The concept of skepticism has emerged as an attempt to oppose specific notions, assumptions, and processes that do not have grounds. Therefore, skeptical people are those who have doubts about specific issues. Being skeptical about the judgments of other people implies a possibility to refute the issue. It also implies that they cannot claim or specific assumptions because of inadequate reasoning or explanation.
Because it is impossible to be confident in everything, people can be skeptical about everything. However, questions arise concerning the possibilities of prejudice all existing knowledge. There are schools of thought that claiming that all existing knowledge is always uncertain. It is of particular concern to Cicero, who played a major role in shaping the concept of skepticism and uncertainty. Despite these philosophical underpinnings, there were schools of thought that were inclined to think that the boundaries of uncertainty exist.
Specific attention deserves Pyrrhonic School that manages to establish the limits of uncertainty. In particular, the fact that a person claims with certainty that he/she knows nothing establishes the boundaries of uncertainty. Further development of philosophical claims allowed the Pyrrhnoic skeptics to prove that all the claims could be refuted.
For instance, I agree with the claims introduced by Descartes. In particular, the philosophers famous claim, I think, and therefore I am is full of certainty. Hence, a person perceives the world through a thinking process, which is the evidence of his/her existence. Also, it is possible to prove that something exists because it can be opposed to nothing. Therefore, the existence of opposite notions is certain evidence itself of existence. While using similar approaches, it is possible to establish the boundaries of uncertainty in all spheres of knowledge.
Truth and Limits of Knowledge
On the one hand, there is an assumption that the world exists outside our minds and that it is absolute in its origins and epistemological meaning. On the other hand, the world can be regarded as a set of individuals experiences and responses to the surrounding worlds. The latter assumption creates some challenges and controversies because the world is not always presented in the way people perceive it.
It is of particular to cases when ones attitude to an object is premised on the perception of other people (Audi, 2010). Such a perspective also undermines the possibilities of human awareness of the truth. However, several certain facts justify the existence of the truth, as well as possibilities for individuals to perceive the world as it is.
Taking into consideration the fact humans are part of the world, they can also be considered part of the absolute reality. As a result, the way people understand and perceive reality is also a part of the process of reality formation. Besides, the fact that the majority of people accept the world similarly also justifies the fact that humans are capable of conceiving true knowledge. Another problem concerns the concepts of thinking and sensing.
Thus, Descartes premises on the idea that thinking is the evidence of existence. In contrast, sensing cannot be considered as evidence of human existence because individuals have different degrees of perception. However, the very fact of humans ability to feel and express emotion can also testify to the existence of emotions, which is also a part of absolute reality.
Reference
Audi, R. (2010). Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. US: Taylor & Francis.
One of the main criticisms of David Humes gnoseological model has been traditionally reflective of the assumption that being strongly reductionist denies the possibility for people to be able to attain a complete understanding of the surrounding natural/social reality. Because of it, Humes outlook on gnoseology has been commonly referred to as such that epitomizes the dead end of empiricist philosophy. 1 Nevertheless, even though many individuals (especially the idealistically minded ones) tend to think of the philosophers insights into the very nature of human cognition as being overly mechanistic, this does not undermine the overall scientific legitimacy of Humes line of reasoning. After all, the recent discoveries in the fields of neuroscience and quantum physics confirm the full validity of the gnoseological model in question. The author will aim to substantiate the discursive appropriateness of this suggestion at length while arguing that Humes philosophy contributed towards keeping humanity on the path of intellectual progress.
Analysis/Discussion
The foremost idea that is being promoted throughout the selected sections in Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is that there are two integral components of ones conscious reasoning: impression and idea. The former refers to a persons sensory-based experiences and the latter to his or her subjective judgments, with respect to what should be deemed these experiences significance, regarding the cause-effect ways of the world. Consequently, this implies that even the most abstract/perceptually unconventional notions, brought into existence by the brains capability to indulge in the synthesized type of thinking, are firmly grounded in the surrounding reality. As Hume noted, When we think of a golden mountain, we only join two consistent ideas, gold, and mountain, with which we were formerly acquainted. 2 This, of course, reveals the fallaciousness of the idea that synthesized knowledge has any metaphysical quality to it.
According to the philosopher, while addressing life challenges on a daily basis, people involuntarily grow to recognize the recurring algorithmic patterns within the observable interrelationship between causes and effects in this world. A dropped apple necessarily falls down to the ground, the Sun rises in the East every morning, etc. The minds propensity for expecting a certain dialectical order of things is behind the formation of convictions in people. These convictions subsequently attain the subtleties of either an irrational belief or a rationale-based cognitive axiom. In his book, Hume identified three major principles of human cognition, Resemblance, Contiguity in time or place, and Cause or Effect. 3 The concerning principles, however, are external in the sense that they do not originate a priori in the persons mind. Rather, they are the by-products of ones ability to notice the cause-effect particularities of how the world turns around. Even though people are able to take practical advantage of the concerned principles while cognitively engaging with the realitys observable extrapolations, there still remains much uncertainty as to why it is the case.
Hence, the most notable philosophical implications of Humes gnoseological model:
The mind is not independent in its constructions and conclusions concerning the world.
