Skeptic!sm

Skeptic!smOK

#narrativeessay, #existence, #doubting, #thinking

If I am skeptical enough today, I will doubt writing this assignment. This means I might not write anything, or if I write something it might not be related to what I was asked to write in the first place. But, since I cannot be sure whether I was asked to write anything at all, how can I be sure whether I have received such an assignment, or if such an assignment existed at all? Therefore, I wouldn’t need to fulfill such an assignment.

But, if I am skeptical enough today, I will doubt any writing system, which enables me to write. This means that a pen and paper, or an electronic device, that could help me write this assignment might turn out faulty, or even untrustworthy to write with, or might not even exist. Even if they existed, I might not be able to use them since I am also doubting my capabilities.

But, if I am skeptical enough today, I will doubt my ability to write altogether. This means that these two figures in front of me that look like hands are only my impressions of two hands, and I cannot be sure whether they are really in my possession, or if they are just an idea of two hands. [1] Therefore, even if I knew how to write, now I cannot write with the hands that I might not even own.

But, if I am skeptical enough today, I will doubt having any idea about hands. This means that because I cannot trust what I see, feel, sense, and touch as hands, then, these might just be a false understanding formed by my brain, therefore, I cannot have any idea about the ‘true’ concept of hands. I am not sure when I am perceiving them, whether I am accommodating them to myself, or I am just trapped in a process of assimilation, which, at the same time, is a sort of falsification preventing me from judging what my hands are in and of themselves. [2]

But, if I am skeptical enough today, I will doubt the very idea of a brain forming ideas. This means that I might not be able to form any ideas, and what I consider to be my ideas are no more than imported ones, therefore, I cannot be sure about having any of my own thoughts in my brain.

But, if I am skeptical enough today, I will doubt I have a brain. This means that what I consider my brain might not even exist, because I might not have any information whatsoever about the existence of a brain. I might never have seen a brain, or touched one, and might never even have spoken to another person about the very idea of a brain, therefore I don't know what a brain is. How can I think about not having a brain if I do not have an instrument to think about not having a brain?

But, if I am skeptical enough today, I will doubt thinking. This means that what I am describing right now is not showing a thinking process, and this might mean that I cannot probably think. [3] Therefore, I cannot form any ideas, and as a result, I might not even exist as the voice of this writing, and even if I do exist, I cannot be sure about the world I am existing in.

But, if I am skeptical enough today, I will doubt the existence of the external world once in all. This means that I cannot be sure if the world of matters really exists, since I cannot form any infallible idea about the world that can serve as a foundation for my knowledge about it, or any idea that I might form can be called into doubt. [4] At this point, I'm not sure about anything. Even this sentence is betraying me.

But, if I am skeptical enough today, I will doubt doubting. This means that I may doubt the act of doubting. I might not even exist in the form that I previously thought I existed to be able to doubt about what I am doubting, but if I can doubt about what I have been doubting, then I should somehow exist to doubt in the first place. If I doubt, then I should be. [5]

on the sharp edge of the desk in front of him, again, and again, once harder than before. The desk existed. He started bleeding, blood covered his eyes, blood existed. Mad, furious, unstable and dizzy, and unable to properly see, he grabbed the laptop which he was writing with and threw it at the window of his room, where he was sitting. The laptop broke, the window did not. He couldn't believe that it was possible for him not to exist, after all, he was able to touch, see, and feel, and I assume he just wanted to test his abilities. At last, he just opened the bedroom window and jumped out without any hassle.

He believed in ‘Skepticism’ and the suspension of his judgment (epochê), but not fully, obviously. If he was a true skeptic, he would have continued doubting (inquiring) about everything and could have completely suspended his judgment, leading to the tranquility, or peace of mind (atarâxiâ) implanted in his skepticism. [6] As a result, he could not have been able to hold any beliefs, resulting in not committing any action at all. [7] He could have still existed and shown that he had the ability to act, in this case, elimination of himself proved to be the pricey consequence of his faulty system of decision making. He rushed into forming an idea about an action that also unintentionally proved his existence without getting help from the divine. [8] Maybe he could have just opened his eyes and looked at his hands better. [9] Maybe then he could have trusted his ability to see the nature of reality itself, instead of thinking about this subjective state of the world, in which he got stuck, and which unfortunately led to his tragic death. [10]

Commons sense or non-sense? [11] What could have saved this young man? Appearances or reality?

In line with Montaigne’s thought (1533-1592), now that because our state accommodates things and turns them according to itself, we do not know what the actual things are anymore; as nothing comes to us but falsified and altered by our senses. (Montaigne 1999: 600). See, E. Machuca, Diego and Baron Reed Skepticism From Antiquity to the Present . pp.238.

It was René Descartes (1596–1650) who famously said, I think therefore I am.

[3] Based on Descartes’ ideas. It was Augustine (354-430) who famously claimed, If I doubt, then I exist. This was promised as a practical goal by Pyrrho of Ellis. Pyrrho of Ellis (365/360–275/270 BCE) was the first skeptic. He held three things: (i) The world is equally undecided and unmeasurable, (ii) One must not trust the senses and must be without opinion and belief as to how the world really is, and (iii) We must not assent to anything, and that will finally lead to tranquility (atarâxiâ).

[6] The Stoics’ counter-argument was that if one does not assent, then one does not hold beliefs and, hence, one cannot act. Montaigne suggests ‘Not to believe too rashly: not to disbelieve too easily’ whilst René Descartes developed an argument using God as the guarantor for the truth of cognition that is clear and distinct. Similar to Augustine and Henry of Ghent, he thought that it is through trust and belief in God that we can gain knowledge of the external world. [Montaigne also thought we cannot obtain any guidance as to how to live our lives, unless God enlightens us. In the end neither the senses nor reason give us any foundation for truth or knowledge. See, Lagerlund, Henrik.

. pp.108.] Skepticism in Philosophy a Comprehensive, Historical Introduction G.E. Moore (1873–1958) argued against skepticism and idealism from a common sense perspective. (being is perceiving). Based on Montaigne's belief, in reality, the person ‘who judges by appearances judges on the basis of something different from the thing itself’, relying on phenomena that belongs to the subject and its states—and not strictly to the object. (Montaigne 1999: 601)

[10] Thomas Reid (1710-1796) argues that as long as the skeptic cannot show their conclusions are more probable than common sense, there is no reason to prefer skepticism. Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951), on the other hand, believed that skepticism does not make sense in ordinary language. The ‘doubt’ of the skeptic is not the same ‘doubt’ as used in an ordinary language situation. In such a situation skepticism is nonsensical.