History of Phenomenology

While the word ‘phenomenology’ actually existed for quite some time before the 20th century, it’s definition didn’t have much permanence in philosophy. Occasionally it was thrown around by philosophers such as Kant and Fichte. They used the term to refer to the appearances of fundamental experience. Hegel even had a book named The Phenomenology of Spirit, using the word to represent “descriptive psychology.”

When Husserl arrived on the scene the field began to take shape and phenomenology’s definition became permanent. His mission was to discover the foundations in the structures of consciousness; these are called phenomena ( things we are conscious of). Husserl described phenomenology as based on action and free of metaphysics. In order to find these foundations, Husserl created something called the transcendental reduction, or as he called it, The Epoché.

The Phenomenological Method – The Epoché

Husserl’s Epochéwas designed to help us understand these structures of consciousness. It is done by bracketing out all preexisting notions of the external world. Husserl wants to start with a fresh pallet and to do that one must give up all of their assumptions. It shifts the center of thought away from “one’s experience” to “one’s world.” This results in consciousness in it’s purest form, so descriptions of phenomena can be made. He called this pure consciousness the Transcendental Ego. For Husserl, it’s all about our emotional and imaginative disposition toward objects, rather then their empirical value.

Existential Phenomenology

After Husserl, many new faces in phenomenology came on the scene. Unfortunately for Husserl, not many of them agreed with the Epoché. In fact, the new breed of phenomenologists were going to completely shift gears. Turning from Husserl’s question: “What are the foundations of consciousness?” to a new question, ” What is it like to be a human?” So, The existential phenomenologists  arrived to discover universal conceptual features that are necessary for anything to be a human being. existential phenomenology not only bashes the Epoché, but eliminates the transcendental ego, claiming that such a thing does not exist.

Existentialism: Ethics? nope. Self? try again. Existence? I don’t know.

One thing that doesn’t change throughout phenomenology is their main motive. Description.

As outlined above, one important feature of existential phenomenology is that it never offers any ethical advice. These guys do not advocate any one system over another because that is simply not in their line of work. Most often, you will read an existential piece of work and feel as though they are pushing for a certain radical system of moral belief, but in reality they are simply describing just that, reality! They point out the ways in which we really act and the actual dispositions we have. A description of the existential conditions of human moral action. Some will try and study the ethics of these guys, but to do this mostly misses the point of their work.

Self is a concept that has been embedded into our minds, but some existentialist disagree. For them, self is a concept that has been created purely by the realization of other individuals. Our self is the result of looking at our own lives through the scope of another humans. It is how we judge our own actions and what creates one of the most fundamental aspects of the human condition, Anxiety! Jean-Paul Sartre gives an example of this when speaking of shame. Shame is an emotion that could only possibly be felt by the existence of someone else. If you were dancing naked in your room and no one walks in on you do you feel ashamed? Nope, only until another human being witnesses your actions does shame arise.

Existence is also an issue an existentialism, especially the existence of others. existentialist philosophers discuss the issues with something called solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that you are the only mind that exists and no one else. It seems ridiculous at first, but as Sartre talks about in Being and Nothingness, we can never really know for sure if other minds exist. There is no test, no experiment and no tool that indicates another thinking consciousness. Existence of others, like the self, is always assumed, but never proven.

Conclusion

I hope this short introduction into phenomenology and existentialism has offered some sufficient insight. These two topics are extremely vast and filled with a plethora of different, mostly opposing, ideas. Excuse my overuse of Sartre to explain these concepts. He is one existentialist I have studied more than others. Of course other Existentialists should not be overlooked. existentialist philosophers such as Martin Heideggar, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Albert Camu are completely worth your time. Nevertheless, existentialism and phenomenology deal with some of the most significant aspects of being, making it accessible to everyone, not just philosophers. Many existentialist authors such as Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Franz Kafka are worth reading, as their works accompany the philosophy and are great introductions and experiences of existentialism.  Thanks for reading, and keep thinking!