The minds lack of cognitive independence is reflective of the fact that people are naturally predisposed towards acting in accordance with their irrational/rational beliefs. Also, it shows that it is impossible to ascertain the truthfulness/falsity of ones mental constructs outside of the experiential realm.
There is no good rationale in assuming that the cause-effect logic of the relationship among ideas inside ones mind applies to the actual pattern of the persons experiential impressions, from which these ideas derive.
Humes conclusions, in this regard, expose the fundamental inconsistency of the idea (popular with contemporary psychologists and social scientists) that the human brain has been specifically designed to do abstract/synthesized thinking per se, and that education is the key to making this world a better place. At the same time, however, they correlate well with what todays neuroscientists know about the true purpose of human cognition. Human faculty for abstract thought is not concerned with discovering any higher truth about the workings of the universe but with enabling hairless primates to lead a socially integrated lifestyle. This, in turn, increases their chances to succeed in ensuring the survival of their genome into the next generation.4
If the deployment of a particular behavioral algorithm, on ones part, makes it more likely for the person to successfully undergo the natural selection process, then his or her mind will automatically adjust the individuals perception of the surrounding reality to be epistemically consistent with it. In other words, it is a persons behavior (defined by the external circumstances) that determines the specifics of his or her conscious reasoning and not the other way around. This also explains the phenomenon of competence without comprehension, commonly observed with regard to the termites seemingly mysterious ability to construct termite mounds that closely resemble gothic cathedrals while featuring the same level of structural complexity.
Apparently, the ways of nature are not quite as intuitively sound as most people assume them to be. Hume must be given credit for having realized it well ahead of his time. It is specifically this particular realization, on the philosophers part, from which his gnoseological skepticism originates, All inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past& If there be any suspicion, that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless .5 To confirm the validity of Humes suggestion, in this regard, one will need to imagine a hypothetical machine that features two light bulbs (blue and red) and the button that is supposed to ignite either of them upon being pressed. After having pressed the button ten thousand times and realized that only the blue light bulb reacts to this action, a researcher is likely to conclude that the pressing of the button will necessarily result in this particular light bulb being turned on. However, it may be the case that the machine is programmed to ignite the red light bulb once the number of the buttons pressings reaches ten thousand and one. This alone implies that reproducibility should not be seen as the undisputed indication of veracity.
The earlier mentioned discoveries in the field of quantum physics substantiate the legitimacy of Humes argument even further. After all, these discoveries imply that the ways of the universe can only be predicted on a macro-level. The behavior of elementary particles (the building components of macro-objects), however, cannot be predicted by definition: Heisenbergs uncertainty principle predetermines it to be the case.6 What this means is that there is always a theoretical possibility for the flow of events in the macro-world to cease making any conventional (intuitively sound) cause-effect sense. For example, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, warmth is always transmitted from the warmer objects to the colder ones and not vice versa. However, because the veracity of this law has a statistical quality to it, it is possible to imagine the situation when instead of being turned into vapor, boiling water turns into a chunk of ice. As Hume aptly suggested, In vain do you pretend to have learned the nature of bodies from your past experience. Their secret nature, and consequently, all their effects and influence, may change .7 The only possible objection to Humes insistence that all mental abstractions are quintessentially experiential is that people appear to be capable of visualizing (mentally) even those shades of a particular color to which they have never been exposed in real life. The philosopher admitted that he does not know how to explain this phenomenon. In the authors opinion, however, the very fact that there is a strongly defined sophist sounding to this inconsistency renders it deprived of much of its actuality.
Conclusion
What has been said earlier helps to explain why David Hume has never been considered a particularly popular philosopher in the West. Evidently enough, Humes gnoseological skepticism is quite inconsistent with peoples unconscious predisposition towards striving to attain an intellectual mastery over the surrounding reality as an integral part of their existential mode. Nevertheless, there can be very little doubt about the fact that one will indeed be able to benefit from reading Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. The reason for this is apparent: ones awareness of the factors that hamper human cognition is itself the necessary precondition for the concerned individual to be able to proceed with broadening its intellectual horizons. The author believes that this conclusion is fully consistent with the papers initial thesis.
Bibliography
Bansal, Ashish, and Ajay Kumar, Generalized Analogs of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Inequality. Journal of Inequalities and Applications 3, no. 2 (2015): 1-15.
Barlow, Richard. Hume Sweet Hume: Skepticism, Idealism, and Burial in Finnegans Wake. Philosophy and Literature 38, no.1 (2014): 266-275.
Delhez, Julien. A Darwinian Manifesto for Rationality, Intelligence and Liberty. Mankind Quarterly 59, no. 1 (2018): 127-143. Hume, David. Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
Footnotes
Richard Barlow, Hume Sweet Hume: Skepticism, Idealism, and Burial in Finnegans Wake, Philosophy and Literature 38, no.1 (2014): 269.
David Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 2.
David Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 4.
Julien Delhez, A Darwinian Manifesto for Rationality, Intelligence and Liberty, Mankind Quarterly 59, no. 1 (2018): 135.
David Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 11.
Ashish Bansal and Ajay Kumar, Generalized Analogs of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Inequality, Journal of Inequalities and Applications 3, no. 2 (2015): 2.
David Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 12.
