(August 31, 2012 at 2:48 am)Rhythm Wrote: Except that I don't believe it's better. I'm simply a skeptical person. It's useful, but I don't have to believe in it's usefulness. What would be irrational about being skeptical with regards to skepticism? I am, my skepticism has no effect on the truth of any given matter presented to me. I might be skeptical of something that is rock solid.
Would I have to rationally justify anything I did if I didn't exist? Whether or not I feel obligated to follow a law has very little to do with whether or not the world is real.............and I don't trust my intuitions..almost as a rule..because surprise, surprise...I seem to have been given a faulty set of intuitions (just like the majority of humanity).
I don't believe in any of these things Vinny, and yet I have a functional existence. I'm very aware of the problems with each of these propositions
(I find it incredibly unsatisfying that you're attempting to avoid those problems by turning these propositions into axioms. If these things are so integral to your life, your rational justifications, then perhaps you should find a way to more convincingly demonstrate them? Is there any problem that can't be "solved" by simply claiming "It's an axiom"? Sigh.)
So your skepticism is not rational, it's simply a part of your personality. This is a remarkable admission. Refreshingly honest. Every one of us with egos strains to say they are trying to be rational, but you are openly defending your skepticism not on the basis of reason, but on the basis of yourself. C'est beautiful!
So you have to tell us then, why do you do what you do? What motivates you? Is it reason? Is it truth? Or is it hedonism and feelings? The latter is certainly not an inferior choice. In fact it's better than an appeal to reason and truth, because it's honest.