-Joseph

The Framework

Idealism is the belief that reality is solely a collection of ides or  minds — as opposed to materialism (belief in only matter) and dualism (belief in both matter and mind). Berkeley lets this idea come to life in a book he wrote called, The Principles of Human Knowledge. The basis behind Berkeley’s belief is the Latin phrase: esse ist percipi, or “to be is to be perceived.” Whatever is not being perceived does not exist. So, if we think of the age old question: If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to perceive it, does it make a sound? Well, Berkeley would contend that it does not. Whats the basis for believing such a radical idea? Let’s find out…

The Argument

So, how on earth would someone believe that something doesn’t exist simply because he/she is currently not perceiving it? Let’s try an experiment. I want you to think of a specific object you currently aren’t perceiving right now…  Got something? Okay, let me ask you this. What the hell are you thinking about? If you’re thinking of a particular object in your mind, and you have an image of that object in your mind, then aren’t you thinking about a perceived object? One with a taste, smell, feel, look etc..? Surely this object in your mind is being pictured probably from some standpoint around that object as it would be seen if perceived by you. Berkeley believes that it’s impossible to think this way because to do so leads to an inconstancy. But, another problem now arises. Where does everything go when we don’t perceive it? Berkeley has a solution for that too.

Introducing the omni-perceiver

So where does the refrigerator go when we’re not in the kitchen? Or, how about your car when you’re not in the garage? Remember, Berkeley believes that everything is an idea, and not comprised of continually existing matter. But, to get around the idea of things dropping out of existence when we’re not around, Berkeley brings God into the picture. He believes that everything is an idea in the mind of god. This explains why  when I open up the refrigerator the milk is still there. Without God to continue to perceive and watch your milk exist over time, there would be no reason for it to even be there again when I reopen the door later on. Fortunately for us, even if there is no one around to perceive your refrigerator, we don’t have to worry, God has it covered.

Conclusion

Berkeley’s idealism is quite an interesting idea. For most, it’s difficult to understand because it is so radically different then what we are all used to. We also have to keep in mind that Berkeley was a Bishop, an authoritative figure in the christian clergy. This makes his opinion a bit bias especially since his idealism hinges on the very existence of God. With all this said, Berkeley did influence a very large group of idealists to follow such as Immanuel Kant, and Arthur Schopenhauer. As crazy as his idea sounds, it is an interesting concept and the more you really think about it without any presumptions, the less wild it sounds.  Until next time, Keep thinking!

-Joseph

Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher who lived from 384 to 322 BCE. He is widely considered to be one of the greatest figures in the history of philosophy, with treatises spanning all the way from aesthetics to metaphysics. However, he is perhaps best known for his ethical system, which he expounds in the Nicomachean Ethics. This system of virtue ethics focuses on the character of the moral agent, rather than the types of acts said agent ought to perform. This is because Aristotle believed it impossible to establish a completely objective and universal set of ethical rules. Accordingly, most of the doctrines found in his virtue ethics are flexible and, in a sense, relativistic.

Eudaimonia

The ultimate aim of ethics, says Aristotle, is “eudaimonia”, which can be roughly translated to mean “happiness” or “flourishing”. In order to demonstrate this, he employs a teleological argument. Teleological arguments assume that there is some function or purpose inherent in the world (or at least a particular part of it). Accordingly, Aristotle claims that just as a shoe has the function of shielding and insulating the feet, and a shoemaker has the function of manufacturing such shoes, man (sic) must have a function too. He determines that this function or end is eudaimonia or flourishing. However, it is a misconception to view eudaimonia as a point to be reached, rather it is something that characterizes one’s total life. As such, one can never pass in and out of eudaimonia, but one can pass in and out of the path that yields it.

The Doctrine of the Mean

Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean (aka the golden mean) is often misunderstood to signify a life of moderation. However, while this may be true in certain cases, the doctrine in general does not prescribe anything so concrete. Rather, the golden mean urges us to always engage in every activity to the right amount. That is, such that we do not engage in said activity with excess or deficiency. What constitutes the mean will differ between agents and between situations. Aristotle prescribes various procedures to aid in this determination, but describing them here would be excessive and thereby violate the doctrine of the mean .

