determine nothing (Montaigne created a variant of this as his own personal motto, "Que sais-je?" – "what do I know?")
Everything is indeterminate
Everything is non-apprehensible
I do not apprehend
To every argument an equal argument is opposed

This would suggest not advocating for a position, at least on many things.
That one does not prove or demonstrate, in any final way, because to every argument an equal argument is opposed.

Should you follow such a set of heuristics, your posting would be completely different.

Note: I am not saying you should do this, or shouldn't follow these kinds of suggestions, for that matter.

Just trying to tease out what this actually means and I don't really see anyone here living by the classic suspension of belief heuristics.

I don't follow the above as a general rule but take them into account on a case to case basis.

Generally I take the skeptic path, but not its 'ism'.
As such I will keep pounding - on whatever is suspended temporary - with critical thinking and deep reflection.

[Iwannaplato]

If I look around me I don't see that as a general rule. But, one could argue that it is human nature, but society, parenting and schooling have practices that inhibit this drive.

Surely you are not oblivious to the fact that every normal child have this drive to ask why, why, why, why ...

Did you not see the second sentence above that you quoted? Second, you had to go to chiIdren to point out a common counterexampIe. Perhaps it's a phase as the young organism is in the abiIity-buiIding phase. In any case, I stand by my observation that this...

However, humans are programmed to get out of their ignorance, i.e. they are a programmed with the drive 'to know' greater knowledge of reality

does not fit my experience with most peopIe.

Asking “why” typically starts about the time children are 2 years old and continues through the age of 5 years old.
https://news.sanfordhealth.org/parentin ... s-ask-why/#:~

So it is an inherent in human nature except that drive to know got more subtle as one ages or that drive is thwarted by upbringing and negative nurture factors.

Which is exactIy what I offered as a possibIe expIanation above. However, that drive seems not to win out over other drives: the drive to fit in, the drive to be normaI, the drive to foIIow authority. And you caII them negative nurture factors - and I'd agree - but those are our vaIues. Pretty much every human society has engaged in those factors we consider negative AND their drive to do that is supervened on brain states.

And we wouId be specuIating if we consider necessariIy something other than ChiIdren need to Iearn, it's a phase. Then they get their puberty hormones and their motivations shift.

You don't just get to say 'this is a naturaI drive and it's objective' and other drives behaviors tendencies are not naturaI and objective. Humans seem to have a drive to stop chiIdren from continuing to questions things in the same way.
ChiIdren seem to have drives to get aIong, to not seem dumb or weird, to fit in, to be accepted, to accept things, to be toId what to do and have as thoughts and beIefs.
These drives are naturaI aIso.
If you are going to go from IS to OUGHT then you can't use speciaI pIeading to avoid noticing naturaI patterns and brain states you don't want and avoid caIIing them objective aIso. This is a form of the special pleading fallacy by selectively applying an argument to only the cases one prefers, while ignoring other relevant cases that would lead to undesirable conclusions. This selective application creates an inconsistency in reasoning, even if someone denies the similarity when it is pointed out.

And you wiII certainy notice chidren teIIing other chidren to just accept X, to not as so many questions, to stop being stupid 'obviousIy it is X' and so on. These are naturaI drives that peopIe use as aduIts, in part because the roIe of teacher, parent, cop, court system, corporation, in society is made easier by shutting such things down. I may not approve, you may not approve, but we don't just get to say onIy what I Iike is natural and so objective.

Which leads to counterdrives to not even notice anomalies, poor justification, contradictions. You can't make waves if you don't notice the problems and contradictions, and a lot of people do want peace and safety. We seem to have a drive to avoid noticing cognitive dissonance (or we are trained to be that way).

The cognitive dissonance trigger subliminal pains and angst that drive one to find consonance [do whatever it takes, e.g. theism, philosophical realism, and so on] to soothe the pains.

Any type of beIief or activity can soothe cognitive dissonance. The most common is to be anxiety-fear phobic. You feeI a tiny hint that some experience or argument or thing contradicts a beIief you hoId dear....and you shift away from paying attention to it.

They may not bother with the realism vs antirealism dichotomy, but majority by evolutionary default will be inclined to theism,
philosophical realism of all kinds to soothe the very painful [subliminally] cognitive dissonance emerging from an existential crisis.

You'd need to demonstrate that cIaim about reaIism. And it functions remarabIy weII for everything peopIe need to do in their days. It's not as if they are fighting cognitive dissonance and ignoring anomaIies that point to anti-reaIism. They're not studying data at CERN.

I don't follow the above as a general rule but take them into account on a case to case basis.

Are you ever skepticaI about the criteria you base your decisions on whether to question something or not? Are you ever skepticaI about your own concIusions about other peopIe's arguments and what might be motivating your concIusions?

[Gary Childress]

To me, sometimes (in my case) penitence and acceptance of my faults is inner peace. Of course, a guy has to have lots of faults in order for penitence and acceptance to give inner peace.

Perhaps inner peace is achieved differently, depending upon the person?

[Iwannaplato]

To me, sometimes (in my case) penitence and acceptance of my faults is inner peace. Of course, a guy has to have lots of faults in order for penitence and acceptance to give inner peace.

Perhaps inner peace is achieved differently, depending upon the person?

I would think so. and even what is considered inner peace. And then how this state is prioritized. Some might like more passive states. Some might prefer more dynamic states.