Krimel said to DM: Well yes but I am still partial to a mild form of skepticism, call it critical thinking or avoiding gullibility. Micah seems on the extreme skeptical side and dmb on the extremely gullible side. I just like to keep Descartes and Hume in the background as reminder that there are limits on what we can know...
DM had said: skeptism is sitting about moaning about a realm we have no access to, that is the bad use of metaphysics. ..What use skepticism? Well, yes it has a use, to question bad postulates and suggest that there are better postulates. You can sit and worry about the value and uncertainty of our postulates but who wants to turn into Micah or DMB on his bad days? dmb (on this rainy day) says: So which is it, guys? Am I extremely gullable or do I sit around worrying about uncertainty? I'm sure that would be a fascinating (huge sarcastic yawn) debate. Let me know how it turns out. Until then, I'd just like to agree with Krimel; skepticism isn't necessarily "about a realm we have no access to". Its just a good, solid intellectual value. Science and philosophy couldn't do without it. Religion shouldn't do without it. Skepticism is among the cognitive skills we use to keep oursleves from buying bullshit. But I don't think Descartes is the best role model of skepticism. In fact, that's the sort of Modern (SOM) version that DM is using as thee definition skepticism. That's where Micha's solipsism comes from too. ZAMM's skepticism toward the West's metaphysical assumptions makes it the prime example of a non-Cartesian skepticism. (Because its one that we all know, if for no other reason.) I mean, if your whole point as a philosopher is to be skeptical about SOM then its certainly possible to be skeptical without adopting that metaphysical stance. The MOQ's radical empiricism still insists that our intellectual descriptions agree with experience and that they make sense. It doesn't include the kind of skepticism that goes with the Cartesian self trying to get at the objective reality, but it still has some rules about what we can assert as true and right. Without something like that, we'd be paralyzed by nihilism. In any case, I think a philosopher or any serious thinker who abandons skepticism is a big shithead. It is very much needed on the practical level too. You know, to guard against cheaters, preachers and con artists. But I repeat myself. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail to go? Get your Hotmail, news, sports and much more! http://mobile.msn.com moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