Cultivating Virtue

Aristotle claims that the virtuous agent should not merely perform virtuous acts, but should enjoy performing them. Likewise, one should feel aversion when performing base acts. Anyone who does not experience these reactions is defective and must have had a distorted upbringing. Accordingly, he contends that these proper responses to virtuous and base acts can be cultivated through habituation; proper education, says Aristotle, should facilitate this habituation process.

The Good Life

Several common conceptions of the good life are enumerated and critiqued in the Nichomachean Ethics, the good life being that which most effectively leads to eudaimonia. One is the life of pleasure, which Aristotle discards as fleeting and contingent, since there are many situations and constitutions that don’t allow for pleasure and even when a pleasurable act is successfully performed it does not yield a lasting benefit. Additionally, a life of pleasure seems compatible with sleep, and according to Aristotle things active are superior to things passive, so this also counts against it. Another is the life of honor, which Aristotle also denies, saying that it is dependent upon the perception of the public, since one can only have honor if one is honored. He claims that the best way of life must not be contingent, so the life of honor cannot be the good life. Furthermore, a life of honor seems compatible with a life of treachery, since one can acquire honor undeserved. He concludes that the good life is the contemplative life, or the life of reason, for it can be pursued and maintained independent of any peripheral circumstances; also, it is reason that characterizes humanity and separates us from the “lower animals”. However, Aristotle believed that all of these ways of life should be pursued to some degree, so he was against the ascetic lifestyle of complete renunciation. He believed that eudaimonia required a mixture of pleasure, honor, and reason, among other things, prioritized properly.

Conclusion

Aristotle devised an ethical system that still holds immense influence today, though it is typically superseded by those of Mill and Kant. I believe Joey has already submitted a post on Kantian ethics, so I recommend that anyone who wants a more comprehensive understanding of major trends in ethical thought refer to that in addition to this article. I expect to be composing an article on Mill’s Utilitarianism in the near future, so together these should provide a helpful glimpse into ethics through history. I hope this was informative

Gettier’s Method

In his revolutionary paper, Edmund Gettier supplies two devastating examples that both employ a similar methodology. That is, the alleged knower is justified in believing something that, as it turns out, is in fact true, but it is not true because of the reasons they thought. Since this person didn’t arrive at their belief through the right avenue, philosophers are inclined to say that it is comparable to guessing (which is precisely the type of belief that justification is supposed to preclude) so it doesn’t count as knowledge. By creating examples this way Gettier is able to demonstrate instances where a person can have a justified true belief that isn’t knowledge. This overturned the traditional definition of knowledge in philosophy, or at least weakened it. Many philosophers have since scrambled to plug the holes of the JTB theory, modifying justification, suggesting a fourth condition be added, and sometimes even declaring that the theory should be scrapped altogether.

Gettier Examples

Smith and Jones have both applied for the same job. Smith has strong evidence for his belief that Jones will get the job. Smith also has strong evidence that Jones has 10 coins in his pocket. Reasoning from these justified beliefs, Smith concludes that the man who will get the job will have 10 coins in his pocket. However, Smith does not realize that he himself will actually be selected for the job and that he himself also happens to have 10 coins in his pocket.  Yet, according to the JTB theory, Smith has knowledge that the man who will get the job will have 10 coins in his pocket.

Smith has strong evidence for his belief that his friend Jones owns a Ford. Smith also has a friend named Brown whose whereabouts are unknown to him. Based upon his justified belief that Jones owns a Ford, Smith constructs three propositions at random. 1. Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Boston. 2. Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona 3. Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Brest-Litovsk. However, as it turns out, Jones does not own a Ford and Brown happens to be in Barcelona.

Conclusion

The Gettier problem has become a central issue in epistemology and many ideas have been suggested as to how to address it.  These include causal theory, reliabilism, evidentialism, and tracking theory. Hopefully I’ll be able to compose a post describing some of these theories in detail soon. Until then, thanks for reading.

