Formulating a rational defense of skepticism (a work in progress)

[Whateverist]

In comparison to the vast sea of presuppositions, some conscious but most not, which underlie all thought .. logic is a very limited and fragile little raft. Logic and rationales are important if one is concerned with keeping to the surface. But I prefer to imagine we are actually creatures adapted to the sea, capable of submerging and resurfacing. There is no need to build a raft to keep afloat.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

This is from Graham Priest's book, Beyond The Limits Of Thought...

I wonder how many Sextian skeptics we have on this forum. They will flip out if they find out that their own worldview is irrational

---

I wouldn't know Vinny, I don't give it much thought. I don't know I'd go so far as to say my skepticism isn't rational though, simply because it's a part of my nature. Perhaps being reasonable is also a part of my nature. By the by, I was going to ask you this last post. Aren't you expressing skepticism about skepticism? Pretty sure I was defending skepticism on the basis of it's usefulness btw.

I think you jumped the gun on this one, sorry.

If you haven't thought about it very much, you're skepticism is quite likely irrational.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you haven't thought about it very much, you're skepticism is quite likely irrational.

That would be insufficient grounds for such a conclusion. Perhaps the two or three seconds I gave it thought were entirely rational. You aren't very good at this gotcha shit are you? Nevertheless, my skepticism probably isn't entirely rational 100% of the time. You ever meet an entirely rational person? I'm okay with that. If there's some specific thing that I leverage a hefty amount of skepticism towards that needs to be readdressed that could always be arranged (do you have any suggestions?), but I'd be willing to wager we won't make it passed the first step in the process.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

If you haven't thought about it very much, you're skepticism is quite likely irrational.

That would be insufficient grounds for such a conclusion. Perhaps the two or three seconds I gave it thought were entirely rational. You aren't very good at this gotcha shit are you? Nevertheless, my skepticism probably isn't entirely rational 100% of the time. You ever meet an entirely rational person? I'm okay with that. If there's some specific thing that I leverage a hefty amount of skepticism towards that needs to be readdressed that could always be arranged (do you have any suggestions?), but I'd be willing to wager we won't make it passed the first step in the process.

Again with the ad hominems? I thought you were sick and tired of me trolling you, so why are you making personal attacks again?

Do you really want this to start again?

Let go of your vendetta against me and show some ability to discourse with the issues.

PS- If you did have good solid reasons for your use of skepticism, I think I would have seen it. You've been cagey which I think means you don't really have any properly rational foundation for them.

Which isn't a personal insult. Being irrational, like you said, isn't always a bad thing. It's human.

[The Grand Nudger]

You could avail yourself of the search function and find examples of both my ability to engage in solid discourse and provide solid reasons for my skepticism. Allowing about 80% of my total post count to comprise of bemused mockery that leaves roughly 2k potential examples. Enjoy.

-OR-

You could just take a look at the very simple explanation I provided in this very thread when asked..either way, your call.

(though it has to be said, my bemused mockery is often pretty solid discourse...)

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I thought the summary of your position was "I don't know, I haven't given it much thought. It's part of my personality, I'm a skeptic by nature."

Isn't that what you said? Or do you want me to refer to the solid discourse in your first post in this thread where your response to the self-evident problem of skepticism was "LOL"?

As for the "it's part of my personality" claim, that's a terrible defense and it's silly. If it was a serious rational defense for being a skeptic, than "it's my nature" would be a viable defense for the pedophile and the rapist. But surely you don't believe the "it's my nature" defense.

(I hope)

[The Grand Nudger]

Golly gee, you missed the only two words in that entire post that even attempted a justification all the while zeroing in on just about everything except those two words. Surely an un-intentional oversight.

Skepticism is useful. That's why I, personally, use it. Simple questions, simple answers.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

So it's arbitrary, selective skepticism? You are skeptical about only the things you feel you should be skeptical about as part of your personality?

Or is it rationally grounded? Are you skeptical of the idea that you exist too?

[The Grand Nudger]

Can you find the word arbitrary in my post? Thought not. Useful, yes, arbitrary, no.

Yes, actually, existence is one of those very murky areas. Who am I, what is the I? What am I actually asking when I say "Do I exist?" etc. Is this skepticism practical in my day to day life? No, not until somebody starts to make claims to truth. I'm not sure what you're expecting of me or of skepticism....

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Not until somebody starts to make claims to truth. Such as, say your own claim that "Skepticism is useful."

So, now you ought to be skeptical of the claim that skepticism is useful.

Unless you are an irrational skeptic.