Skepticism, as a philosophical relationship, subjects to doubt the possibility to obtain any kind of knowledge. One of the most extraordinary thoughts about skepticism was formulated by David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, historian and an economist. This paper analyzes some of Humes arguments of skepticism regarding the unobserved, along with addressing some of philosophical concepts about science and human understanding.
A Priori knowledge
A priori is a philosophical term that has an important meaning in the cognitive theory, especially in Kants philosophy. This term could be defined as the knowledge that was obtained independently of the experience initially inherent to consciousness. As an opposite of this term, a posteriori is the knowledge that is based on the experience.
In forming the difference of these two terms, a priori knowledge can be represented as the proposed and nonnegotiable truth, or the knowledge that is based on instincts where it could be said that stepping from a cliff would result in falling of a person, is a priori, whereas stepping from a cliff would result in the person to be killed, is a posteriori knowledge. According to Hume, the relation of cause and effect is entirely based on experience and thus can be considered a posteriori.
Relations among Ideas and Matters of Facts
Based on Hume, the objects that can be subjects of observation and analysis can be divided into two groups based on their relations to ideas or facts. Propositions of relations of ideas are related only to the matter of thinking and logical observation, whereas the propositions of relations of facts are based on the relations of cause and effect, which can be as a posteriori knowledge based on experience.
In giving examples of those two connections, it should be noted the similarity to the concepts of a prioiri and a posteriori.
Sciences such as mathematics and physic are based on finding the relations between the objects, along with economics where the possible cause of the objects can be demonstrated, e.g. equation of difference of squares or the area of a rectangular.
Another example based on Hume the relations of facts that come from experience, thus the results cannot be a priori, and laws of physics for example are concluded through experiments. According to Hume, neither of these relations can lead to knowing or predicting a future outcome. Relations based on demonstration alone cannot establish the uniformity of the nature, as in scientific laws and principles.
The cause and effect relations cannot do that either, and the best result that can come up, is sort of conditional truth, if some particular predictions are true then particular conclusions follow. Thus, nothing in the world can be established with confidence.
Giving an example of an event which we know about its future outcome, such as finding the time of filling a tank with water of certain velocity, we are assuming the results based on assumptions of previous experiments, that held up to the present . However, observations cannot result in the discovery any factor that can link the velocity and the time after which the tank will be filled.
Accordingly, the future outcome is based merely in the psychological confidence that a certain cause should be followed by a certain effect.
Uniformity principle
The uniformity principle can be considered as a set of axioms that postulates that the universe is controlled by laws, the future is similar to the past and what happened once would happen again if the same conditions are recreated.
This principle if translated to cause-effect relation can be interpreted as the cause-effect relations are the same throughout the time, and this generalization is based on previous generalizations, where even the most vague law of nature was discovered by itself, and the most evident became generally accepted, before they was talked about. Every accepted fact, confirms that each event is related to some law, and for each event there is a combination of objects and other events.
In relating this concept to the Humes previous concept of relation of facts, it can be said that the Uniformity principle is true until a refutation is made to one of the generalized laws that will confirm Humes skepticism.
In that sense if taking an example of the shape of the earth and its circle, if the previous assumption, although not scientific, was taken in consideration and became generally accepted, the people would take the assumptions of the others to justify future assumptions.
In the case of the earth, if the law of the earth circling around the sun was not generalized, further false assumptions would have been made only based on the psychological fact that it previously was true. Then, saying that the future is like the past is wrong, as a single regularity can reject the uniformity principle
Future is known As Hume rejected any reasoning in making future propositions, he states that the uniformity principle if is to be true it is based on some unknown factor that pushes forward the forces of universe, and this force is not subject to reasoning.
Thus, the belief in the uniformity principle is based on custom rather than reasoning. These customs are the basis for stating the facts to be a priori in establishing future propositions. In that sense stating that something is a priori without the experience is a matter of custom and a habit..
The habit plays a major role making associations, hearing a familiar word, or a name we relive in our memory the habit which is associated with the same name or word. In the matter of science, it could be said the facts that are taken a priori is just the best taken evidences.
Conclusion
In general, the arguments of the skeptics are reasonable at some points, where the scientific approach cannot be taken to solve all the problems, despite the fact that scientific confirmation had been devoted to by many scientist a great deal of attention. The scientific approach should not be taken as a prediction, rather than the logical outcome which held only to the present .
Stating that everything is subject to doubts, is also a controversial statement, as without going into philosophical argues, the people have to have something to believe, which is based on certain pattern, rather than on a possibility. In that matter having object a priori is essential.
Amongst the galaxy of French thinkers, philosophers and writers, Rene Descartes stands as one of the tallest luminary. Descartes was also called as the Father of Modern Western philosophy whose writings have had a profound effect in the formation of modern nation states. This essay examines Descartes principle ideas of the utility of doubt for arriving at truths and the concept of dualism between the mind and the body.
