Philosophical Skepticism, Essay Example

What is philosophical skepticism?

Philosophical skepticism is a philosophical school of thought whereby knowledge and perceptions are examined for truth or falsity. The school also puts forth arguments relating to whether an individual can ever be said to have acquired true knowledge. Philosophical skepticism in the Western tradition is traceable to Pyrrho of Elis. During his life, he accompanied Alexander the Great eastwards as far as India, where he was exposed to non-Hellenic philosophy. Originally, he had been a supporter of Stoicism but was always troubled by the opposition he got from all philosophical schools of his day. He ultimately became overwhelmed by the task of using rational argumentation in determining which school was correct.

Philosophical skepticism can be either in the form of the claim that we do not have knowledge or that we cannot have knowledge. The difference is that the second claim is stronger and even harder to prove. Socrates thought that if we continue asking questions all the time, we may eventually end up acquiring knowledge; but as yet, we do not have it, at least not in the day when Socrates lived.

It is a completely different thing for a philosophical skeptic to claim that we could not ever possibly have knowledge, or in other words, to say that knowledge is impossible. This has been a very commonly held view among skeptics. They strongly did and a few of them still do, think that human just cannot know anything. Philosophical skepticism can be about either everything or about only some particular area. If a skeptic strongly believes that it impossible for man to have knowledge of anything at all, then, his view is considered global skepticism. Whatever in the world that you see or pick or feel, a global skeptic will convince you that you don’t know it.

Many global skeptics have existed in history, but few of them have been very bold about the philosophical idea that they argue for. Global skepticism is very bold since it makes very serious claims about the nature of human knowledge. Local skepticism, on the other hand, denies that we can have any knowledge in a particular area. For this reason, there are many different types of local skepticism depending on the areas where one’s doubts about knowledge lie.

Philosophical skepticism is not a highly unified school of thought. However, doubts about whether or not knowledge can be attained run in the arguments of all the strands of this school. Likewise, they all try to justify their claims through rigorous arguments, some of which contemporary philosophers considered to be very convincing. However, classical philosophical skeptics differed among themselves when it came to the issue of the arguments that they employed as well as in the conclusions that they drew from inability to achieve knowledge.

Ancient philosophical skeptics, who used to refer to themselves as Pyrrhonists claimed to have discovered that by turning away from religious, philosophical and ethical disputes resulted into peace of mind or inner tranquility. Accordingly, skepticism, for them, provided a route of contentment in life, which proved superior to all proposals about knowledge that were offered by different rival schools o f thought such as Epicureanism, Aristotelianism and Stoicism.

Landesman & Meeks observe that although philosophical skeptics in the Ancient Greek produced many writings, only a few of them exist today (2). The knowledge that we have about what these philosophers used to say on the topic comes from these few surviving texts. Sextus Empiricus’ writings, which were accessed for the first time as Latin translations, contributed greatly to a renewed interest in philosophical skepticism among contemporary philosophers. This influence is evident in the philosophical works of French philosophers Rene Descartes and Michel Montaigne.

For Montaigne, skepticism was not meant to lead to suspicion of belief; indeed, he was very reluctant to express his opinions overtly regarding a very wide range of topics. However, in some of his writings, he uses Pyrrhonist arguments to undermine completely, the ability for one to use reason so as to provide a basis for any religious belief.

Philosophers’ motivation to become philosophical skeptics arises from the difficulties that they encounter while trying to find an area of consensus about propositional knowledge. I think that philosophical skepticism is a very interesting school of thought and I support it on grounds that knowledge means different things to different people. Therefore, no one has the authority to define knowledge per se. if it is impossible to concretize what constitutes knowledge, then, we might as well say that knowledge is impossible.

What is the basic difference between rationalism and empiricism concerning how we acquire knowledge?

Empiricism is the school of thought whereby senses are considered to be an accurate reflection of what is there, what we can see, hear, touch and taste. In other words, for an empiricist is based only on evidence. Locke and Hume are the chief classical empiricists. On the other hand, rationalists believed that it is impossible for us to be sure about whether a world exists out there or not. According to rationalists, we cannot be sure about whether what we consider to be white is really white. For a rationalist, truth can be unveiled only through use of rules of logic. Descartes famously said that our own existence is the only thing that we can ever be sure about.

Philosophers and psychologists have proposed empiricism in order to put forth the argument that all behaviors and knowledge are acquired through experience and that they are not in any way attributable through any inborn or innate characteristics. According to Edwin, proponents of rationalism are always motivated by the important of reason, as opposed to experience, spiritual revelation or authority, to provide a primary basis for achievement of knowledge (56).

The ranging dispute between empiricism and rationalism involves the extent to which all of are influenced by sense experience as we pursue knowledge. Rationalists develop their position by arguing that there are cases whereby the knowledge or concepts that we understand outstrip all the information that can be provided by sense experience. They also construct accounts of how experience gives us knowledge that rationalists can prove that it already exists, or that we already have it only that we have not yet rationalized about it. Sometimes, empiricists opt for skepticism in order to counter the arguments advanced by rationalists. In this case, they argue that if experience fails to provide all the concepts and knowledge cited by rationalists, then, such concepts or knowledge simply does not exist.

Disputes between rationalism and empiricism are to be found in epistemology, a branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its sources and its limitations. As Gibson points out, Locke is opposed to rationalism on grounds that innate knowledge is not possible (151). Nonetheless, he accepts the intuition/deduction thesis and even adopts it when conceptualizing about our knowledge of existence of God. Both Locke and Descartes have similar views on the nature of human ideas, only that Descartes takes most of them to be innate, while Locke ties all of them to experience.

The question of how we can gain knowledge is the greatest source of disagreement between Locke and Descartes, who support empiricism and rationalism respectively.  The main area of disagreement is on what philosophers sometimes call the “warrant”, an additional dimension to knowledge which acts as an anchor that authenticates the sources of the concepts, thoughts and idea that we use in order to acquire knowledge. For Descartes, the rules of logic that he conceptualizes are self-evident by virtue of being innate. Locke argues that whatever knowledge that is derived from logic can be proven to exist prior to its “invention”. In other words, experience predates whatever knowledge that may be arrived at through rationalization.

The disagreements between rationalists and empiricists lead proponents of each school of thought to give conflicting views on other aspects of knowledge, such as the limits of our knowledge and the nature of the metaphysical world. Locke, observe Boghossian & Peacocke, does not deny the implication caused by the Innate Concept thesis in epistemology; what he denies is the proposition that innate concept can be a source of new ideas (44). To him, the only source of new ideas is sense experience. By failing to give us any knowledge, says Locke, reason can never be relied on to provide superior knowledge.

Works Cited

Boghossian, Paul. & Peacocke Christopher. New Essays on the A Priori. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Edwin, Wilson B. “Empiricism and Rationalism,” Science, 64.1646 (1926): 47 – 57.

Gibson, James.  Locke’s Theory of Knowledge and Its Historical Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Landesman, Charles & Meeks Roblin. Philosophical Skepticism. Berlin: Blackwell Publishers.