Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2023 7:17 am
Inner peace or equanimity is a fundamental ground that facilitates the well-being of one's life whether it is related to achievements of whatever [family, etc.].
The optimal performance of any human endeavor is facilitated by inner peace, calmness, equanimity with full concentration.
And note that there is no justification here. One could argue that passion (to achieve, to protect one's family, to create) is what has driven the best things, and that dynamic attitudes has facilitated human endeavors. And then both sides could argue away with neither demonstrating one conclusion must be better than the other. So, according to P Skepticism, one should therefore abstain from believing either postion.
To Pyrrhonists, the "suspension of judgment" is to alleviate the source of pains and sufferings related to 'dogmatic judgment in the belief an mind-independent objective ultimate reality without justified evidence.'
They were not at all clearly anti-realists.
Further they also were skeptical about values.
And then, where's the evidence?
Just a lot of deductive speculation.
Analogy:
When a splinter is embedded within one flesh, there is the real feeling of pains and sufferings.
Removing the splinter will remove the source of the pains and sufferings.
To Pyrrhonists, the "suspension of judgment" [is like removing the splinter] to alleviate the source of pains and sufferings related to 'dogmatic judgment in the belief an mind-independent objective ultimate reality without justified evidence.'
The good old fallacy of analogy.
And note the begged question: should we evaluate everything through whether it alleviates suffering? Well, that would suggest to artists that striving to achieve great works is wrong. In fact striving in general. And of course it could make one an antinatalist. If you have a child that child will suffer. So either all parents are wrong to have children or there are other things more important, at least to many people, than the reduction of suffering.
In that situation, a Pyrrhonist has to suspend judgment on any 'dogmatic judgment in the belief an mind-independent objective ultimate reality without justified evidence' but making the provision he will change his mind if evidence is justified as proof.
When a a Pyrrhonist suspends judgment on any [philosophical, moral, scientific, etc.] beliefs, it does not mean he is giving up on the whole matter, rather he will continue to seek and/or await justified evidence to accept any claims on reality. This is what a non-Scientific_realist is doing.
One of the central principle in Pyrrhonism is probability, thus leading to degrees of objectivity.
Though he should also suspend belief that suspending belief is the right thing to do, until it is demonstrated that the value of not making mistakes, or not being passionate, or not pursuing challenges (which, yes, sadly can lead to disappointment) are the right choices.
Nowhere has this been demonstrated, so they should suspend judgment on whether suspending judgment is the right choice.
And note the irony of someone who is constantly telling people he disagrees with that they are gnats or primitive, now telling people that if one cannot be sure, one should suspend judgment.
But further here we have someone who says that realism makes one more likely to commit violence. He has labelled other groups this way without a shred of empirical evidence. Just more speculative deduction. His 'evidence' is that realists have committed acts of violence. Well, duh. Most poeple have been realists. What he cannot show is that antirealists are less violent. It's not even that he cannot separate out correlation from cause, but that he can't even demonstrate comparative correlation.
But does he suspend judgement.....Nope.
In fact he with great regularity asserts speculation as if it is demonstrated knowledge.