Why is it that all arguments can be deflated through reducing the argument down to a claim of subjectivity? Whether the content appears to be an innate structure like mathematics of a broad topic like colours, the individual’s receptivity of the content matters. Others may dismiss the receptivity of the individual an irrelevant detail; yet that does not change the nature of the problem. You cannot ignore a person’s claim to “well that doesn’t make sense to me” because that detail in itself proves the existence of a larger problem. The problem of scepticism about knowledge has been around for quite some time. My only concern is that scepticism does not only lead to fatalism or nihilism, but it creates this new form of believing in the “I think”. The “subject” gains so much power and credibility in his or her own thoughts/ findings, once they accept scepticism as their foundation.
While they may profess, as sceptics, to disbelieve any claims about knowledge – they are still forced to, by virtue of being alive, navigate through life. This entails adhering to some assumptions of how this or that works, etc. The only difference is that the sceptical person has more reason now to believe his or her own assessments (both moral and intellectual) than what anyone else says. The sceptic has a bit more certainty when it comes to his or her claims about the world because they have the power to test it out and verify the authenticity of the proposition. This capacity performs a dangerous function. It empowers. Not only does it get a person who is mired in confusion onto a path but it gives the individual a bit more control.
This control of course is never placed right in front of the individual, like the reigns of a chariot to some would-be champion; instead it exists as a mirage. It assumes a position of tranquility that helps push one forward during a fruitless, waterless journey.
The unfortunate part now to think about is whether one can avoid falling into this trap of personal validation when it comes to knowledge. The sceptic rejects what’s to count as evidence for all other knowledge claims because he or she views it from an outsider’s point of view. This form of assessment structures around a “oh you think…”, hence it is much easier to break the argument down into an incomprehensible or “not universally valid” form. However when the sceptic is caught from the insider’s view, what normally appears as “evidence” no longer assumes that connotation. Instead it takes on a natural/taken-for-granted light that appears to add more illumination for the sceptic’s eye.
Can this issue be remedied? Like all epistemological conundrums, it appears you can only get so far before being struck in the face of just how large the landscape is. We are only given feet. A vehicle or a moving companion of a sort would prove beneficial in these circumstances. I like to think that we rely on our “mind” as the vehicle to navigate through this land. You can keep on walking forever on Earth, for a sphere/circle never ends. Similarly I have a slight suspicion that that this applies to our mental landscape as well. Well, it’s a good thing I like walking!
I think skepticism is something that they ought to encourage more in schools nowadays. Through high school and now in university, it always feels like teachers/professors just expect me to take whatever we tell them for granted. I have had more than a few professors that when I question something that they are teaching, they either get angry at me or just try to dodge the question, which I think is very disappointing.
ReplyDeleteWe definitely need skepticism because that is how things like science and invention are born. If Nicolaus Copernicus was not skeptical of the Church's view that the Sun orbits the Earth, then we wouldn't have our current understanding of the solar system.
You are correct that skepticism empowers us. It allows us to challenge what those in power and simply other people tell us about the world. It allows us to challenge information control and to become a more informed populace. I simply wish more people would become skeptical as it really would make the world a much better place.
I couldn't agree anymore Kokul :) However there is also a lot at stake once you become a sceptic, hence why it's not the "recommended" path. But yeah going back to Orwell's good old 1984, unless you question you could live life forever believing 2 + 2 = 5. Winston lost the battle in the end unfortunately. But he still tried. That counts for me. People often look at the end result and say "aha see failure, he shouldn't have even bothered!" But I disagree. He actually fought instead of sitting on the sidelines scared to step beyond a stupid designated safety line. Haha I will end my ramble here.
ReplyDelete