Descartes formulated the concept of methodical scepticism. The famous maxim Cogito Ergo Sum, or I think therefore I am was formulated by Descartes, a theme that established western rationalism as the popular philosophical body of work that could be put to practical uses. According to Descartes, if any idea can be doubted, then it is not true knowledge that then requires further rational enquiry to arrive at the real truth. Human existence is proved by the very fact that a human thinks, with inputs from his five senses, which are not very reliable, but it is through the very act of thinking that gives him the rational conclusion that he exists. The Wax analogy used by Descartes establishes this rationale. A block of wax has certain physical characteristics that a human receives through his sense of sight, smell and touch. However, when the wax block is brought close to a heat source it melts. Going by the sense of sight, smell and touch, the wax has changed its characteristics. It no longer feels solid; it looks liquid and also gives off a certain smell that had not existed earlier. Thus the senses, in isolation arrive at a different conclusion regarding this new entity. However, the mind tells the human that the object is still wax. Hence it is the process of thinking that converts the doubt about the truth about the wax into a certainty. Hence, the doubting methodology ascertains the real truth. This system of doubting was further developed by Descartes in his Cartesian Theory of Fallacies in which the inquirer starts with a premise that a particular statement is false and then develops an argument to prove it is true. This theory has been till to date modified and used in pure maths field of mathematical analysis and analytical geometry.
In his theory of dualism, Descartes holds that the mind controls the body through the pineal gland. However, at times the body driven by human desires influences the mind. In this way dualism exists as a two-way traffic between the mind and the human body with the dominance of the mind on most occasions. Central to Descartes belief of dualism was that the pineal gland contained the human soul and was resident only in humans and not in other animals. One must remember, that Descartes was only internalising the known scientific knowledge of those times (1596-1650) and hence could be pardoned for holding such perceptions. That does not detract the essence of the mind-body connection albeit, not from the pineal gland but from the brain and cognition as modern day psychologists and neuroscientists have found.
In conclusion, it can be said that Descartes concept of methodical skepticism laid the foundations for scientific reasoning and spirit of rational enquiry that led to further discoveries in the field of mathematics, science as well as development of rationalism as a valid field of philosophy.
Skepticism is considered to be a negative side of our consciousness. Some philosophers think that skepticism can only be interesting as a challenge of our common-sense knowledge. The author offers some methods of skepticism defense which are not considered to be traditional. He provides with the arguments that our everyday communication leads to the false utterances though we always speak of real objects.
A lot of sophisticated philosophers do not perceive skepticism seriously because they consider that it involves some unacceptable things. The usage of the notion knowledge in our speech leads to systematic error of information we say. Our inner beliefs are not false but strong views are responsible for the facts we say. The word knowledge is related to absolute terms because it is persuasive and categorical in comparison with relative ones. The line between these two groups of terms is paraphrase that should be comprehensive and used within a context. Any basic absolute term can be defined with the help of certain relative terms.
Some terms we use in speech are followed by prepositional clauses, but it is impossible to think that all such terms are followed by them. The process of paraphrase can be seen on the example of the word confident which is considered to be absolute. People speak indifferently of the confidence of a person as well as of his certainty. But there is a difference between a confident and a certain person: a certain person is more than confident of the fact and confident one is not very much certain of it.
The only explanation of the notion being absolute is the logical necessity in it being so. Our understanding of the process makes us be sure in its absolute character. If a person is certain of one thing more than of another, so the first thing he is certain of is considered to be absolute for him.
The modern philosophy tends to believe that knowledge needs being certain. It explained by the fact that a person knows something only in case of being certain. Some philosophers think that belief is quite enough for knowledge; there are some contradictions among thinkers who consider that if a person believe in something, he knows it for sure and is strongly certain about it. According to their thoughts people use in everyday speech facts they believe to be true, that is why it is not important for them being certain about something. But just the opposite opinion is proved by an example: if a person knows that it is raining but he is not certain of it, we see the contradictions of his belief. So, knowledge compulsory requires certainty.
Such arguments may strike almost every philosopher even those who take skepticism seriously. The defense of skepticism is based on the notion of certainty, because this notion should never be apart of any other and be closely connected with all the views. One cannot remain sure whether these statements are true and analysis can be a background for future investigations, but this skepticism defense is adequate and is proved by facts and deductions.
As a way of summarizing one cannot but notice that many scholars do not believe in the importance of skepticism and consider it to be of no importance. One can hardly connect this procedure with such notion as certainty and make it to be an integral part of skepticism. But it is really true as proved by the philosophers. We always say what we know and consider our facts to be true though they may appear to be false. One cannot say that he really knows something without being certain of it. Let us imagine that we know such obvious things as existence of fossil fuel but we are not certain of it. We surely know why we need it but have no certainty whether it is true or not. The only we have is a slight belief in our theory. But what it means?.. We have inner contradictions with what we know and what we are certain of. So, it says that we cannot surely know something without being certain of it. But only absolute notions bring this certainty to us; one should remember that absolute notion is different for everyone. If one is certain about something more so this thing is considered to be absolute for him.
If I were to examine the notion of skepticism I would definitely back up the view of the author of the article Peter Unger. Certainty should be present in every methods of investigation as well as in usual life. Great thinkers avoid the serious character of this notion and its importance in everyday communication, but we have just been proved the opposite point of view and can use it as a background for future deductions.
References
Unger, Peter. A Defense of Skepticism . The Philosophical Review, Vol. 80, No. 2, (1971), pp. 198-219.
