The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
Consider this: did you immediately find out that Santa Claus wasn't real (apologies are extended to all believers...) or did you initially have suspicions? Perhaps it was the fact that Santa's handwriting was the same as your Dad's, or that he used the same wrapping paper as your Mom, or you had previously spied a gift from Santa hidden in closet within your home, or even your own understanding of physics gave you a clue. (For more on the physics of Santa Claus, click here.)
1. Does That Mean No More Presents?
No matter the reason, you were becoming skeptical. That is, you doubted and questioned the truth as you previously understood it, even despite authority figures and/or common belief telling you something different.
Intellectually, being skeptical is important, particularly for the advancement of knowledge. After all, most scientists will readily admit that their hypotheses are transitory and will, with new information, be changed. Indeed, that is often the point.
In your search for truth so far, you have explored a number of questions regarding what you can know, and how you can know it. To recap, the rationalists believe you can discover truth and knowledge through inward thinking whereas empiricists believe knowledge and truth stem from experience.
But what if they are both wrong? What if being skeptical also meant questioning and doubting the very concept of knowledge itself?
2. Doubting Early
One of the earliest Western skeptics was Pyrrho of Elis (360 BCE - 270 BCE). Pyrrho's philosophy centres on the idea of Acatalepsy - the impossibility of being able to consider or comprehend something as it actually is. Consider (assuming you can) Plato's Cave; few people successfully exit the cave, and even if they do, Descartes would later deconstruct his own doubts.
Another famous skeptic was Sextus Empiricus. He believed that there were roughly ten types of skepticism; these types were separated into three categories: subjective perceiver, objective world, and the relationship between perceiver and the world. This breakdown can be found in his "Outlines of Pyrrhonism". In short, Sextus was beginning to explore the mind-body problem where the perceiver cannot be certain that what they perceive is "real" (like a mirage).
However, rather than focus on overcoming the perceiver's flaws, Sextus believed that the flaws were insurmountable when it came to understanding "real" knowledge.
Supplementary Reading
Click here to read more about Sextus Empiricus' skepticism - scroll down to the Sextus Empiricus part.
And here is how Aenesidemus explains why we should never, at first glance, accept a theory or someone's idea about something. These are the "top ten" reasons to be skeptical - also known as "tropes" or "modes" of skepticism and they're from Sextus Empiricus' Outlines of Pyrrhonism c. 200 AD:
- "The same impressions are not produced by the same objects owing to the differences in animals."
- The same impressions are not produced by the same objects owing to the differences among human beings.
- The same impressions are not produced by the same objects owing to the differences among the senses.
- Owing to the "circumstances, conditions or dispositions," the same objects appear different. The same temperature, as established by instrument, feels very different after an extended period of cold winter weather than after mild weather in the autumn. Time appears slow when young and fast as aging proceeds. Honey tastes sweet to most but bitter to someone with jaundice. A person with influenza will feel cold and shiver even though she is hot with a fever.
- "Based on positions, distances, and locations; for owing to each of these the same objects appear different." The same tower appears rectangular at close distance and round from far away. The moon looks like a perfect sphere to the human eye, yet cratered from the view of a telescope.
- “We deduce that since no object strikes us entirely by itself, but along with something else, it may perhaps be possible to say what the mixture compounded out of the external object and the thing perceived with it is like, but we would not be able to say what the external object is like by itself."
- "Based, as we said, on the quantity and constitution of the underlying objects, meaning generally by "constitution" the manner of composition." So, for example, goat horn appears black when intact and appears white when ground up. Snow appears white when frozen and translucent as a liquid.
- "Since all things appear relative, we will suspend judgement about what things exist absolutely and really existent. Do things which exist "differentially" as opposed to those things that have a distinct existence of their own, differ from relative things or not? If they do not differ, then they too are relative; but if they differ, then, since everything which differs is relative to something..., things which exist absolutely are relative."
- "Based on constancy or rarity of occurrence." The sun is more amazing than a comet, but because we see and feel the warmth of the sun daily and the comet rarely, the latter commands our attention.
- "There is a Tenth Mode, which is mainly concerned with Ethics, being based on rules of conduct, habits, laws, legendary beliefs, and dogmatic conceptions."
Is Ignorance Bliss?
Many people seem to associate skepticism with depression. After all, doubting that you can know anything for certain carries with it certain concerns, including 'can you trust anyone?', or 'does he/she really love you?', and even 'do you exist?'.
But sometimes, isn't it easier not to know?
Pyrrho and Sextus didn't wallow in their scepticism; instead, they argued that the resolution to not knowing anything for certain was Ataraxia - an ancient variation on the idea 'don't worry, be happy'.
After all, what if the reality really was you as a brain in a jar? Would you want to know that or would you rather continue as a virtual entity within an ultimately satisfying existence?
3. "Hume"r Me
David Hume is famous (in some cases, infamous) for being a modern skeptic. He argued that knowledge of the external world could be gained from neither induction (moving from specific to general) nor deduction(moving from general to specific). To do so, he argued, you would first need to accept that there was some sort of uniformity in the universe. Given that change can and does occur, this needed assumption can be doubted.
For example, you are probably certain the sun will rise tomorrow. But can you be sure? Certainly, past practice strongly suggests it will, but just because it has done so in the past doesn't require it to do so in the future. After all, weren't you or your friends once certain Santa Claus existed, or the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, witches on broomsticks, or the Ancients and their belief that the Sun orbited the Earth?
Required Reading
Click here to read Part I of Hume's Treatise of Human Nature. In it you will read first hand how and why Hume argues you can never be sure of anything.Once you've opened Hume's writings above you'll probably want to have a look at this Summary of Part 1 of Hume's Treatise of Human Nature.
Did you know?
When you think of philosophers, what comes to your mind? Do you see them as noble, enlightened visionaries who strive to think their way toward a better world? Sadly, this belief is not always deserved. Hume is one such example.
As insightful and philosophically engaging as his writings were, Hume was racist. He firmly believed in the superiority of white skinned people and vocally denounced black skinned people. If you want to read examples of his racist writings, you can search the Web.
Later in the course you will be examining ethical issues. Here is an early opportunity to do so. How should you respond to Hume, his theories and his beliefs? Should his works be banned? Or should he be read realizing he was a 'man of his times'? Does this weaken his philosophy or merely his personal life? Should we hold the great thinkers of history accountable because their writing may have reflected the prevailing popularly held views and social norms of their era?
4. Five Minute Hypothesis
How long has the Earth existed? Modern science suggests approximately 4.6 billion years. Famed philosophy Bertrand Russell, however, suggests a shorter time frame: 5 minutes!Okay, so maybe Russell didn't believe that the world was only five minutes old, but he did argue that you cannot prove it isn't. As Russell notes in his Analysis of Mind, "[t]here is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago." Source
Granted, this does fly in the face of a lot of evidence and personal experience. However, it does demonstrate the central skeptical argument: you can never truly know.
This idea can also be applied to Descartes' 'cogito ergo sum' solution. As you recall, Descartes was able to determine that he was, at the very least, a thinking thing. Later, he used God to justify his sensations, perceptions and beliefs. However, Hume argued that all Descartes could really know was that he was a thinking thing in that instance; the devil to which Descartes refers could be implanting false memories and/or destroying and recreating him at will.
No comments:
Post a Comment