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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Though your final statement strikes me as self-denying, your description of skepticism seems close to what I would call "healthy," moderate skepticism.
Professor, as I strive to improve the way I word my thoughts, I'd appreciate any input you have, for I know my beliefs and concepts yet I am far from where I'd like to be when it comes to vocabulary and structure in order to portray precise thoughts.
Perhaps I should elongate my final statement because what I was trying to portray was anything but self-denial. Of course there is truth, but I don't think there's an end to it or a truth that we can reach and become full upon discovering. An ultimate truth to me seems illegitimate. A single truth that defines all others is plausible given that it is beyond the absolute comprehension of the human mind while remaining accessible for the use of acquiring knowledge consistently and constantly until the soul reaches its termination (that is, assuming that this end exists).
Post a Comment