Proving an argument is one of the main questions in philosophy. There are several theories of justification that uses different approaches to our belief system . The aim of all theories was to find ways to justify truth. An entire philosophical movement tried to work out a strategy and universal philosophical methodology in order to find solutions for current philosophical problems. A branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge development and such notions as truth, belief and justification and its structure is called epistemology.
There are four basic theories in epistemology that raise the question of the structure of justification. They are infinitism (suggest a linear or infinite structure of justification), foundationalism (suggests a finite linear structure), coherent theory (the basis is a circular structure of justification) and skepticism (does not offer the structure of justification or, in other words, it is also called an empty structure of justification).
The two theories that are in confrontation are foundamentalism and skepticism. Those to theories tend to argue each other and block these arguments. In order to solve this problem, a proper analysis of foundamentalists and skepticism theories should be done through the comparison and analysis of their arguments.
There are several forms of skepticism. In the Western philosophy, skepticism is a theory that there is no any kind of certain knowledge. It is based on two principles: the first one says that one cannot be sure in his/her knowledge and there is not certain human knowledge; the second principle claims that all we know can only be probably true and one cannot be sure of anything.
According to Marcus Lammernant, in contemporary analytical epistemology, skeptical problem is taken to be theoretical in nature. They are composed of skeptical argument for the impossibility of knowledge or justified belief (Greco 9). In other words, skepticism is based on a doubt. For, example, if somebody is telling me about some issue, I can have my doubts that ones arguments are true.
The main skeptical argument is that certain knowledge implies certainty, one cannot be certain of anything, consequently, one cannot know anything for sure. Thus, one can obtain certain knowledge only through doubt and testing. However, one should not confuse skepticism and nihilism. According to skeptical doubt, the truth is asserted and negotiated. Nihilists deny everything.
It can be said that skepticism presupposes a constant search of solution for certain dilemma. Skepticisms can even adopt other theories in order to find this solution, Accordingly, he might eagerly evaluate alternative theories in an attempt to dispel skeptical doubt (Lipkin 811). Skeptic relies on a principle of inferential justification (Fumerton 55) in order to support skepticism.
Foundationalism is a theory that at some degree tends to defeat skeptical theory. According to foundamentalistic theory, all our knowledge should be grounded for beliefs in order to represent this knowledge, every justified belief owes its justification ultimately to some belief that is noninferentially justified (Fumerton 56).
According to this theory, there are some basic beliefs and derived beliefs. Every assumption should be based on the other belief. There are also some beliefs that are more basic than others. The basic beliefs cannot be justified by some other beliefs, consequently, they can be called foundational. For example, if I know that I am a human and all people are mortal, then I am mortal too.
The basic knowledge is that all people are mortal. Thus, only statement that cannot be argued can be considered a foundational. Thus, foundationalism presupposes a certain structure of knowledge where every belief is based on other belief. So, there should be some universal premises that can guarantee good reasons for some other claims, however, these premises do not require other reasons to support them.
Thus, these premises can be considered to be stopping points for the argument. Foundationalism argues the infinite and circular structures of justification that promote the idea that reasoning can never justify anything. So, it uses the regress argument. Foundationalsim was argued for its statement about basic beliefs. There were some doubts whether this theory can really support the structure of knowledge and if there is a structure of knowledge.
The structure of justification and the argument that there are basic beliefs became an augmentative point between foundationalsim and skepticism. According to skepticism, a certain knowledge is impossible, consequently, there cannot be any basic knowledge or belief. In this, foundationalsim and skepticism are opposite. In practical usage, skepticism provides us with more possibility to argue our points of view.
Certainly, there can be certain knowledge that cannot be based on some basic beliefs. For example, some people believe in parallel worlds , there are certain theories that can probably provide evidence of existence of these worlds. However, there is no basic knowledge that one can base his/her arguments on. Using a foundationalists theory, one will not be able to prove his/her idea. However, if one uses skeptical methods of doubting and justification, one can support his/her idea.
Both of these theories deny each other. Skepticism claims that no statement is credible in fact, consequently, foundationalism is impossible. On the other hand, fountationalsim always tend to overcome skeptical theories. It shows that skepticism is wrong only if one can dispel the skeptical arguments and doubts.
There is an opinion that those two theories are two sides of one coin . The reason lies in the fact that skepticism uses a principle of inferential justification, at the same time, foundationalists use the same principle in order to promote classical foundationalism. So, skepticism can be treated as a form of the foundationalism. So, according to Lipkin:
A person adopts foundationalism when he believes that there exist unrevisable principles upon which to rest everything truly believed and valued. Certainty and necessity often are associated with foundational statement (876).
Nevertheless, foundationalist theory brings structure and order in knowledge and structure of reasons. It gives a clear understanding of what is truth and certainly. Skepticism does not give such a possibility. In foundationalism one statement should be based on one statement as well. In skepticism, one statement can be based on many other statements. This is an argument that gives a possibility to assume that foundationalism undermines the skeptical conclusion.
Epistemology deals with justification and knowledge structure. There are several theories that suggest their vision on these issues. However, there are two theories that are absolutely contrary in their arguments about justification.
Foundationalsim is based on assumption that all statement should be based on particular basic beliefs. In its turn, skepticism denies this assumption. Both of these theories undermine each other at some extend. Foundationalism gives structure and clarity and skepticism provides us with more freedom to support our arguments.
