'Skeptics': Those without Answers.

[mike]

I was rereading and you'll notice if you look at my postings that I fit into the a-hole catagory that Aubithar came up with.-Rats

'Takes all kinds' 'Sombody out there for everybody'

[Carbon]

Easier to be skeptical? Hahahaha, try it sometime, get some stretch-marks on your brain and then tell us how easy critical thought is. Learn it and try it first, then tell us..
Peace

I've been an extreme skeptic for the past three years of my life. I haven't accepted anything that anyone said to me. Most of the time I find some way to disagree with people even if I don't really care what they're saying. It's a problem that I'm trying to fix, actually. For me, it's way easier to be skeptical.

I'm sure, as this is a philosophy forum, the vast majority, if not all, of the users are well aware of what criticism is.

Again, I do not mean everyone, I know a few true skeptics... well, one on these boards thus far.

You rant about 'skeptics' (in general) and finally admitted that your data set is just one person, here. Perhaps you might do a little research into what, exactly is skepticism/zeteticism. Your emotional 'rant' showed that you really do not know.
The content of your post indicates further, that it is obviously easier not to engage in critical thought, due to the many cognitive flaws in the 'reasoning' displayed in your OP.

He said there is one true skeptic, and that the majority are not proper skeptics. He's not ranting, he's saying that only one person knows what they're doing. His complaint is that the others do not.

One needn't 'contribute' anything but the razor. Slice away the lies and only truth can remain.
Truth can't be 'created', merely exposed. Capisce'?

Then there is no truth.

[nameless]

Easier to be skeptical? Hahahaha, try it sometime, get some stretch-marks on your brain and then tell us how easy critical thought is. Learn it and try it first, then tell us..
Peace

I've been an extreme skeptic for the past three years of my life. I haven't accepted anything that anyone said to me. Most of the time I find some way to disagree with people even if I don't really care what they're saying. It's a problem that I'm trying to fix, actually. For me, it's way easier to be skeptical.

So, you are telling me that it is easier to be who you naturally are? Makes sense to me...

I'm sure, as this is a philosophy forum, the vast majority, if not all, of the users are well aware of what criticism is.

Perhaps, but that is not what i was saying. I'm not speaking of criticism, but critical thought. There can be quite a difference.

He said there is one true skeptic, and that the majority are not proper skeptics. He's not ranting, he's saying that only one person knows what they're doing. His complaint is that the others do not.

Ahhh, these old eyes missed the "true" in his quote, the "true" one here. Thank you for kindly pointing that out to me.

One needn't 'contribute' anything but the razor. Slice away the lies and only truth can remain.
Truth can't be 'created', merely exposed. Capisce'?

Then there is no truth.

There is no Toledo!

(if there is no truth, there can be no lies and we all know that if there can be no truth, then the following sentence; "There is no truth" must therefore be a lie, yet there can be no lies without truth...)
"In Silentium, Verum" - Bood of Fudd
("In Silence, Truth")

[La Nausée]

I'm new too, so i'm in the same boat. I think you're right in some ways Carbon, it is easier to a skeptic, becuase instead of being the one who creates a theory or philosophical idea, you can be the one to criticise them, without being open to much criticism yourself.

David Hume springs to mind. He pointed out the flaws in so many mainly theistic thinkers' philosophies, but never really contributed

One needn't 'contribute' anything but the razor. Slice away the lies and only truth can remain.
Truth can't be 'created', merely exposed. Capisce'?

No i disagree. If all we had in terms of philosophy were David Humes (the empiricists and Skeptics) then there would be no theories to criticise in the first place. All we would have would be philosophy that persues the objective, like the Verification Principle of the Vienna Circle. (there's a good source of information on Verificationism on wikipedia, if you're interested)

By creating a philosophy or idea, I mean people like Nietzsche, or Kierkegaard - People contribute in a 'positive' sense rather than a 'negative' sense (i.e. offering a critique on somebody's work, like Hume often did)

Do not misconstrue my statement, and think that I mean 'negative' contribution is bad. I mean that it isn't introducing a new theory, but more, pointing out the flaws in other theories.

Carbon's response to what nameless said is interesting. Because, if all people ever use in philosophy is the 'razor' as nameless puts it, then there would be no truth to expose - People would be focussing on the lies instead of the truth all the time. In my opinion, there isn't any such thing as truth in philosophy. I'm not sure if anyone is dogmatic enough to suggest that they have the answers that others don't - All we have is subjectivity.

[Carbon]

So, you are telling me that it is easier to be who you naturally are? Makes sense to me...

I am saying that it is harder to build a philosophy than it is to critique one. Given, proper criticism is more difficult than blindly hacking away at something. Nonetheless, creating a thought is more difficult than using the "razor". How can it be harder to critique? When you catch something you find illogical or uncertain, you make note of it. Doesn't everyone naturally do that? On the other hand, it takes a lot more effort to put a theory together. That takes initiative and creativity.

The only thing you have actually posted to refute what I'm saying is that people naturally accept what they are told, and that that is easier. But accepting a philosophy is not building one. From the beginning, as far as I can recall, I said that building a philosophy is more difficult than being skeptical about it.

[nameless]

^^Different sides of the same coin.
Perspective...
There has to be 'destruction' for there to be 'construction'.
There has to be construction for there to be destruction.
The arising of the one is the simultaneous arising of the other.

From the beginning, as far as I can recall, I said that building a philosophy is more difficult than being skeptical about it.