Arguments Condemning Suicide

The argument I hear most often goes something like this: the death of someone you care about is emotionally damaging, most people have at least some people who care about them, therefore (for most people) suicide is a selfish and wrong act.

Counter Argument

Now, as is perhaps obvious when the argument is laid out this way, there seems to be a logical leap from the premises to their conclusion. The basic inference seems to break down to this, ‘emotionally damaging someone is selfish and wrong’, but this inference doesn’t account for the particular circumstances of suicide cases. In other words, suicides are typically prompted by great emotional upheaval, which can be translated to an ‘emotional damaging’ of the self. Thus, by telling people that they are wrong to kill themselves, we are effectively ordering them to submit to emotional pain. One makes a decision when he/she commits suicide to burden others in order to release oneself, but is this wrong? It is surely admirable to altruistically bear that emotional burden, but it seems odd to say that doing the opposite is actually contemptible. Granted, at this point the discussion is perhaps too nebulous and abstract; after all, perhaps it would be contemptible if there is a sufficient disparity in the right way between cases. For instance, enduring an insult from a local villain so that your family isn’t tortured seems to be something one would be morally bound to do, whereas  relieving your emotional burden by spitting on the villain at the risk of your family’s safety would seem contemptible. But, it is possible to at least vaguely quantify the difference in damage between one who kills one’s self and the damage to those who care about him/her. This can be done very simply by an observation of key behavior, namely to what degree did the person react to the emotional pain. Of course, in all cases the one in question reacted by going as far as to kill him/herself in order to escape the pain, whereas cases of those who care about the person actually killing themselves upon hearing the news are exceedingly rare. Therefore, the emotional burden that is released by the suicide seems to be significantly greater than the new burden lain upon those who care about the one who killed him/herself. One might object here by saying that the emotional pain of the one who commits suicide is only temporary (given modern therapy), while the pain that suicide inflicts is permanent. However, therapy is hardly the magical cure that people suppose, in fact unmedicated therapy is largely unsuccessful in extreme cases and self-managed therapy can often become an endurance test. Additionally, the damage inflicted on relations can be potentially healed as well, probably far more easily than that of the person who killed him/herself.

Conclusion

The usual argument that suicide is wrong seems to fail. There may be more air-tight arguments that I haven’t encountered, but due to that fact they obviously can’t be explored here. Finally, I should clarify (for the distracted reader) that I am not attempting to advocate suicide, but am rather attempting to defend the morality of those who commit it. In other words, I am merely saying that it isn’t wrong, which isn’t to say that it is necessarily right (as in admirable).

Background Information (If you are familiar with the story you may skip this part)

As Light sits in class assessing his boring and exceptionally monotonous lifestyle he notices a black notebook falling from the sky. After class, he discovers that the book he picks up is no ordinary notebook, it is a Death Note. Inside, a chilling statement reads ‘The name of the person written in this book will die.’ Now that Light has the Death Note he begins to conspire a plan. He tests out his first victim on a criminal and succeeds to watch his death air on TV moments later. Once he is assured that it works his mind begins to go wild at the thought of what he can become. He believes truly that by eradicating all criminals he will become a God of sorts able to restore the violent and immoral world of today into a peaceful wonderful place.

It is important to note that the Death Note has a very specific set of rules to follow, I’ll list a few major ones for you here:

• When writing the name of the person you are killing you must have in mind their face in order to prevent killing someone with the same name
• If cause of death is not specified, the person will simply die of a heart attack
• If time of death is not specified the cause of death will commence after 40 seconds of writing the name.

There are many other rules, but these will suffice for those who have no prior knowledge.

What is The Will To Power?

Schopenhauer was the first to ignite the idea of  “the will to live,” a basic principle he claims is the most fundamental aspect of life. This attribute is likely found in every living human on the planet. On the other hand, “the will to power” is much more in depth.  The concept was brought forth by Nietzsche and appears many times throughout his works. “The will to power” can be described as follows: when one is endowed with power, one finds pleasure in utilizing ones own power. Also, when someone has “the will to power” they will become in love with the very idea of using their power to dominate others even by ways of cruelty.