Works Cited
Greco, John. Oxford Handbook of Skepticism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Fumerton, Richard A. Metaepistemology and skepticism. Boston: Rowman & Littlefield, 1995.
Lipkin, Robert Justin. Beyond Skepticism, Foundationalism and the New Fuzziness: The Role of Wide Reflective Equilibrium in Legal Theory Cornell Law Review 75 (1990): 811-877. Web.
Skepticism is a philosophical doctrine the aim of which is to question the things that are regarded as simply acceptable by the others. Skepticism can be scientific, religious, and philosophical. Considering skepticism as a philosophical doctrine is the most interesting because it gives an opportunity to acquire a new perspective on the perception of life. With regards to philosophy, skepticism avoids making truth claims. However, skeptics do not deny truth because stating that truth is impossible would be a truth claim by itself. Among the most well-known skeptics there is Rene Descartes who is believed to have developed global skepticism trying to find absolute certainty to base his philosophy on. His argument that absolute certainty exists bred external world skepticism, or the idea that human senses are deceptive and that, in reality, none of the people can know for sure that they live in a definite place and have a definite appearance. One of the most compelling arguments for skepticism about the external world concerns the existence of material objects; this argument can be considered with regards to qualitative illusion, the reality of these objects, and the questions about their qualities.
First of all, according to the external world skepticism, the objects surrounding people are a result of qualitative illusion. For instance, Butchvarov mentions that qualitative illusion can be regarded as unreality of a perceived perceptual expanse, and thus the problem of its distinguishability from qualitative vertical perception can be understood as a special case of the problem of the distinguishability of unreal objects of perception from real ones (57). This, of course, is possible only if the real objects do exist. All the material objects are perceived by people the way they are only because their consciousness makes them believe that these objects really look like this. A bright example of this argument is the movie The Matrix according to which all the people live in virtual reality and the objects that surround them have the qualities that the system allows them to have. Therefore, owing to the qualitative illusion, people perceive the material objects incorrectly and can never be sure that something they hold in their hands is indeed what they think it is.
Secondly, as stated by the external world skeptics, it is not the qualities of the objects that should be questioned, but their reality as such. The greatest question here is whether the object a person holds in his/her hands really exists or whether this person is made to believe that he/she holds this object. A perfect illustration of this is an episode from The Matrix where Neo watches a little boy bending a spoon by only looking at it. In this episode the reality of the objects surrounding people is questioned. The boy convinces Neo that bending the spoon is possible and that it is not necessary to possess paranormal abilities to be able to do this. One has only to believe that the spoon does not exist because it is so indeed. Similarly, the external world skepticism questions the reality of all the material objects surrounding people prior to questioning the qualities of these objects, such as shape, smell, taste, etc. Therefore, it is typical for the external world skeptics to state that the material objects may not be real.
And finally, the qualities of the material object are worth questioning only if one makes sure that the object is real. Taking into account this belief of the external world skepticism, questions about what qualities a perceived material object really has can arise only if we have answered affirmatively the questions whether the object is real (Butchvarov 57). This further creates an idea that an unreal (or hallucinatory) object is perceived by people in a definite way because the system makes the person believe that this object has these qualities. With regards to this, one of the most frequent questions asked by the external world skeptics is which qualities the material objects have indeed. However, asking this question does not make any sense, as long as a person is not sure that the object (even though with hallucinatory qualities) exists at all or its existence is dictated by the system as well. Thus, before asking the questions about the qualities of the material objects, the real existence of these objects has to be questioned.
In conclusion, skepticism makes people consider the issues they have never paid attention to before. For instance, external world skepticism makes it possible to question the existence of the objects people are surrounded by. External world skepticism states that these objects are perceived by people in a definite way due to qualitative illusion. However, even though the qualities of the objects around us should be questioned, it does not make sense doing so until the reality (and the existence) of these objects is proven. In this way, people should not believe everything around them because their senses are deceptive; thus, people do not know anything about the external world.
Work Cited
Butcharov, Panayot. Skepticism about the External World. Oxford: Oxford University Press US, 1998.
Undoubtedly, the awe-inspiring philosophies of Plato and Aristotle form the foundation of the contemporary philosophies. In most cases, their philosophies laid more emphasis in modern science, epistemology and metaphysics. However, after their death, the emerging philosophers such as Sextus Empiricus, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius developed new philosophies on the issue that had troubled ancient Greeks the most-ethics. The ancient Greeks wanted to discover what it takes to be virtuous, what one has to do in order to be full of character and nobility, and what it takes to live the good life. Consequently, among the philosophies that emerged include stoicism and skepticism. The paper will compare these schools of two schools of thought with an aim of establishing their differences.
Stoicism
According to Epictetus, stoicism is a school of thought that explains how free a person is when educated. The person behind the development of this school of thought is Zeno of Citium. In those days, cynics dominated many schools in Greece and students had to learn its precepts along with other philosophies. However, Zeno became predisposed by the Socrates and adopted the philosophies of the Socrates. Among the many aspects of Socrates and hence stoicism was to be virtuous, and most importantly, surrendering to the will of God. In fact, the ancient Greeks believed in one God and Zeno failed to differentiate between God and nature. To him, the two resembled and were one. In fact, this philosophy goes further to state that human beings can only acquire happiness by either observing the cogent law of humanity or by living according to nature.
