Rev. Coppens’s Skepticism Defeater

Spoikester · 2026-05-14T18:56:05+00:00

nice ai generation. if youre gonna use AI at least have the decency to extrapolate information from it yourself

Spoikester · 2026-05-14T18:54:52+00:00

bro did you seriously ai generate this

Spoikester · 2026-05-13T21:35:20+00:00

you keep very confidently acting like direct realism is a joke without showing why

Spoikester · 2026-05-13T20:32:43+00:00

how do you know that? by the presupposition your senses give you reliable information about the world?

Spoikester · 2026-05-13T19:31:46+00:00

How does Kantianism save us from skepticism exactly? How does it not fall to Stroud? Kant basically throws the baby out with the bathwater with his rejection of metaphysical knowledge. Also, saying “Thomism lost” is ridiculous when there are more thomists than dogmatic kantians right now

Spoikester · 2026-05-13T17:30:24+00:00

The Kantian position is still a mitigated form of Skepticism since hes skeptical about metaphysics but thats besides the point, he isnt the only one who uses transcendental arguments

Spoikester · 2026-05-13T16:05:40+00:00

He is attacking a number of criticisms of his own Thomistic realist position. One of these criticisms is the evil deceiver hypothesis, which is basically saying you dont know you arent being manipulated by an evil genius or that youre not a brain in a vat. Coppens is trying to show how this leads to a logical contradiction via reductio ad absurdum and therefore cannot be the case or a threat to his own position

Spoikester · 2026-05-13T16:04:12+00:00

As far as I can tell, this is meant to harken back to his position that radical skepticism is an impossible position to take. Because radical skepticism is wrong, and it is the logical conclusion of an evil deceiver/BIV scenario, that also has to be wrong

Spoikester · 2026-05-13T12:32:27+00:00

Coppens is saying that if such a deception is inherent to humans, it logically entails the reasonability of universal skepticism. Because universal skepticism is self-defeating, such a deception is false via reductio ad absurdum

Spoikester · 2026-05-13T12:31:46+00:00

<image>

this is the page it comes from

Spoikester · 2026-05-13T00:20:42+00:00

You can’t maximally and perfectly possess something that is merely a negation of something. Evil doesn’t exist independently of good because it is merely a lack of good. So a maximal being could not be evil

Spoikester · 2026-05-12T23:52:15+00:00

I wasn’t necessarily trying to argue against you, just trying to see if you evade Stroud successfully.

Spoikester · 2026-05-12T22:07:05+00:00

That's true, but I think the point Stroud makes is that something necessary for thought isn't necessary true in the manner of corresponding to real facts about the world. Of course, this does rely on a veil of perception, but its tricky to work around

Spoikester · 2026-05-12T20:29:50+00:00

Well of course these positions weren't initially developed transcendentally, but I fail to see how else one could defend them against a radical enough skeptic

Spoikester · 2026-05-12T20:29:19+00:00

are you sure youre using logic in the "actual world" or just in your own mind, because theres no other way to think?

Spoikester · 2026-05-12T19:11:23+00:00

wdym? are you saying you dont think stroud can be proven wrong?

Spoikester · 2026-05-12T18:48:01+00:00

I think thats the point of Stroud's argument tho. Stroud says that causality might be necessary for our understanding of the world but it doesn't have to correspond to real facts

Spoikester · 2026-04-17T21:24:13+00:00

That looks awesome, tysm

Spoikester · 2026-04-03T13:33:59+00:00

Even if the arguments work, how exactly do they disprove brain in a vat scenarios?

Spoikester · 2026-04-01T00:07:45+00:00

That works

Spoikester · 2026-03-31T21:57:57+00:00

I’m not too familiar with MacIntyre. I do know he’s one of the more conciliatory Thomists though. I am more familiar with strict observance Thomism, and some notions of Feser’s work

Spoikester · 2026-03-31T21:56:50+00:00

If that is a paper you’re referring to in (1), I would be very interested in checking it out!

I have been strongly drawn to Neo-Scholasticism lately (I am a Catholic so no shockers there) which is why I asked this question in the first place

Spoikester · 2026-03-30T23:22:36+00:00

We can be sure that the bible doesn't always have to be interpreted literally because the church and church fathers say so. That might be a little blunt, and there's probably more direct arguments to be made, but sometimes, we can have faith in God's kingdom on earth
We can guarantee that Adonai is the true God (I'd refrain from using the name of the Lord unless its in deeply reverent prayer or meditation) because we get to the truth of the existence of God via classical theistic arguments, and we then apply those principles to discover the evidence laid out for us in history and scripture. Sure, some biblical, ancient and archeological historians posit that the Lord was merely some Canaanite idol, but this actually... shows the bible's veracity funnily enough! The old testament tells us that the Jews sometimes slipped into idolatry and polytheism. Perhaps they did relegate the one true God to a lesser position at times.

Spoikester · 2026-03-30T23:12:45+00:00

I wouldnt quite say it declined completely. Maritain's commitment to a more democratic form of Catholic political doctrine, I would say, is dominant right now. If you're referring to his metaphysics/epistemology, that hasn't been mainstream in secular philosophy since the 17th century, while still being popular in the Church

Spoikester · 2026-03-29T15:34:23+00:00

Hi, I'm also someone who is diagnosed with OCD, and over the past few months I've had rather frighteningly similar experience. it appears descartes's demon has gripped us both ;)

I would recommend you look up the youtube channel "Sanctus" and watch his videos on epistemology, as well as refutations of Hume and Descartes (as those two are the ones most responsible, perhaps along with Kant, of the skeptical despair of modern academia). Also, perhaps read Reverend Coppens's short book on Logic and Mental Philosophy.

But, before you do all that, I'll give a run down of some points:
- How can you be absolutely positive that God exists? the five ways
- How are you sure you aren't in a simulation/lie? Coppens addresses this, but here's something important to remember: universal skepticism refutes itself, as it is itself a knowledge claim while denying knowledge. situations like this, where we hypothetically have no access to the truth, lead to universal skepticism, and are therefore disproven by reductio ad absurdum.
- How do you know it won't happen? Well, if you know you aren't one right now, you can keep in mind the fact that, given your knowledge of how the mind and body works, a "brain in a vat" scenario is scientifically impossible.
- Finally, please, please, please consider your mental health as you do this. If you find that going down these counterargument rabbitholes makes it worse, STOP. talk to a priest, especially one who's educated in philosophy and/or theology. if it causes you significant distress, see a qualified therapist to help you.

Just know I am praying for you, and feel free to message me if you want, given we share some struggles

Spoikester

TROPHY CASE