Light Yagami and The Will to Power

Light finally has the power to do what he always wanted to do, save the world from criminals and the useless. As time goes by we see just how much this power swallows his rationality whole. What starts as a once-in-a-lifetime chance to save the world becomes a path built on the pleasure of his own domination and rise to power. After his first few killings, light feels pretty confident. The deaths of those he kills are being broadcast on TV and Light is eating the entire thing up.

Soon enough though the authorities start to catch on that all these deaths are not due to some coincidence. An FBI agent by the name of Raye Penber is on Light’s trail and when he begins to suspect Light as the killer, Light does something drastic. Fearing his capture, Light takes things into his own hands and eliminates the entire FBI team coming to investigate him. Light uses Raye to get the names and faces of all the FBI agents and after he received the list, Light writes Raye’s name in the Death Note. These victims are the first non-criminals to be killed proving that Light is in no way willing to give up his power. As Light leaves Raye’s dead body,  a smile appears on his face. He congratulates his method and precision of utilizing his power to eradicate all that stand in his way.

The most interesting display of his “will to power” appears during the events that take place after Raye Penbers death. Enter Naomi Misora, Raye’s fiance and ex FBI agent, who sees Penber’s death as a link to the mystery in who might be the alleged killer. Light discovers this when he bumps into Naomi at police headquarters. Light overhears her name and proceeds thereafter to write her name in the Death Note specifying nothing other than the cause of death (suicide from the loss of her fiance). Alas! 40 seconds have gone by and Naomi is still alive? Light knows that when overhearing her name for the first time that she must have been using a fake name. That’s where Lights intelligence comes in. He tricks Naomi into believing that he is one of the main detectives looking for the killer and when Naomi admits to using the fake name Light can barely contain his happiness. He writes her name and cause of death and when 40 seconds passes he pronounces to her that he is the killer. The gratitude overwhelms him as he watches Naomi walk away. He even follows her for a little fantasizing about how Miss Naomi is going to decide to end her life. Light has gone off the deep end and is now finding pleasure in his own cruelty.

Conclusion

Light Yagami gains access to a killier notebook and becomes overrun with his power. The more he kills the more power he lusts for as he sets his course to become the ultimate god of judgment. Light’s own desire for control leads him to kill many innocent people and eventually even makes claims of having no problem eliminating family members and friends for his cause. The will to power consumes Light in a way that he loses all touch with every other emotion and sense of being. The radical crusade plunges Light in a struggle to dominate or die trying.

Lights claims “I am justice” but he’s not alone. The world renown detective known only as “L” makes this same claim. He’s been called on the case and plans to crack it and arrest this killer. “L” has an agenda that constitutes a different philosophical conundrum. For today though, I think we’ve covered enough and we can save L for his own post.

Thanks for reading my first article in the Personal Philosophical Thought section of (un)Enlightened Philosophy — I’ll try to keep it shorter next time!

Until then, Keep Thinking!

So let’s get right down to it!

Analytic Philosophy

Analytic philosophy refers to a method of philosophy relying heavily on the virtues of logic. It dominated most English speaking countries, especially England and America from 1900-1960. Philosophers in this field were all about argumentation and attempting to clarify their arguments as much as possible. Analytic philosophy found a comfortable seat next to more scientific fields such as Mathematics and Physics. They adopted the belief that Philosophy was more closely related to the sciences then any other field. Most safely say that it all started with the ideas of Bertrand Russell. In his book The Problems of Philosophy, he sets out to explain and analyze issues within the field of philosophy. By doing so he turns to an idea that hadn’t been brought about for some time. Empiricism ( the idea that all knowledge is discovered via experience) found a major part within Analytic philosophy and from then on was the staple of the Analytic style — of course later on this was subject to change.

Analytic philosophy also spawned other movements within itself. Logical Positivism became a popular view that was forged from some of the ideas of Russell and Wittgenstein. Logical positivists were strict believers that Empiricism is the only method of doing philosophy and that no problem could be named solved unless it was solved through experience. Those who took part in this movement include The Vienna Circle. They didn’t seem to regard philosophy as having a large role within the world. Instead, they felt that philosophy is only concerned with the verification of thoughts. They found areas like metaphysics, meaningless and useless.

