It's like Santayana's comments on skepticism. If you want to be a full skeptic, you need to believe in nothing but the feelings of the present moment. Otherwise you're just arbitrarily stopping half way
when G.E. Moore said 'here is one hand', was that the rationale behind it?
if a true sceptic believes in nothing but their present feelings, then they surely must be more certain of their hands than of the arguments that could lead them to consider the possibility of not having hands?
when G.E. Moore said 'here is one hand', was that the rationale behind it?
if a true sceptic believes in nothing but their present feelings, then they surely must be more certain of their hands than of the arguments that could lead them to consider the possibility of not having hands?
I think so.
Incidentally fun fact: When Wittgenstein found out Moore's wife was working at a pickle jar factory, he immediately embraced her because he was so happy to meet someone who was doing something he thought was useful.
you know, i don't know if it makes sense to accuse sceptics of arbitrarily stopping halfway, except perhaps if scepticism is envisioned as some kind of bogeyman that prevents us from ever knowing anything
you can allow for the possibility that any given claim may be wrong without that implying nihilism
you know, i don't know if it makes sense to accuse sceptics of arbitrarily stopping halfway, except perhaps if scepticism is envisioned as some kind of bogeyman that prevents us from ever knowing anything
you can allow for the possibility that any given claim may be wrong without that implying nihilism
It's more about Cartesian sceptics than Pyrrhonian sceptics.
you know, i don't know if it makes sense to accuse sceptics of arbitrarily stopping halfway, except perhaps if scepticism is envisioned as some kind of bogeyman that prevents us from ever knowing anything
you can allow for the possibility that any given claim may be wrong without that implying nihilism
It's more about Cartesian sceptics than Pyrrhonian sceptics.
Forgive my ignorance, but what's the difference between them?
my father used to bake generic Betty Crocker cake mix cakes and sell them to a high end german specialty shop for 80 dollars apiece.
This one fact sums him up fairly well.
the veils of custom have been drawn back and I see the ugly truth I am still with fear, for the corrupted world naked lunch, a frozen moment when everyone sees what is on the end of every fork
you know, i don't know if it makes sense to accuse sceptics of arbitrarily stopping halfway, except perhaps if scepticism is envisioned as some kind of bogeyman that prevents us from ever knowing anything
you can allow for the possibility that any given claim may be wrong without that implying nihilism
It's more about Cartesian sceptics than Pyrrhonian sceptics.
Forgive my ignorance, but what's the difference between them?
Cartesian scepticism is evidential: Does my experience really indicate that there is a world outside me?
Pyrrhronic scepticism is inferential: Given that every reason requires another reason to be valid, how can we justify anything?
Comments
gorge thyself upon it
when G.E. Moore said 'here is one hand', was that the rationale behind it?
if a true sceptic believes in nothing but their present feelings, then they surely must be more certain of their hands than of the arguments that could lead them to consider the possibility of not having hands?
i don't eat pickles
you can allow for the possibility that any given claim may be wrong without that implying nihilism
this connection
This one fact sums him up fairly well.
I am still with fear, for the corrupted world
naked lunch, a frozen moment when everyone sees what is on the end of every fork
I had fun with Insomniac's original trilogy...
hehehe.