[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 14 KB, 334x499, 31MtkJ4qfgL._SX332_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14762898 No.14762898 [Reply] [Original]

Scepticism beats every other philosophical system and nobody can improve it or disprove it.

>> No.14762902

We could all use a little de Montaigne.

>> No.14762903

if scepticism is a system then why aren't you skeptical of it

>> No.14762904

>>14762898
Are you sure about that? I'm sceptical.

>> No.14762909

>>14762903
>>14762904
HA HA HA YOU ANONS SHURE DONE GOT OP GOOD THERE!!!!!

>> No.14762911

>>14762909
Why are you so sure?

>> No.14762916
File: 10 KB, 326x155, errors.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14762916

>>14762898
>perpetual false negatives
hard pass

>> No.14762917

>>14762909
this is a legit criticism though
>>14762903

>> No.14762938

>>14762917
Have you read the book?

>> No.14762996

>>14762917
It is a lazy and facile criticism if all you do is say
>oh, so you're into skepticism eh? Well, shouldn't you be skeptical of skepticism?
It's like those who go around saying
>you say everything is relative, but that's an absolute statement!
i.e. no shit. Congratulations, you can make obvious points. Now what? Do you have anything else to add to the conversation?

>> No.14763001

>>14762996
you don't have a response to it though.

>> No.14763006

>>14762996
You sound pretty assblasted, anon.

>> No.14763429

>>14762938
This is /lit/ so of course he hasnt read the book

>> No.14763436

yeah sure. thing is, real life still has to be lived, and that is only possible through particular tools in particular contexts where practical goals are the only relevant criteria. you can only apply skepticism AFTER that practical process, to realize those tools are not really existent, that they cant be justified etc. but if you apply it before or during the practical process, you simply die, because the other 'blind' people who are take the collective illusions as real will simply eat you alive.

our mind illusions dont have the goal of being descriptions of the world but simply of being a guide to live in it. they are the ground for real actions.

skepticism is just a mind therapy to allow a peaceful death, to be applied when there is no longer anything to do in the social world.

>> No.14763442

>>14762898
You don't seem very skeptical of your own claim.

>> No.14764116

pyrrho is the way. anything else is already corrupted.

>> No.14764133

>>14763436
based

>>14762898
why bother thinking at all if its going to be doubted and rejected out of hand

that's not philosophy. it's zoomer stupidity.

>> No.14764143

>>14762898
>I claim not to believe in anything (not true btw since I assume things exist in my everyday life) therefore I can never be wrong, but I also will never discover anything because I’m an irrelevant coward
>I’m too afraid to commit to any opinion because being refuted causes pain in the fee fees, I will stay in my shell pointing the finger at those brave enough to argue and defend their points of view
Literally the adolescent of philosophies

>> No.14764184

>>14764143
Imagine being on /lit/ and strawmanning something you have never read...OH WAIT

>> No.14764189

>>14762996
so you agree that skepticism and relativism are both incoherent

>> No.14764207

>>14764189
How is skepticism incoherent? What's wrong with being skeptic over skepticism?

>> No.14764213

>>14764207
>dude u can’t know muffin
>Are you sure?
>i dunno lol

>> No.14764218

>>14764213
Are you trying to make a point?

>> No.14764569

>>>/his/

>> No.14764584

>>14764184
Imagine being a faggot... OH WAIT

>> No.14764668

>>14762898
Scepticism is the school of thought of the illiterate. Anyone who has read enough will have more important or interesting things in mind, while remaining skeptical of their knowledge.

>> No.14766091

Empiricus wasn't a hardline skeptic

>> No.14766096

>bivalancefags can't into suspended judgement

>> No.14766501

>>14764668
Maybe you should start reading about skepticism before making a fool out of yourself

>> No.14766563

I hope OPs shitposting doesn't distract from what is otherwise a good book

>>14762898
equipollence doesnt bring the state of calm as described by sextus.

>> No.14766596

>>14762898
Where does skepticism start and Pyrrhonism end? I just finished his Outlines of Pyrrhonism; is this a separate work of his or a translation difference? I didn't start with the Greeks so I am quite lost; instead my reading of Sextus was informed by reading Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, and Chandrakirti

>> No.14766604

>>14766596
>my reading of Sextus was informed by reading Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, and Chandrakirti
Absolutely based

>> No.14766652

>>14764218
It’s impossible to know

>> No.14766688
File: 107 KB, 500x637, 1573017110572.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14766688

>>14766604
The rope is not a snake. And there's no rope either.

>> No.14767722

>>14766688
mahayana is not buddhism though

>> No.14768804

>>14767722
What is it then christianity?

>> No.14768931

>>14763436
read zhuangzi, he's close to that sentiment

>> No.14769598

>>14768931
yes, i hop daily with the fishes of the hao river, watching the butterflies and giant magpies fly around. there are 'skeptics' all over the world in all places and moments. the sentiment is inherent to human life.

>> No.14769608

Was Nietzsche a skeptic?

>> No.14770224

>>14769598
>yes, i hop daily with the fishes of the hao river, watching the butterflies and giant magpies fly around.
most other skeptics do not anknowledge this reality, however it may be constructed

>> No.14771337

Didn't Descartes show that there is atleast one thing that can be known for certain beyond all doubt?

>> No.14771951

>>14762898
scepticism does away with disproving, and so you can't compare it to other isms.

>> No.14772803

>>14767722
If I take that Pali Canon off, will you experience rebirth?

>> No.14773158

>>14762996
That's also a perfectly keen argument against relativism.
You're correct that asinine but common retorts like this exist. And often, they're based on misunderstanding of terms.
But you're not actually explaining why that would apply in this case. And, according
>Congratulations, you can make obvious points
So I'm not seeing you prove anything wrong. If I have nothing but this thread, then I'll walk away, with good reason, believing that skepticism and relativism are bullshit.