Criticism, Skepticism or Both?

[LuckyR]

As a somewhat educated human in the 21st century, I am very confident that the universe was not created by a giant spirit based on simian morphology and mentality. Likewise, I am very confident that Zeus and Odin are just myths too. We can reject the silliest ideas without an alternative, but it doesn't make sense to reject subtler, more grounded, ideas without having alternatives in mind.

Rejecting theism is just another way of proposing atheism.

Would you describe Spinoza as an atheist?

While he definitely has been described as such (especially in his own lifetime), I tend to think of him as a deist.

Regardless, Spinoza was a philosopher, with a philosophical point of view that he promoted.

[Sy Borg]

As a somewhat educated human in the 21st century, I am very confident that the universe was not created by a giant spirit based on simian morphology and mentality. Likewise, I am very confident that Zeus and Odin are just myths too. We can reject the silliest ideas without an alternative, but it doesn't make sense to reject subtler, more grounded, ideas without having alternatives in mind.

Rejecting theism is just another way of proposing atheism.

Would you describe Spinoza as an atheist?

While he definitely has been described as such (especially in his own lifetime), I tend to think of him as a deist.

Regardless, Spinoza was a philosopher, with a philosophical point of view that he promoted.

He essentially rejected theism without promoting atheism , as such. Rejecting theism need to not propose atheism. It can mean rejecting the kinds of deities proposed in ancient texts and in today's socio/political organisations that call themselves "religions', and having a different idea of what is worshipful in reality.

[LuckyR]

Rejecting theism is just another way of proposing atheism.

Would you describe Spinoza as an atheist?

While he definitely has been described as such (especially in his own lifetime), I tend to think of him as a deist.

Regardless, Spinoza was a philosopher, with a philosophical point of view that he promoted.

He essentially rejected theism without promoting atheism , as such. Rejecting theism need to not propose atheism. It can mean rejecting the kinds of deities proposed in ancient texts and in today's socio/political organisations that call themselves "religions', and having a different idea of what is worshipful in reality.

More accurately, rejecting ALL theism, promotes atheism, but those, like Spinoza, who reject a particular type of theism (but not others) do not necessarily promote atheism. They promote their brand of theism (commonly deism). But my point is tearing down another's point of view without describing your own leaves the interpretation of your viewpoint up to others, instead of yourself. Illogical.

[Sy Borg]

Would you describe Spinoza as an atheist?

While he definitely has been described as such (especially in his own lifetime), I tend to think of him as a deist.

Regardless, Spinoza was a philosopher, with a philosophical point of view that he promoted.

He essentially rejected theism without promoting atheism , as such. Rejecting theism need to not propose atheism. It can mean rejecting the kinds of deities proposed in ancient texts and in today's socio/political organisations that call themselves "religions', and having a different idea of what is worshipful in reality.

More accurately, rejecting ALL theism, promotes atheism, but those, like Spinoza, who reject a particular type of theism (but not others) do not necessarily promote atheism. They promote their brand of theism (commonly deism). But my point is tearing down another's point of view without describing your own leaves the interpretation of your viewpoint up to others, instead of yourself. Illogical.

I have criticised over-confident claims about the great mysteries without having any alternative.

[LuckyR]

While he definitely has been described as such (especially in his own lifetime), I tend to think of him as a deist.

Regardless, Spinoza was a philosopher, with a philosophical point of view that he promoted.

He essentially rejected theism without promoting atheism , as such. Rejecting theism need to not propose atheism. It can mean rejecting the kinds of deities proposed in ancient texts and in today's socio/political organisations that call themselves "religions', and having a different idea of what is worshipful in reality.

More accurately, rejecting ALL theism, promotes atheism, but those, like Spinoza, who reject a particular type of theism (but not others) do not necessarily promote atheism. They promote their brand of theism (commonly deism). But my point is tearing down another's point of view without describing your own leaves the interpretation of your viewpoint up to others, instead of yourself. Illogical.

I have criticised over-confident claims about the great mysteries without having any alternative.

Exactly and leaving what your thoughts are on the great mysteries up for others to interpret. If you're cool with that, who am I to argue.

[Sy Borg]

He essentially rejected theism without promoting atheism , as such. Rejecting theism need to not propose atheism. It can mean rejecting the kinds of deities proposed in ancient texts and in today's socio/political organisations that call themselves "religions', and having a different idea of what is worshipful in reality.

More accurately, rejecting ALL theism, promotes atheism, but those, like Spinoza, who reject a particular type of theism (but not others) do not necessarily promote atheism. They promote their brand of theism (commonly deism). But my point is tearing down another's point of view without describing your own leaves the interpretation of your viewpoint up to others, instead of yourself. Illogical.

I have criticised over-confident claims about the great mysteries without having any alternative.

Exactly and leaving what your thoughts are on the great mysteries up for others to interpret. If you're cool with that, who am I to argue.

Yep. I don't tend to have much problem with most ideas presented on the forum. Most people strike me as being at least a bit correct in their views, if not entirely. My main beefs are over-confidence and criticism of science by those who know nothing about it.

[Pattern-chaser]

I’ve seen long threads in this forum carried along by two primary drivers – criticism (in the sense of analysis) and skepticism (in the sense of knowledge is uncertain or impossible). It seems worthwhile to take a closer look at those drivers.

Criticism and skepticism, objectively (pun intended) applied, are indispensable tools for the job of scouring interpretations of Reality. As the great Max Graf put it, speaking about The Age of Reason in his book Composer and Critic:

“Musical criticism is one of the forces that have molded the modern world, a tributary to the mighty stream of criticism that began to flow through Europe in the middle of the eighteenth century. Since then, criticism has participated in every phase of the formation of modern ideas. …. [Criticism] was, in fact, the chief instrument of enlightenment. Among the Greeks the original meaning of the word had been division or analysis. In the eighteenth century, criticism had come to mean the separation of truth from appearance, reality from phenomenon, and essence from surface.”

