There are various branches of philosophy dealing with different problematic subjects. The idea of skepticism is one of the most debatable philosophical concepts. Skeptics usually express doubt on the ability of human beings to grasp knowledge, in addition to a broad spectrum of attitudes and positions concerning skepticism in general. There is a general agreement in philosophy that any knowledge requires justification. One needs not hold a genuine belief as a true belief without any justification as its basis. The analysis of skepticism as an area of philosophy reveals that while it is an important philosophical issue for academic purposes, its application in the purest form in real everyday situations is limited, unlike that of other areas of philosophy what is easy when you buy prewritten essays https://premiumqualityessays.com/buy-pre-written-essays/
Skepticism in General
There is an agreement that most skeptics have a degree of doubt on the ability of the human mind and experience to acquire any knowledge. Philosophers have termed this as skepticism. The word draws its meaning from the Greek word skeptisis, which refers to examination, inquiry, and consideration. Nagel explains that, in essence, the only thing one can be sure of is the inside of one’s mind. As such, skeptics will examine the knowledge at hand, inquire about it and, finally, give the number of issues they have to consider, doubting what to believe as far as the seemingly endless disagreement of issues that are of importance in the daily life and beyond is concerned.
Skepticism is not a single topic but rather covers a range of different issues. In the Greek and Roman times, skepticism mainly encompassed two primary areas - that of academic skepticism and Pyrrhonian skepticism. In academic skepticism, the main idea was that knowledge was not possible. Pyrrhonian skepticism expressed abhorrence towards taking a position on any issues, as this was seen as being dogmatic, which was an anathema to skepticism. The idea of radical skeptics later joined the two principal areas of skepticism. In radical uncertainty, the main argument was that no one can have any knowledge about anything, and this would include one knowing that he/she does not comprehend anything.
Classification of Skepticism
Currently, one can classify skepticism according to its scope. The first category is local skepticism, which deals with specific areas of knowledge. According to Greco, for instance, this could be skepticism on issues pertaining to morality. The second category under local skepticism is scientific skepticism. Thirdly, there is metaphysical skepticism. Lastly, under local skepticism, there is religious skepticism. On the other hand, there is global skepticism, which is much wider, as it encompasses doubt if knowledge is extant at all.
One can also classify skepticism according to its method. In this instance, the western tradition of skepticism has two major approaches. The first is the Cartesian method whose major claim is that any knowledge is ultimately doubtable. The second one is the Aggripan skepticism whose focus is on the process through which one can justify knowledge, rather than concentrate on doubt. In this way, one can try to justify knowledge based on three methods, but neither of the three is adequate enough to prove the existence of objective knowledge. First, it calls one to keep on making further justifications although it will only lead to infinite regress. Secondly, the justifier could choose to stop at assertions that are dogmatic. Thirdly, one could choose circular reasoning, which would result in the justification never reaching a conclusion, which is viable.
In the issue of epistemic limitations, the human mind comes to the fore. As all human beings have epistemic limitations, they should seek to limit their judgments on many of the issues. For instance, it relates to the abuse of the nature of knowledge, as a skeptic cannot claim to know that knowledge is not possible. Rather, a skeptic doubts the idea of knowledge and its possibility, without giving a definitive judgment about it.
Knowledge, Skepticism, Foundational Dogmatism, Fictionalism and Philosophical Fideism
In the modern would, the relationship between knowledge and skepticism remains a rather pressing issue. In skepticism, the main argument is that knowledge or at least absolute knowledge is not possible. From the standpoint of skeptics, knowledge and belief with regard to a certain issue do not make this issue necessarily extant. In this case, they oppose dogmatic foundationalism, which claims that some positions are self-justified or are essentially beyond justification; thus, they do not need to be justified in relation to others.
Skeptics have gained several ways to deal with dogmatic foundationalism. The first one is an assertion that there are basic facts or positions, which, in essence, are reasoning from ignorance, what combines with the philosophical fallacy of the slippery slope. Skeptics have also used Agrippa's Trilemma to navigate the issues' presentation by foundationists. The Trilemma asserts that it is not impossible for one to avert the truth definitively; thus, it is impossible to affirm the certainty of any belief. However, such an approach presents a problem as foundationists have used the same Trilemma to justify the position that some basic beliefs are not only verifiable but also valid.
In contrast to functionalism, foundationalism does not claim to have the treat. In the case of fictionalism, there is a possibility of arriving at some conclusion on the issues such as aesthetics and utility and the issues that one can make a conclusion about based on personal criteria. In this case, however, there is no claim that the conclusion has the veracity of being the objective truth. This way, fictionalism is closer to skepticism than functionalism. Furthermore, philosophical fideism is closely related to fictionalism thematically when compared to skepticism as it claims that it is possible to assert the truth of some positions, without affirming their certainty.
Moreover, one should be careful differentiating between skepticism and ordinary incredulity. In ordinary incredulity, one can remove the grounds for skepticism in effect. Ordinary incredulity, when looked at critically, states that some features of the world occur against the background of sequestered beliefs of the world. However, skeptics try to render any fact in a given premise as highly doubtful avoiding pitting one member of the group against another. In essence, skeptics claim that it is logically impossible to remove philosophical doubt from any fact.
Criticism of Skepticism
Skepticism explains that no truth is knowable, and truth is only probable. Some philosophers criticize this approach, as it is possible to know some truths with a degree of certainty. For instance, scientific truths are certain. On the other hand, stating that no truth is knowable is a contradictory statement. The word truth already proposes a value that is objective and verifiable. Stating that it is not knowable makes the sentence contradict itself. Moreover, skepticism is endless question-asking. In real life, in leadership and problem solving, there is a need for decisive actions. As such, there arise many doubts if there is a way to apply the philosophy of skepticism in its purest form to everyday life.
Moreover, because of the uncertainty of the future, it is impossible to be certain of most things. Human progress has called for leaps of faith in most cases of moving forward. Endless skepticism would thus considerably impede this process. Besides, the very nature of skepticism would not allow people to weigh options when there is more than one choice. Skepticism would make both options in any decision appear bad, thereby impeding the process of making of a corresponding decision. It also seems that such philosophical guidance would make one unable to recognize and acknowledge truth when he or she sees it. Consequently, skepticism seems to take away the very essence of life making it impossible to set out any goals and achieve them, especially with things that are worth doing but difficult to accomplish.
The exploration of skepticism reveals that while it is an important area of philosophy, it also demonstrates that it is impossible to apply it in practice, unlike other philosophical concepts. Skepticism involves the endless questioning of issues and the firm knowledge that it is impossible to know anything. In addition, it has academic and pyrrhic divisions. One can also classify it according to its methodology into such areas as Cartesian and Aggripan skepticism. In relation to other branches of philosophy, skepticism is an antithesis of fictionalism and, to some extent, philosophical fideism. However, outside academics, there seems to be a limited scope for the application of skepticism in its purest form as insistent questioning can lead to the lack of progress while human development requires making decisions even when people are not sure of the results.