Another emerging idea was Emotivism. Ethics had always played a big role in philosophy, but some analytic philosophers were looking to refute that. Emotivism is the idea that all ethical claims are really only statements of emotion. For example: “Capital punishment is wrong.” can be translated to “BOOO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT SUCKS.”

A short list of notable analytic philosophers: Bertrand Russell, A.J. Ayre, Ludwig Wittgentein, G.E. Moore, The Vienna Circle, W.V.O. Quine

These are some of the , basic themes that came out of Analytic philosophy, now let’s check out what the Continental Philosophers think.

Continental Philosophy

With an emphasis on such fields as Existentialism, Phenomenology, German Idealism, and Structuralism continental philosophy was taking shape outside of the analytic movement. Continental philosophy roots back to Immanuel Kant who contributed to what many call the beginning of continental philosophy, German Idealism. The term comes from the locations where those doing this kind of philosophy lived, Germany and France. Where analytic philosophy was taking place all over the place, continental philosophy was being mostly done in a centralized area of the European continent.

There are a few things that differ from that of continental philosophy as opposed to analytic. First of all, most continental philosophers reject the scientism that the analytic philosophers heavily rely on. They also rely on historcism in their work. This means that unlike analytic philosophers who look at a problem as an individual problem separate from time and those who posed the question, continental philosophers believe all philosophy should be done with a strong emphasis on where it came from. With a strong unity between theory and practice most philosophers in this field are considered to use their work as a personal or moral transformation and showing a very passionate demeanor towards their philosophy.

As the 20th century rolled around analytic philosophy was gaining a lot of notice. Through the 1900′s, especially after 1930, continental philosophy was rarely discussed. As the years passed by continental philosophers were continuing to get a bad rap from the opposing analytic philosophers. Recently though, continental philosophy is starting to see a comeback. Many fields of academia are incorporating more and more continental philosophy and many schools in North America are actually designing their departments specifically to that of continental philosophy.

A short list of notable continental philosophers: Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, Soren Kierkegaard, Jacques Derrida, Hegal

Conclusion

A lot of things went on between the divide of analytic and continental philosophy. In fact, there’s way too much to fit in one post about it! But nevertheless you can see the interesting  fundamental differences between the two types of philosophies. The future of philosophy still holds a lot of questions to hopefully be answered, but will we ever discover the “right” way to do philosophy? Personally, I don’t think so. Though, with a  statement like that, I’m sure the  analytic philosophers aren’t looking at me too highly .

Until next time, keep thinking!

Responses to the Regress Argument

There are two candidate responses to this argument. One is foundationalism, which proposes that there are some fundamental bedrock beliefs that are self-justifying. These beliefs are typically considered to reside in introspection, for instance I can confidently believe that I perceive myself to be typing on a keyboard without any evidence other than that very perception itself. Foundationalists claim that the regress problem can be solved by supposing that all of our external beliefs are fundamentally resting upon introspective ones.

The second is coherentism, which claims that a belief is justified only if, and as long as, that belief fits into the overall system. Thus, as long as my beliefs all form a coherent belief-system, then it doesn’t matter if there is no bedrock, since every belief supports every other belief. In this view, if I adopt a new belief that is at odds with one that I already hold, then I must discard one of them or risk both of them.

Worries about these replies

It seems highly debatable that all of our beliefs are fundamentally formed from introspective observations, which renders foundationalism useless in legitimizing our beliefs about the external world. After all, when most people turn on a light in a room they don’t think “i see a light switch, thus there is a light switch, thus i can use it to operate the light”, rather it seems more direct than that. Many foundationalists will reply to this criticism by suggesting that there are introspective tacit beliefs in all belief formation; in other words, i merely fail to consciously perceive the full extent of the belief formation process in my mind. However, this criticism is supplemented by the concern that it seems difficult (if even possible) to reach beliefs about the external world from introspective beliefs, i.e. the fact that i see a keyboard doesn’t necessitate the existence of one.