Stoicism values apatheia, that is, the dearth of passion as it is the one that makes human beings virtuous. Marcus Aurelius in his book, Meditations, tells that uncontrolled passion sires a hysterical emotion or physical longing, which is dangerous to human beings. Thus, by doing away with this attitude, human beings develop wisdom and ability paramount to their daily practices. Thus, whenever people control their inner self, they can master their lives without being slaves to the emotions of other people. In this way, the external circumstances influence personal unresponsiveness (Boeree 1).
Additionally, in Stoicism, the basic fundamental belief is that everybody is equal and that the state is universal where all men are brothers. This aspect or principle of stoicism calls for duty to others. Nevertheless, this is not possible minus substantive amount of empathy, impartiality forbearance and active help. In stoicism, human beings are intrinsic social creatures who exhibit ethics at all times, which is natural in reason itself. Clearly, stoicism illustrates that human beings can revolutionize their attitudes and behavior in order to be virtuous.
Skepticism
Skepticism, the school of thought developed by Sextus Empiricus, starts by first defining who a skeptic is. According to Sextus Empiricus, a skeptic is a person who explores or investigates situations or events, shelving the sentence during the investigation period. He uses an example of the real object and its image in the mirror by saying that they counter hence, no one should judge because, the criterion of truth never exists (Hooker 1).
In other words, skepticism is an approach that scrutinizes claims of conviction. The art of believing misses out and doubt takes center stage even in matters of truth and knowledge. The peripheral construct of a person on a particular statement or even only changes through cacophonous substantiation or knowledge rather than the core constructs. In fact, in order to alter the peripheral construct, a rational argumentation is obligatory. On the other hand, a brawny emotive component is necessary in the alteration of core constructs. Otherwise, it is hard to change a skeptics core construct, as they appear more resistant as compared to believers (Sextus, Annas and Barnes 35-65).
Cartesian skepticism is a type of skepticism based on general observations of the surrounding world. This concept includes reality, past experiences, and predictions about future events. Cartesian skepticism shows how people intuitively create their lives without scientific approval using personal experience or unique behavior. This type of skepticism is close to modern philosophy, which attempts to understand how people think about themselves and the world. Judgments about cartesian skepticism can appear in certain ways beginning from diverse definitions due to different peoples experiences and finishing with the uselessness of the concept because of a lack of knowledge in this sphere.
Based on the experience individuals receive, they create their unique perceptions and stay the same for a long time. For instance, external factors like society or the place of living influence dreaming and thinking. However, changes in beliefs happen when people start changing their minds and how they think. Arguments may appear due to a lack of knowledge related to this type of skepticism, and people might start thinking that the concept does not bring changes to their lives and thinking. In defense, cartesian skepticism allows individuals to adjust their experience to many spheres of life and stay sure that their background helps them understand the meaning of life. Nevertheless, people can avoid using the concept if they do not see changes in their lives. This type of skepticism does not force people to be ethical to their surroundings or follow generally accepted rules not written in the constitution or other law documents.
Every person has a right to avoid the concept, as some might not see any significant emotional or phycological changes. Cartesian skepticism does not have approved theories with supporting sources, and there is no need to have a reason to believe in the influence of the philosophical theory. Conscientious rejection of the idea does not lead people to conflicts that often appear in philosophy. Individuals rarely have weighty arguments that confirm or refute the concept of cartesian skepticism.
Skepticism is a term developed by early philosophers to define the act of questioning knowledge viewpoints developed in various fields. Skeptics have disputed the sufficiency or dependency of such viewpoints by questioning what principles they are anchored upon or what they seek to determine. Skeptics have challenged if such claims are valid or reliable, and they have disputed the perceived rational foundations of conventional assumptions (Bronstein 35). Undoubtedly, in everyday activities, all individuals express a certain degree of skepticism regarding some knowledge claims. Contrary, philosophical skeptics have challenged the prospect of any knowledge apart from that is achieved from directly felt experience.
However, it is more evidence that a non-skeptical viewpoint that expounds on human intuitions is overly desirable. This assertion is preferable because non-skeptical reasoning explains human common sense intuitions regarding what is known by proving that they are largely empirical. Contrary, skeptics account for such intuitions merely by indicating that they are dubious or unreliable and often provide an explanation concerning why non-skeptics fail to recognize that intuitions are misleading. In this light, this paper seeks to support the argument that knowledge is possible regardless of the drawbacks instigated by the skeptical theorists. For the purpose of this paper, an assumption that skepticism is false will hold, and the argument will seek to provide evidence.
The regress viewpoints
In a bid to understand a proposition, it should possess a definite reason to support it. For instance, to understand a proposition Q1, there must be a justification Q2 that accounts for Q1 by offering evidence for it. Therefore, a proposition is a rationale only when another proposition supports it. This relation indicates that there has to be a reason Q2 to justify Q1. In essence, the nature of such relations is contestable, but that does not advance the theory related to the regress problem. Skeptics argue that this chain would lead to circular reasoning. Thus no belief is true unless it is backed by unending series of other beliefs (Goldin 199). Skeptics go further to claim that such infinity presents humanity with an impossible challenge to solve. Basing on this claim, skeptics argue that there is no knowledge. An immediate challenge to this assertion would suggest that if such a conclusion were valid, then without knowing people would not realize that the conclusion is valid.
