The Classical Version Of Skepticism

The Problem of Skepticism states that you cannot know with certainty that any proposition is true. It does this by casting doubt on our senses by proposing that the world we perceive is might not actually the one we live in but a dream or figment forced onto us by an evil demon. It then goes on to say that since there is no way of knowing if we are in a dream or a hallucination made by an evil demon then we cannot know with certainty, anything about the world.

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.

“After long perplexity, I thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand” (Plato 199). He validated his belief in the oracle to disprove the accusation of his atheism and show this as the reason behind his “mission to find a wiser man.” In “Socrates: A Companion to the Philosophers, John Beversluis says, “This disappointing venture had convinced him that the god was right: no one is wiser than Socrates, albeit only in the modest sense that, unlike the others, he does not claim to know what he does not know.”

In order to understand Unger’s argument for skepticism and why it can’t be an accepted argument, one must first understand what the argument he is trying to pose is, his reason for posing such an argument, and what knowledge and skepticism are. According to the justified true belief, knowledge is something one believes, is true, and one can be justified in believing it (Class Notes). There are two types of skepticism: extreme skepticism and external world skepticism. Extreme skepticism is the view that

In Peter Elbow’s essay “The Doubting Game and Believing Game” he discusses the two types of games that an individual can use to look for the truth in a situation. The Doubting game, is when an individual believes everything is false, and prove each assertion wrong, and the Believing game, is the process where an individual believes that all assertions are correct, and go over each one separately. With both games, there are certain rules that must be followed.

     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.

In Beginnings Through the Renaissance, the people of Athens began to turn away from Socrates’ beliefs, stating blasphemy in his words. Socrates was accused of impiety and corruption of Athenian youth. He was found guilty and sentenced to death. Perhaps looking to the Gods for leadership and truth wasn’t such a bad idea after all.

Skepticism is something that we all have to one degree or another. Some of us who carry some Limited (Local) Skepticism might question whether we can really know if the news anchor is giving us correct information or if the five day forecast is really on track this time regarding the rain it is predicting. Others subscribe to the Global Skepticism view; that is, they would argue that we cannot know anything at all, and, therefore, we can’t have knowledge of anything (Feldman 109). As a global skeptic, we would not only challenge the same things that limited skeptics confront, but we would challenge the very essence of our being. If this form of skepticism is valid, we would have to reexamine

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

Skepticism is define as an intellectual process of applying reason and critical thinking to validate a certain point. Skepticism was the very base for Descartes arguments in the first two meditations. He started by

Just like other mediators, Socrates had a connection to God, which made him question the religion and wisdom of the Athenian people. As a young boy he felt a presence, a spiritual feeling.

Socrates had a unique way of teaching and expressing his thoughts and ideas. He taught by constantly posing questions with the assumption that any person could approach the truth through logic if he set aside ingrained prejudice and received knowledge (Hattersley 17,18). His dialectic method of questioning consisted of a subject being broken down by one or more people, in search of the same truth but with differing views. Instead of merely trying to convince listeners, Socrates would approach others by questioning what they felt to be true and therefore would be able to determine that person’s true feelings and the basis for those feelings. Socrates was open to receive knowledge wherever he could find it, yet when he approached people who claimed to be wise, he found they really knew nothing. He would challenge preconceived opinions, based on the words of others and fallacious logic. Many felt that he was attacking their identity and security causing them to resent Socrates when he pointed this out. Due to his search for truth, Socrates would, eventually, pay the ultimate price. Socrates teaches us to assume nothing and to question everything. In scientific study today, this is a fundamental element of scientific study, starting with a theory and afterward refining it to the point of when a decisive conclusion is made.

Skepticism—From Ancient Greeks to Descartes The word skeptic is derived from “skepsis,” a Greek noun for examination, inquiry, and consideration. Skepticism can be defined in two ways-- one being “a skeptical attitude, as the truth of something” and “the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.” To understand what skepticism was we will stick with the second definition; certain knowledge is impossible to attain and if it is attain any uncertainty or doubt should be doubted.

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:

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