The chief worry about coherentism can be seen as the reverse of that supplied for foundationalism. Where the requirements of forming justified beliefs seem too stringent in foundationalism, they seem too loose in coherentism. Consider the requirements of coherentism for a moment (as long as all of ones beliefs are coherent with each other then they are justified), someone can have utterly absurd beliefs as long as they are coherent with one another. For instance, I can become convinced that I am Napoleon and be justified in believing that as long as all of my other beliefs are distorted in such a way that they are coherent with it; perhaps I believe that it is the early 19th century, that I am in France, that people fear and admire me, despite all of (or at least some of ) these facts being false, I would be justified in these beliefs according to the coherentist account. This clearly appears to be a wrong result, which gives coherentism the responsibility of specifying stricter requirements in their theory, as well as casting doubt on the validity of any coherentist answer to the infinite regress argument.

Conclusion

As you can see, the argument of infinite regress is a troubling one. Neither of these major responses are without great criticism, nor is the problem itself insignificant. I admit that when I first discovered this one I found it earth shattering (epistemically speaking), so hopefully I won’t be responsible for any one’s mental collapse by writing this . Until next time, examine, analyze, and adapt.

Skeptical Arguments

The dream argument – I have had dreams before, in which I questioned whether I was dreaming, and became convinced that I was awake. After all, some dreams are so vivid that there is hardly any observable difference between the dream and reality. What if I am dreaming right now? I would, and do, have no way of knowing.

The evil demon (or genius) – What if there is an evil demon who is absolutely powerful, and is interested in devoting all of his energy toward deceiving me? He has shrouded the world in illusion, such that nothing I see is real; he has confused my mind, such that nothing I think is accurate; he has tainted my judgment, such that nothing I believe is true.

The brain in vat (BIV) hypothesis – What if a mad scientist has captured my brain and placed it in a specially designed vat? He has equipped my brain with wires that feed it information through electrical impulses; as parts of my brain are activated I perceive corresponding images, thoughts, and sensations. These reactions are what I think is reality, but the true reality is that I am merely a disembodied brain made the experiment of a scientist with questionable moral values.

Skeptical Structure

The essential skeleton of skeptical arguments runs as follows,
1. There is some possible scenario, such that it would be impossible to be sure that you aren’t victim to it.
2. In this scenario, your beliefs about the world are false.
3. Hence, it’s impossible to be sure that your beliefs about the world aren’t false.
4. Therefore, you don’t know anything about the world.

Countering Skepticism

Most philosophers want to defeat this argument by rejecting certainty as a necessary condition of knowledge. Those who do this are called fallibalists; they claim that knowledge only requires a sufficient degree of justification, not certainty. Precisely what this degree of justification is remains a matter of dispute. Hopefully a later post can offer the details of this debate, as it contains many of the most interesting ideas in epistemology, but it would be too much of a digression to describe it here any further. The main idea to note is that skeptical arguments merely show that we aren’t certain of reality, so by rejecting certainty as a condition of knowledge, we are able to know things despite these arguments.

Conclusion

It is easy to see how uncertain we are of the world around us. There are so many limitations of the human mind and body that can allow for considerable error. We can also learn from the skeptic and the advances in epistemology that skepticism has spawned. This is to say that, despite the destructiveness that being skeptical may seem to bring, it is ultimately criticism meant to improve our clarity, and therein, the truth. One should note here that trust differs from faith, and the lack of the latter doesn’t necessarily diminish the former. So next time someone argues with you (i.e. they are skeptical of your claim, whether tacit or otherwise), my advice is to view it constructively, you both may learn something. Anyway, I tip my preacher’s hat to you The dream has ended, wake up!

It has been some time since I’ve had the opportunity to write for you all and for that I apologize. With finals over and Christmas break here, I will have the opportunity to add more to the site. I also want to announce that a close friend of mine and fellow philosopher, Zack, has joined forces with (un)Enlightened Philosophy to add to the library of articles we have been attempting to build. So please welcome Zack and make sure to check out his work!