Skepticism In The Electric Ant, And The Matrix

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made.

Unable to know any better, people’s blindness to the truth about their existence throughout the ages has been relative to the questioning of reality. We search but are unable to the see the truth through the illusion that the world before us has portrayed. One might ask, how do we know what is real and what is simply illusion brought by our subjective view of the world? But when attempting to understand the nature of our existence, about why we are here, the complexities of life often make it difficult to interpret this subject. The film The Matrix centers on this same concept that the known world is an illusion. The movies core theme of reality and illusion is definite to the humans understanding of what the true meaning of life is. Ones

The words “certainty” and “doubt” have many varying connotations and implications given a specific context. Even though the definitions of these two words are considered polar opposites of each other, there is one connection between the two that is undeniable: both certainty and doubt can be taken with a grain of salt, as they are all merely just opinions specific to the person that those concepts are presented to. Adding on to that, there is also a concept relating to this; the idea that there is always “the certainty of doubt” and that they are merely two sides of the same coin.

Critics propose that just because something cannot be confirmed, does not mean that it is not acknowledged or that there is no reason in trusting it. Rene Descartes wanted certain knowledge to be absolute, although this is not the only option, and others would claim that justified knowledge is adequate. Other philosophers claim skepticism is imperious because a skeptic cannot know that skepticism is absolute.

Generally, skepticism refers to a process where one tends to either suspend judgment, have systematic uncertainty or criticize particular objects, various principles or occurrences. Sextus Empiricus embodied this doctrine through his book “Outlines of Pyrrohnism” where he first provided a preview on the structure of Pyrrhonian philosophy during the early days and then a vivid description on the growth of skepticism before his existence. Consequently, he gives a deep analysis of various methods used by skeptics. As such, this paper brings out a critical analysis of Sextus’s exposition of Pyrrhonian skepticism and his belief that it leads to a happy life. We will then demonstrate that suspension of judgement will hinder our individual growth

David Hume’s approach to skepticism is very different from Descartes’ ideas, mainly because he believes that it is not good to become skeptical of everything. Hume feels that there are two different types of skepticism: the type the Descartes follows, known as the “antecedent” skepticism that involves doubting everything, and moderate skepticism, which Hume feels is the more reasonable form (Hume 36). Hume feels that antecedent skepticism is pointless, and that by simply doubting everything, one is not able to find an answer to what they are looking for because they may never be satisfied with any form of validity. However, Hume feels that moderate skepticism is “a necessary preparative to the study of philosophy, by preserving a proper impartiality in our judgements, and weaning our mind from all those prejudices, which we may have imbibed from education or rash opinion,” (Hume 36). In other words, Hume is saying that moderate skepticism is necessary

Epistemological skepticism is the idea that individuals lack knowledge or justification for a specific group of propositions (Barnett, 2014). Skepticism with respect to all propositions is known as global skepticism, and it reveals that knowledge is nonexistent (2014). The regress problem is a difficulty in epistemology, where an idea has to be justified, because the justification itself has to have further reasoning (2014). The infinite regress argument concludes that individuals lack justification and knowledge (since knowledge requires justification) through its premises, but non-doxastic evidence ends the regress argument without circularity or arbitrariness.

Through the course of this paper, I began to wonder if it was even worth finishing. Thoughts rushed through my head on whether this Word document I was typing on even really existed. My reality as I presumed it to be may actually be thoughts in my head, and this philosophy assignment may have just been some weird way my own mind decided to entertain me. Perhaps yet, it may have been the work of a divine mind, taking helm of the way my thoughts flowed. These were all questions that came up as I read through George Berkeley 's, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. For in his manuscript, he addresses skepticism about the physical world, that is the ambiguity humans have in how a physical world outside of our minds is like. Berkeley has a simple solution to this. Through his interpretations of ideas, Berkeley comes to the conclusion that there should not be any skepticism surrounding the physical world because the physical world simply does not exist.

Jonathan Vogel wrote Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation as a solution to accept the real world hypothesis over any skeptical hypothesis. Vogel presents a compelling argument for a definitive reason to accept that the world we are experiencing is in fact the real world. I believe that Vogel’s argument falls short of proving a reason for accepting the real world hypothesis over a skeptical one. In this paper I will clearly explain Vogels argument, explain some important concepts to understand, and attempt to refute the argument.

Similarly to Nozick, the response that Alvin Goldman offers to skepticism is one that highly relies on his conception of knowledge and the logical work involved with his conception. Goldman articulates his conception of knowledge in a piece titled, “What is Justified Belief”. Goldman holds that knowledge is justified true belief, but really wants to focus on the meaning of the word justified and the nature of justification. Goldman’s conception of knowledge and justification make him seemingly an externalist about justification. This externalism about justification will be at the

Skepticism is the Western philosophical tradition that maintains that human beings can never arrive at any kind of certain knowledge. Originating in Greece in the middle of the fourth century BC, skepticism and its derivatives are based on the following principles:

A person’s doubts can cloud their judgment on certain tasks at hand. On the other hand, a person’s certainty can blind someone from the truth. The argument ofDoubt versus Certainty is relevant today in the sense that it is the main argument for and against religion. The theory of doubt can also be used in literary works for a number of reasons. In John Patrick Shanley’s movie/play Doubt, the theme of “certainty versus doubt” is shown throughout the story to signify the importance of characterization and to symbolize the importance that a person must be cautious of the people around them.

     Skepticism is the belief that people can not know the nature of things because perception reveals things not as they are, but as we experience them. In other words, knowledge is never known in truth, and humans should always question it. David Hume advanced skepticism to what he called mitigated skepticism. Mitigated skepticism was his approach to try to rid skepticism of the thoughts of human origin, and only include questions that people may begin to understand. Hume’s goal was to limit philosophical questioning to things which could be comprehended.

How many times have you said, “No way, I do not believe it!” It is our natural tendency not to believe in something that we have not seen with our own eyes or experienced it personally. There is a saying, “seeing is believing” which has led us to a world full of skeptics. We want proof so we are not gullible fools. Skepticism, or scepticism, as it was spelled back in the ancient times, was pondered by philosophers who tried unsuccessfully to figure out the thought process and how we gain knowledge. Philosophers gave deep thought to determine how we arrive at such true beliefs and knowledge of the external world. Three such philosophers were Rene Descartes, David Hume and Christopher Grau. Rene Descartes was a French philosopher in the early 1600’s; David Hume was a Scottish Philosopher in the 1700’s, and Grau an American philosopher Professor born in 1970. The timeline s important because philosophical views have evolved over time. All three men were from different eras, but they each explored, argued, and addressed the topic of skepticism from their philosophical view. This proves that they take the subject of skepticism seriously, just as we should too. There is good reason to believe that a human’s knowledge of the external world results from both a posteriori knowledge acquired through sensory experience and a priori knowledge which is innate. Descartes, Hume, and Grau through their personal views and skeptical

Pyrrhonian skeptics and Descartes’s response to skepticism are two interesting reads that make one curious. Pyrrhonian skepticism has a goal which is the suspension of judgment and tranquility, while Descartes brings reason and doubt to the senses about what one perceives and feels. This essay will inform about the Pyrrhonian skeptic and the response Decartes has to the skeptic views.