Thursday, October 15, 2009
The "So What" Defense
Descartes is obsessed with the pursuit of knowledge. He devotes enormous intellectual energy to the refutation of skepticism. But is skepticism really the disaster that Descartes envisions? Is knowledge really an important goal? Or is it like immortality -- something nice if you could get it, but not a necessary component of a flourishing human life? So what if I know nothing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ignorance is bliss! now, i personally support that idea completely because i honestly find living in a false reality far more entertaining then living in a actual reality where i envision there to be a lot of dust... any who... Descartes is in the pursuit of knowledge, however doesn't skepticism help to achieve some aspect of knowledge? I find it hard to believe that everything a skeptic claims should be thrown out. They have to get their idea's from somewhere. Also, this is probably far fetched, if you know nothing isn't that a piece of knowledge in itself? Haha just throwing that out there.
ReplyDeleteon the topic of the necessity of knowledge, i believe knowledge to be extremely important, however it's the quality of the knowledge that i find more intriguing. In class, we've talked about knowing EVERYTHING is the goal, however what if everything you know causes you to act... silly? (for lack of a better adjective) I think a person can be perfectly happy knowing the things they know, knowing everything just seems unnecessary and excessive.
love Falafel.
I feel like that because we are obviously aware of the idea of knowledge itself, it cannot really be nothing. It may not actually exist on a fundamental level, but it does seem to at least influence our decisions in everyday life. In that sense, it has some meaning. Personally, I feel like knowledge exists somewhere out in the world, but we are incapable of understanding or using it. Interesting how the one thing people NEED, they are incapable of obtaining. To quote the matrix, "fate is not without a sense of irony". Although we may not be able to ever reach knowledge, I think the process of trying to obtain it is useful because it teaches invaluable skills that can be applied to any number of situations. We can keep getting closer through logical arguments, but we'll never be able to achieve true, objective knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI think that it may not be a futile attempt, but only in a broader, societally-focused sense. Individually, I feel like skepticism is futile. You keep doubting what you know, and it becomes very easy to just fall into the "well, I might be in the Matrix and it's all fake!" mindset. No matter what you know, you can always make an excuse for why it could in some contrived sense be illegitimate.
ReplyDeleteHOWEVER, that being said, I think skepticism does hold some merit as a tool for expanding the human mind. It forces you to realize that the notions that you hold about society may or may not be objectively true (if there are objective truths at all--I feel like I agree with Chip in that sense). Being a skeptic to a certain extent can be used as a way to get yourself out of thinking of the moral and ideological constraints you ordinarily think through, and so building up the world from a skeptic’s viewpoint may be _more_ objective and culture-neutral than other philosophies can be. And that's a useful thing to consider when evaluating moral conflicts.
I certainly agree with Chip and Omar on the notion that our attempt to obtain complete knowledge is a worthy cause as it does benefit us on a daily basis and allows the human race to flourish. Also on the topic of skepticism, I feel it is just as important. Without skepticism how would we truly know anything? With skepticism acting as a counterpoint we are able to determine something to be false and so the opposite to be true and visa versa. Skepticism allows our minds to distinguish from fallacy and truth and provides us with other important information as well. For example, I see skeptism and knowledge as the two pieces that create a functioning body, human body that is. Before I continue, I need to ask a question... Pain and suffering. Good or Bad? Most responses to that would probably say bad, unless your some kind of wierd sadist or something. However, I would have to deviate from this typical response by saying not all pain is bad. Pain is sometimes the only way we know we are alive. So BRING IT ON! haha. Anyway going back to my example skepticism takes the role of pain in a properly functioning body or a mind in trying to achieve total knowledge.
ReplyDeleteSkepticism as a specific branch of thought may be, as Omar suggests, futile, but that doesn't mean its sphere of significance is dimensionless. Although skepticism is its own distinct philosophy, it nevertheless contributed to the development of nihilism, which, in turn, gave birth to the existentialist notion that the world as an exclusive entity is inherently meaningless. This concept,when analyzed more intimately in an existential framework, posits that meaning and value are human creations. Knowledge as a pervasive, ubiquitous characteristic is unattainable because understanding is founded largely on individual beliefs (JTB, baby!). It is futile, therefore, to pursue knowledge that lay beyond grasp of one's own comprehension, because it isn't possible to know something that can't be known.
ReplyDelete