Graf’s book is centered on a history of musical criticism, lows and highs, but its lessons are also broadly instructive of the essential roles criticism and skepticism play in the search for first principles.

My question is, are criticism and skepticism two separate approaches, or two sides of the same coin, or is one submerged in the other? Use your own definitions of the terms if you are critical or skeptical of my definitions.

To me, the core of scepticism is not doubt or disbelief, it is the unwillingness to accept assertions without something reasonable to support them. In philosophy, or any inquiring discipline (e.g. science), this scepticism will often be seen as desirable and useful. In everyday life, scepticism can appear pedantic, time-wasting and — honestly — tedious. Taken too far, it could perhaps result in the distrust of 'experts' that is so common these days? Lack of trust is a serious and significant matter, but not one for this topic, so enough of that.

Criticism is, I think, more direct, and more confrontational. People refer to 'constructive criticism', but I think this is something of an oxymoron. Criticism is rarely constructive, in practice. There is such a thing as co-operative discussion, but it does not involve what is usually referred to as 'criticism', which is negative and destructive. However, I can see that some might mean co-operative discussion when they say "criticism", and if so, then I accept it, although I would much prefer a more honest and accurate description.

I think criticism and scepticism are two tools of discussion, associated but not the same thing.

[Pattern-chaser]

You can see that skepticism is a static, conclusive attitude: skeptics think they have reached the conclusion that knowledge is uncertain or impossible.

I think that's an unfair verdict. There is knowledge that is uncertain, and there is knowledge that is impossible to obtain. Philosophically speaking, there is very little knowledge that can be seen as certain, but in less demanding arenas, knowledge is just accepted, often without any consideration. Logically and formally, this is incorrect. But in practice, we often don't have the time to waste in confirming the exact and precise truth of our ideas. We just don't live long enough.

So I think scepticism is useful in a formal or semi-formal context, but perhaps not elsewhere? And I also think that a sceptic who has concluded that (all) "knowledge is uncertain or impossible" is mistaken. If nothing else, it fails to include the context, which is always a mistake, IMO.

[Meta Island]

To me, the core of scepticism is not doubt or disbelief, it is the unwillingness to accept assertions without something reasonable to support them. In philosophy, or any inquiring discipline (e.g. science), this scepticism will often be seen as desirable and useful. In everyday life, scepticism can appear pedantic, time-wasting and — honestly — tedious.

Hello Pattern, given your distinctions this is a reasonable assessment. Personally, I would add “dismissive” – even in the face of supporting evidence – to your list of everyday life skepticism.

Criticism is rarely constructive, in practice. There is such a thing as co-operative discussion, but it does not involve what is usually referred to as 'criticism', which is negative and destructive.

I defined criticism as “analysis” because criticism that calls balls and strikes does exist, though granted it is less present than the attack criticism you are describing. To me, fair criticism is a mix of agreements and disagreements.

[Pattern-chaser]

To me, the core of scepticism is not doubt or disbelief, it is the unwillingness to accept assertions without something reasonable to support them. In philosophy, or any inquiring discipline (e.g. science), this scepticism will often be seen as desirable and useful. In everyday life, scepticism can appear pedantic, time-wasting and — honestly — tedious.

Hello Pattern, given your distinctions this is a reasonable assessment. Personally, I would add “dismissive” – even in the face of supporting evidence – to your list of everyday life skepticism.

Criticism is rarely constructive, in practice. There is such a thing as co-operative discussion, but it does not involve what is usually referred to as 'criticism', which is negative and destructive.

I defined criticism as “analysis” because criticism that calls balls and strikes does exist, though granted it is less present than the attack criticism you are describing. To me, fair criticism is a mix of agreements and disagreements.

Your assessment seems reasonable to me. Co-operative discussion, using scepticism and criticism (as you describe it, above), is the best way of learning that I know of. To that, perhaps I should add the so-called 'Socratic Method', which is pretty much the same thing, as I understand it.

[Meta Island]

Might actually get something decided that way. Imagine that.

[Meta Island]

Haste makes waste. I cut and pasted the above from Word without paying attention to Word's emoji, which doesn't suit me. I don't think posts can be edited, so re-posting.

Might actually get something decided that way. Imagine that.

[Pattern-chaser]

Might actually get something decided that way. Imagine that.

I think one of the criticisms levelled at co-operative discussions is that they don't reliably reach a conclusion. Confrontational discussion, more like debate, always ends up with a 'winner', even if the winning argument is just plain wrong. I think you have it right, but I don't doubt there are some who would prefer a conclusion — any conclusion — to none. For myself, I see the latter as ... mistaken. Co-operative discussion focusses on learning about the subject in hand. How could we improve on that?

[Meta Island]

Might actually get something decided that way. Imagine that.

I think one of the criticisms levelled at co-operative discussions is that they don't reliably reach a conclusion. Confrontational discussion, more like debate, always ends up with a 'winner', even if the winning argument is just plain wrong. I think you have it right, but I don't doubt there are some who would prefer a conclusion — any conclusion — to none. For myself, I see the latter as ... mistaken. Co-operative discussion focusses on learning about the subject in hand. How could we improve on that?

Apologies for the delay in responding. A structured approach is needed. It would require an agreed upon method to meld matching ideas and a rationale for assigning relevance to ideas associated with the core melds. Only someone with an unjustifiably huge ego would attempt to do this, so I will attempt it in my next OP.