Philosophical skepticism
Philosophical skepticism (UK spelling: scepticism; from Greek σκέψις skepsis, "inquiry") is a family of philosophical views that question the possibility of knowledge.[1][2] It differs from other forms of skepticism in that it even rejects very plausible knowledge claims that belong to basic common sense. Philosophical skeptics are often classified into two general categories: Those who deny all possibility of knowledge, and those who advocate for the suspension of judgment due to the inadequacy of evidence.[3] This distinction is modeled after the differences between the Academic skeptics and the Pyrrhonian skeptics in ancient Greek philosophy. In the latter sense, skepticism is understood as a way of life that helps the practitioner achieve inner peace. Some types of philosophical skepticism reject all forms of knowledge while others limit this rejection to certain fields, for example, knowledge about moral doctrines or about the external world. Some theorists criticize philosophical skepticism based on the claim that it is a self-refuting idea since its proponents seem to claim to know that there is no knowledge. Other objections focus on its implausibility and distance from regular life.
For a more general discussion of skepticism, see Skepticism.The "", also known as "Descartes' evil demon", was first proposed by René Descartes. It invokes the possibility of a being who could deliberately mislead one into falsely believing everything that you take to be true.
evil demon problem
The "" hypothesis is cast in contemporary scientific terms. It supposes that one might be a disembodied brain kept alive in a vat and fed false sensory signals by a mad scientist. Further, it asserts that since a brain in a vat would have no way of knowing that it was a brain in a vat, you cannot prove that you are not a brain in a vat.
brain in a vat
The "", proposed by both René Descartes and Zhuangzi, supposes reality to be indistinguishable from a dream.
dream argument
The "", most notably proposed by Bertrand Russell, suggests that we cannot prove that the world was not created five minutes ago (along with false memories and false evidence suggesting that it was not only five minutes old).
five minute hypothesis
The "" or "Matrix hypothesis" suggests that everyone, or even the entire universe, might be inside a computer simulation or virtual reality.
simulated reality hypothesis
The "" theory that claims that knowledge of the world is an illusion of the Self.
Solipsistic
Objection from Error: Through logic, Augustine argues that philosophical skepticism does not lead to happiness like the Academic Skeptics claim. His arguments is summarized as:
- A wise man lives according to reason, and thus is able to be happy.
- One who is searching for knowledge but never finds it is in error.
- Imperfection objection: People in error are not happy, because being in error is an imperfection, and people cannot be happy with an imperfection.
- Conclusion: One who is still seeking knowledge cannot be happy.[36]
[35]
Error of Non-Assent: Augustine's argument that suspending belief does not fully prevent one from error. His argument is summarized below.
- Introduction of the error: Let P be true. If a person fails to believe P due to in order to avoid error, the person is also committing an error.
- The Anecdote of the Two Travelers: Travelers A and B are trying to reach the same destination. At a fork in the road, a poor shepherd tells them to go left. Traveler A immediately believes him and reaches the correct destination. Traveler B suspends belief, and instead believes in the advice of a well-dressed townsman to go right, because his advice seems more persuasive. However, the townsman is actually a samardocus (con man) so Traveler B never reaches the correct destination.
- The Anecdote of the Adulterer: A man suspends belief that adultery is bad, and commits adultery with another man's wife because it is persuasive to him. Under Academic Skepticism, this man cannot be charged because he acted on what was persuasive to him without assenting belief.
- Conclusion: Suspending belief exposes individuals to an error as defined by the Academic Skeptics.[35]
suspension of belief
"The Debate on the Joy of Fish" (知魚之樂) : In this anecdote, Zhuang Zhou argued with his fellow philosopher whether they knew the fish in the pond were happy or not, and Zhuang Zhou made the famous observation that "You are not I. How do you know that I do not know that the fish are happy?" [67] (Autumn Floods 秋水篇, Zhuangzi)
Hui Shi
"The Butterfly of the Dream"(周公夢蝶) : The paradox of "Butterfly Dream" described Zhuang Zhou's confusion after dreaming himself to be a butterfly: "But he didn't know if he was Zhuang Zhou who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming that he was Zhuang Zhou." (Discussion on Making All Things Equal 齊物篇, Zhuangzi)
[67]
2003. The History of Scepticism from Savonarola to Bayle. New York: Oxford University Press.
Popkin, Richard H.
and J. R. Maia Neto, eds. 2007. Skepticism: An Anthology. New York: Prometheus Books.
Popkin, Richard H.
1987. The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Beiser, Frederick C.
Breker, Christian. 2011. Einführender Kommentar zu Sextus Empiricus' "Grundriss der pyrrhonischen Skepsis", Mainz, 2011: electr. publication, University of Mainz. (comment on Sextus Empiricus' "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" in German language)
available online
di Giovanni, George and H. S. Harris, eds. 2000. Between Kant and Hegel: Texts in the Development of Post-Kantian Idealism. Translated with Introductions by George di Giovanni and H. S. Harris. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
Forster, Michael N. 1989. Hegel and Skepticism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Harris, H. S. 1985. "Skepticism, Dogmatism and Speculation in the Critical Journal". In di Giovanni and Harris 2000.
. 1802. "On the Relationship of Skepticism to Philosophy, Exposition of its Different Modifications and Comparison of the Latest Form with the Ancient One". Translated by H. S. Harris. In di Giovanni and Harris 2000.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Leavitt, Fred. 2021. "If Ignorance is Bliss We Should All be Ecstatic." Open Books.
1971. "Why Not Scepticism?" Philosophical Forum, vol. II, pp. 283-298.
Lehrer, Keith
Scepticism as Philosophical Superlative, in: Wittgenstein and the Sceptical Tradition, António Marques & Rui Bertrand Romao (Eds.), Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang, 2020, pp. 113–122.
Jesús Padilla Gálvez
François-Xavier de Peretti, « Stop Doubting with Descartes », dans M. Garcia-Valdecasas, J. Milburn, J.-B. Guillon (éds.), « Anti-skepticism », Topoi. An International Review of Philosophy, Springer Nature, on line 3.11.2022
[1]
François-Xavier de Peretti, « Descartes sceptique malgré lui ? », International Journal for the Study of Skepticism, 11 (3), 2021, Brill, Leyde, pp. 177-192. Online publication date: 15 octobre 2020. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.1163/22105700-bja10016
Thorsrud, Harald. 2009. Ancient Scepticism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
. 1975. Ignorance: A Case for Scepticism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 2002.
Unger, Peter
and Oswald J. Reichel. 1892. The Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.
Zeller, Eduard
by Keith DeRose
Responses to skepticism
by Stephen Novella MD, The New England Journal of Skepticism
Article: Skepticism and Denial
by Peter Suber
Classical Skepticism
Sullivan, Margaret (December 5, 2019). . The Washington Post.
Columnist Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times offered a name Wednesday for one aspect of what's happening before our eyes. Responding to the absurd statement of Rep. Douglas A. Collins (R-Ga.) — "there are no set facts here" — she said it summed up the long-term Republican strategy: "epistemological nihilism."