Critical thought is critical thought, whether formulating something or criticizing (logically and scientifically) something. Both are examined 'critically'.
Later..
Peace

[La Nausée]

nameless - are you saying that constructing a theory takes as much effort as it does to find fault with it? i'm not sure that i agree that 'critical thought' is just critical thought... there are different sorts, and some have to take less time and effort than others.

can you give us an example of a critique of any philosophical theory, or philosopher that is longer or more detailed than the original work that was written? i.e. can you find a critique of Nietzschean philosophy that is more detailed than his entire works? (thus spoke zarathustra, the gay times, beyond good and evil etc ect.) this is a random example, but you get my drift...


im guessing that you will not, because as it has been said, the skills, time, creativity, and initiative required to construct a school of philosophical thought are far greater than those required to find fault with them.

[Carbon]

I doubt he will be able to say much at all. His last post used a lot of words to say nothing at all.

[Abiathar]

I assure you that I word things very specifically, and each individual word is in its place, generally re-read a few times before posted due to my retentive nature. Grey areas are only left due to the fact that, by nature, things are grey. Including if the sun shall rise tomorrow. On this I do not wish to interject my own personal opinion, stated as fact, in the area inwhich is, truly, grey, and are up for discussion. Granted, it appears that I do this anyway, but I assure you that I do not.

[Carbon]

I was referring to nameless, not you.

[willowtreeme]

It is not so easy to be a skeptic.

To question, to doubt, to tempt yourself, to creep into that dark, scary place within your mind where you have no idea where you are going or where you will be lead. This requires more energy, more love of truth, more faith. Like Indiana Jones in that cave stepping into the abyss, sensing that there was more there than he could see, that would eventually lead him to the other side.

To be a skeptic, means to break down your beliefs, to doubt them, to question them, to agonize over them. To be a skeptic is to stand between "Being there" and "having never arrived", between "Liberation and Slavery".

But is there any other way from here to there?

Good luck

[LogicReasonEvidence]

You have some very strange ideas here. Look:

A theory is true until disproven with empyrical data. If you fail to provide empyrical data, your skeptism is basically moot and simply for show.

Seriously? All theories true are they? So if I have a theory that the Loch Ness Monster is a dinosaur which still survives in the 21st century my theory is correct yes?

Come on! All claims lacking independently verifiable evidence are highly questionable & the more miraculous the claim the more unlikely it is. It's clearly the claimant's job to provide evidence for their claim not that of someone who says 'I don't believe you.' If you disagree is it therefore your job to somehow disprove my Loch Ness Monster claim & not mine? - Get real!

[Sy Borg]

Christians are usually skeptical of the claims of Islam and Buddhism.

Muslims are usually skeptical about the claims of Christianity and Buddhism.

Buddhists are usually skeptical about the claims of Christianity and Islam.

Atheists are skeptical of claims made by all religions.

We are all skeptical of things that don't accord with our ideas about reality.

There is often a misunderstanding about what science is. It's just a method - observation and verification. We all engage in science - if we don't then we don't survive.

When it comes to questions of the absolute beginning of all things then there is no science, only philosophy. At that point we can say that some ideas are more consistent with how we have observed the universe to operate to date.

Those who are focused on the personal, on relationships, rules of engagement and society will see the world through a prism through which they will observe the world, with the chains of cause and effect occurring on a personal level.

Those who prefer to step back and watch how things work will observe different aspects of reality - the physical chains of cause and effect in the mechanics and dynamics of the universe's operation.

It brings us back to the objectivity / subjectivity divide which almost echoes the Newtonian / quantum divide in that objectivity rules the large while subjectivity rules the small.

-- Updated 21 Dec 2014, 03:30 to add the following --

Addendum - re: we all engage in science. Some go into far more detail than others and their views in areas related to their work and studies necessarily carry more weight.

-- Updated 21 Dec 2014, 03:32 to add the following --

Christians are usually skeptical of the claims of Islam and Buddhism.

Muslims are usually skeptical about the claims of Christianity and Buddhism.

Buddhists are usually skeptical about the claims of Christianity and Islam.

Atheists are skeptical of claims made by all religions.

We are all skeptical of things that don't accord with our ideas about reality.

There is often a misunderstanding about what science is. It's just a method - observation and verification. We all engage in science - if we don't then we don't survive.

When it comes to questions of the absolute beginning of all things then there is no science, only philosophy. At that point we can say that some ideas are more consistent with how we have observed the universe to operate to date.

Those who are focused on the personal, on relationships, rules of engagement and society will see the world through a prism through which they will observe the world, with the chains of cause and effect occurring on a personal level.

Those who prefer to step back and watch how things work will observe different aspects of reality - the physical chains of cause and effect in the mechanics and dynamics of the universe's operation.

It brings us back to the objectivity / subjectivity divide which almost echoes the Newtonian / quantum divide in that objectivity rules the large while subjectivity rules the small.

-- Updated 21 Dec 2014, 03:30 to add the following --

Addendum - re: we all engage in science. Some go into far more detail than others and their views in areas related to their work and studies necessarily carry more weight.

"Those who are focused on the personal, on relationships, rules of engagement and society will see the world through a prism through which they will observe the world, with the chains of cause and effect occurring on a personal level" should read:

""Those who are focused on the personal, on relationships, rules of engagement and society see the world through that prism, with the chains of cause and effect occurring on a personal level".

I have asked poor Spiral to clean up too many of my mistakes

[Misty]

Isn't the American court system based on skepticism? One has to be proven guilty by evidence. Guilty here is supposed to be the truth. But evidence per se is not always truth, therefore, guilt and not guilty can be obscured.

I would like the OP to name the chosen one on this forum that is the true skeptic. Of course this means he/she has read and understood every word of every topic to be fair to all who post here. I am skeptical of his/her qualification to make such a judgment.

-- Updated Sun Dec 21, 2014 6:11 am to add the following --

Innocent until proven guilty is skepticism. But this does no guarantee truth will prevail.