It's better to know some of the questions than all of the answers-James Thurber

In class yesterday, we briefly discussed skepticism. Although I am not a skeptic or nihilist, I felt compelled to defend some of these views, as I feel that the two have acquired unfair negative connotations. Is the extreme skepticism of nihilism even possible? If one believes in nothing, he still believes in something: he believes in not believing. A general skeptic, simply put, questions everything...but this is still believing in something. It's believing that absolutely nothing is concrete except change and uncertainty. It's believing that we can't trust ourselves, others, nature, or any supposed supreme being/higher power. This is often mistaken for narrow-mindedness. Yet I feel like some of these views are quite the opposite and aren't as radically different from other -isms are we might think."Turned on itself, skepticism would question that skepticism is a valid perspective at all" (wikipedia) so we can't say that skeptics are stubborn or pessimistic. They are simply open to all possiblities and assert no final truths.

Skepticism is built upon questioning and doubting more than it is upon rejecting. It has been said that "if we don't stand for something, we'll fall for anything." Skeptics definitely don't let themselves fall for anything, so in the end, aren't they still standing behind a specific outlook, only never fully accepting possibilities concerning reality, purpose, and self so as to avoid narrow-mindedness and ignorance to all the possibilities we may never truly know or comprehend? They are accepting our lack of power as human beings and thus opening doors to all theories of knowledge, reality, and nature. Maybe the truth is that there is no truth.

Samism

I've tried to choose one or a combination of theories from the terms we discussed in class to stand behind, but I can see sides and truths to each one. Even further, I feel like my views will change as I grow and learn. So I figured I would try and come up with my own theory or loose definition of reality. After research, recounting experiences, debating logic, and exploring old journal entries of mine, I came up with a theory I'll call "Samism."From relativism, I strongly believe that moral values, ethics, and ideas of right and wrong are greatly influenced by environment and culture. Of course, not every person in a specific culture has exactly the same values instilled in them from childhood. This is where some parts of Radical Constructivism and Subjectivism come in. Decisions must be shaped by and individual's past experiences. This is why making a decision about something for the first time can often be scary. If we don't experience a situation, we don't have knowledge about it. Yes, we might have factual information from textbooks and the words of others, but until we go through it ourselves, I don't think we can ever know how we should or would react and/or think about the morality behind and nature of a situation. Being in a situation and thinking about a situation are very different from each other.
I believe in "tabula rasa", a theory that human beings are born with a "blank slate" and through a combination of experience (radical constructivism) and sensory perceptions (subjectivism), we acquire knowledge and form our own truths. The only way there can be a single truth is if that truth is that there is no singular truth. I don't believe that analyzing things such as truth and reality are a waste of time. I do, however, believe that the universe and its ways are beyond our perception and full comprehension (realism). Again, using philosophy as a means of further understanding ourselves and HOW we fit with the universe is fine with me, as long as we realize that we'll never understand everything...and I think not understanding everything and still being able to go with it and grow is what makes us human.