Philosophy Now Forum

Contradictions may play an important role in defeating weak versions of skepticism.

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:59 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:55 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:31 am

Agrippa's trilemma is self-refuting alright. What else is self-refuting? That, mon ami, is the million dollar question.

It all began with the claim that we can know things. How? If so then ... Agrippa's Trilemma

you appear to be OBVIOUSLY MISSING the WHOLE POINT here.

'agrippa's trilemma' ITSELF is CLAIMING to KNOW some 'thing'. Is this understood, by you?

And, HOW can 'agrippa's trilemma' PROVE that what 'it' CLAIMS TO KNOW is true, right, or incorrect?

SEE, EVERY time ANY 'thing' 'TRIES TO' CLAIM that A TRUTH can NOT BE KNOWN, then that is A SELF-REFUTING CLAIM, ITSELF.

I intelligo mon ami. Blunder detected. However if skepticism is self-refuting, there's something else wrong with Descartes.

LOL WHOEVER SAID or CLAIMED that 'skepticism' is self-refuting here?

Also, the word "descartes" is just used to separate one (or a few) human being/s from "other human beings".

There is absolutely NOTHING 'wrong' with ANY human being. However, within ALL adult human beings there are SOME 'thoughts' that are False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect and some 'thoughts' that are True, Right, and/or Correct. (The human being known here as "descartes" was ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT in this regard.) The 'secret' here is just LEARNING HOW to LEARN HOW to DISTINGUISH between the Right from the Wrong, the Correct from the Incorrect, the Falsehoods from the ACTUAL, IRREFUTABLE Truth.

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 5:01 am Contradictions may play an important role in defeating skepticism.

Is 'skepticism' REALLY some 'thing' that is NEEDS TO BE or even WANTS TO BE 'defeated'?

If yes, then WHY do you PRESUME 'skepticism' NEEDS TO BE 'defeated', or, WHY do you even WANT to 'defeat' 'skepticism'?

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 5:07 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:59 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 4:55 am

you appear to be OBVIOUSLY MISSING the WHOLE POINT here.

'agrippa's trilemma' ITSELF is CLAIMING to KNOW some 'thing'. Is this understood, by you?

And, HOW can 'agrippa's trilemma' PROVE that what 'it' CLAIMS TO KNOW is true, right, or incorrect?

SEE, EVERY time ANY 'thing' 'TRIES TO' CLAIM that A TRUTH can NOT BE KNOWN, then that is A SELF-REFUTING CLAIM, ITSELF.

I intelligo mon ami. Blunder detected. However if skepticism is self-refuting, there's something else wrong with Descartes.

LOL WHOEVER SAID or CLAIMED that 'skepticism' is self-refuting here?

Also, the word "descartes" is just used to separate one (or a few) human being/s from "other human beings".

There is absolutely NOTHING 'wrong' with ANY human being. However, within ALL adult human beings there are SOME 'thoughts' that are False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect and some 'thoughts' that are True, Right, and/or Correct. (The human being known here as "descartes" was ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT in this regard.) The 'secret' here is just LEARNING HOW to LEARN HOW to DISTINGUISH between the Right from the Wrong, the Correct from the Incorrect, the Falsehoods from the ACTUAL, IRREFUTABLE Truth.

Skepticism, true, is not self-refuting.

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 5:01 am Contradictions may play an important role in defeating weak versions of skepticism.

Contradictions may exist but are they some 'thing' one REALLY WANTS, or NEEDS.

Will you provide examples of so-called 'weak versions' 'of skepticism' from supposed 'strong versions of skepticism'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 5:11 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 5:01 am Contradictions may play an important role in defeating weak versions of skepticism.

Contradictions may exist but are they some 'thing' one REALLY WANTS, or NEEDS.

Will you provide examples of so-called 'weak versions' 'of skepticism' from supposed 'strong versions of skepticism'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Think ping pong ball, tennis ball, football, bowling ball, wrecking ball.

I was mistaken. Agrippa's probably just another Sherlock Holmes.

Socrates (paradox) wrote:I know that I know nothing.

Who's Socrates?!

Agrippa's Trilemma was overkill. Why on earth shoot a dead person?

"We're close, just a few more clicks" announced Reeves, quite pleased. "Whaddaya mean we're close? We're already here you fool," Wallace corrected. "No we're not!" "Yes we are!" "No we're not!" "Yes we are!" ... there was nuthin extraordinary about the sunset that day, 15th of you-gotta-be-kidding-me-uary, go-ta-hell-ya-moron AD.

"I don't know what to do, I don't know what to do, I don't know what to do!, Megan was chanting and next to tears. Benny looked at Megan, he didn't like it when she was sad. He asked, pointedly, "is this before or after?" Megan turned to face him "before or after what?" she shot back. Benny said, "that's not the right question, is it Megan?" "It's backwards, isn't it?" she queried, her eyes watery. "I'm not sure Megan" Benny responded, "God moves in a mysterious way." Megan began to laugh, she wiped her eyes, feeling better about the situation.

Skepticism, just like most attitudes, seems to be problematic if it is your only tool.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 11:37 am Skepticism, just like most attitudes, seems to be problematic if it is your only tool.

I agree. Skepticism is a fantastic tool, but a person who doesn't at least act like he believes some things is probably not going to be very successful by any metric.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 12:20 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 11:37 am Skepticism, just like most attitudes, seems to be problematic if it is your only tool.

I agree. Skepticism is a fantastic tool, but a person who doesn't at least act like he believes some things is probably not going to be very successful by any metric.

And you get into real trouble in philosophical contexts if you are regularly skeptical but mount complicated arguments.

Similarly if one is mainly antirealist but want to use realist arguments and research to support your case.
and
Or mainly constructivist but want to show others are objectively wrong.

Or mainly relativist but.....

Or argue that everything is subjective and we have no certain contact with external reality are confidently use that 'we'

Cake and eat it too is the order of the day.

I haven't seen a good comeback to the skeptics and their disciples. I don't really understand why? The answer is, as a certain American singer once sang, probably ... blowing in the wind. Is it 2023 AD or 545 BC?

"He's from Borneo!"

"I'm not sure!"

"Why? Did he say he's from Nippon?"

"What?! Look at him! Where do you suppose he said he's from?"

"He claims to be from Nippon, right, right?!"

"No! Are you insane!? Look at him!!"

"Pardon the intrusion gentlemen. I couldn't help but overhear your conversation. I may be able to help. I need a blank sheet of paper ... merci ... and a pen ... no not a pen, a pencil. Merci mademoiselle. I'm a private detective and I'm on vacation and the sooner we identify Mr. Mr. ... aah ... a swami ... the sooner we can establish the honorable swami's nationality the better it is for all of us. I paint as a hobby. Look at what I'm sketching gentlemen. I actually only need to draw his hair to settle the matter ... there ... do you see?"

"Oh! That's ... that's ... "

"Précisément!!"