Why the regress problem raises a skeptical challenge
When foundationalists and coherent dispute radical skepticism, they do not imply that skepticism is non-existence; rather, they intend to prove that their viewpoints justify the belief regarding knowledge in a consistent manner. Foundationalists and coherent form groups of theorists who support scientific knowledge. The regress argument might be valid, but according to the skeptics conclusion that there is no knowledge, it is unrealistic to realize that any of the assumptions are valid.
Therefore, in any case, the regress argument is granted an audience; its conclusion undermines the rationality of accepting. The foundationalism approach argues that beliefs are divided into two sections, including non-basic and basic beliefs (BonJour and Sosa 29). Aristotle defined non-basic beliefs as those that depend on other beliefs to create meaning. Most of the human knowledge is based on these non-basic beliefs. Basic beliefs are viewed as finite, hence no need for justification. In other words, basic beliefs are accounted for by intuitions and experiences. Each non-basic belief is supported by other non-basic beliefs, and the series widens until the basic beliefs are attained (Colman 211).
Skeptics claim that foundationalists or rather the pioneers of scientific knowledge encourage circular reasoning. In this light, foundationalism has to prove the existence of God as the basic belief that is supported by rational insights alone. Descartes argues that any proposition that is clearly understood results in human knowledge (BonJour and Sosa 57). The Coherent refutes the regress argument on the basis that those beliefs follow a circular trend. This group of theorists does not share the view that non-basic beliefs must be supported by basic beliefs. In their view, a belief can be fully accounted without necessarily claiming support from the basic beliefs. Therefore, the foundationalist approach offers the best account of human knowledge since the coherentism fails to provide an alternative but rather builds on foundationalism.
Aristotles response
Aristotles account of human knowledge begins with describing the nature of wisdom as emanating from the sense of perception that needs to be analyzed into scientific expertise (Goldin 202). His quest for human knowledge is presented in the analysis provided in his work in metaphysics. In his work of natural philosophy, Aristotle supports the idea of basic beliefs by indicating that there is an unmoved mover. He argues that the unmoved mover is the origin of the universe and needs no justification for its cause. Aristotle uses the term unmoved mover to refer to God. Aristotle argued that radical skeptics do not sufficiently account for the existence of change. Besides, the theorist cannot explain the creation of new knowledge. Aristotle observed metaphysics as a desirable factor for distinguishing between matter and form (Zalabardo 32).
Aristotle provided an informed presentation of the dynamic process of change. He defined dynamism as the active capability by beings to cause a change in other elements in predictable ways (Goldin 196). Thus, Aristotle concluded that change of any form needs the real existence of substance or something that triggers the change. Because human knowledge is an aggregate whose form and matter have been joined by a specific cause, therefore, every event that occurs is due to a common universal cause. However, Aristotle explains this universal cause as the basic belief that justifies the non-basic beliefs that create knowledge. Sensation thought and desire is some of the causes of non-basic desire discussed by Aristotle.
The sensation is developed when the passive capacity of a being is triggered via contact with external factors. Every form of sensation influences the usual functioning of the specific organ of sense in a bid to determine the external object (Colman 204).
Therefore, the soul recognizes the form of the object. For instance, when one feels the texture of an object, its shape creates a picture of the figure, manifesting this form to the sensitive soul hence generating information. The thought is the active way of delving in the manipulation of forms without making contact with the elements. Therefore, thinking is independent of the elements of thought, from which it generates the form (Battery 216). Desire is the actual shift towards a defined destiny. Aristotle argued that even movement is attained as an evocation of a specific desire. These natural processes form the foundation upon which humanity retrieves knowledge.
Evaluation
Aristotles theory of form and matter provides a better analysis of coherence and objective knowledge. Aristotle aimed at giving a better understanding of a subject that he thought Plato had failed to communicate. He successfully explained how things could change and how humanity acquires knowledge. While skeptics try to argue that there is no basic belief, Aristotle gives an account of God in his theory of nature and theory of form. Aristotle views God as the external cause of all events and the source of the basic belief. To Aristotle, motion is external; hence, it is implausible that there could be a cause of motion (Battaly, 219).
Everything should shift or change because of a cause. The external motion needs an unmoved cause, which to Aristotle, the unmoved cause is God. This explanation offers the best account of the basis of human knowledge. Therefore, Aristotle offers the best explanation for the development of knowledge since the skeptics options fail to offer congruent conclusions.
Conclusion
Although this paper provides a detailed account of refuting regress argument, the foundationalism and coherence theories cannot offer explicit conclusions to show that skepticism is false. However, the non-skepticism theory offers a more consistent and distinct account of human knowledge. The regress problem is a huge challenge to the potentiality of some of the main assumptions about human knowledge and justified belief.
However, every assumption is compelling, and a solution cannot be attained cheaply without evaluating works of philosophers such as Aristotle. In a bid to eliminate the regress problem, there must be a reason to refute at least one proposition that supports skepticism. Nonetheless, this does not imply that skepticism is winning since its theorists only give conclusions that lack empirical support.