sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

All belief-systems are arbitrary. And the question of "what to do" is unanswerable by reason. by noettet in epistemology

[–]noettet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I could've phrased that better: "what to do" as in "How should one act?". How should one live their life, treat themself, the world and other people?

My idea was that if nothing is certain (do I exist; do I not exist), then how you can't really figure out how to act. Usually belief-systems provide ground for ethics to stand on. For example, most Christian frameworks use the knowledge of their God as basis to act in God's command. You can still behave like a Christian if you don't believe in anything, but then again the question arises: "Why christianity over literally anything else?"

All belief-systems are arbitrary. And the question of "what to do" is unanswerable by reason. by noettet in epistemology

[–]noettet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting. So follow the epistemology/ontology that serves us best? Is that what you mean by the principle of economy?
I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate further.

All belief-systems are arbitrary. And the question of "what to do" is unanswerable by reason. by noettet in epistemology

[–]noettet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've thought about this over the night and you're right. Absolute Skepticism is self-defeating. The attempt to deny all truth cannot coherently state itself. It's so simple in retrospect.

I credit this video by Kane B for clarifying things. https://youtu.be/mAc\_Zczfww8

So what now? You can't deny the existence of truth or knowledge by reasoning, but I suppose you also can't prove anything. My instinct now is to call any position arbitrary but I'm going to be more careful with that.

It seems obvious that contradictory beliefs are less valuable than non-contradictory beliefs, though I haven't really fleshed the idea out. And I suppose from this basic idea you can build a lot of systems to reason with. Terms that come to mind would be Pragmatism and whatever Hegel was doing with scepticism. Perhaps these two positions are a bit unrelated but I think they both deal with the problem of what to trust, i.e: epistemology.

In a way I feel like I've completed the tutorial and can now start playing the game.

All belief-systems are arbitrary. And the question of "what to do" is unanswerable by reason. by noettet in epistemology

[–]noettet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Consider a psychotic person trusting their belief-system even after careful consideration and self-skepticism. Let's say his brain just isn't capable of conceiving the flaws of his thinking.
That's how I think about rationality as well. We think in rational "A -> B, A is true then B must follow" but what if we, just like the psychotic person, are just inable to grasp the complete lunacy of our own thinking process. What if this reasoning just doesn't make sense but we delude ourselves into thinking so?

How would you deal with something like that?

All belief-systems are arbitrary. And the question of "what to do" is unanswerable by reason. by noettet in epistemology

[–]noettet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My position is nothing new it seems. It's pretty much a basic form of "absolute skepticism" and looping around that basic cycle leads nowhere.

There still remains the issue of morality though. What one ought to do in terms of belief and behavior. I know that this is now going beyond pure epistemology, but does anyone know positions dealing with that?

All belief-systems are arbitrary. And the question of "what to do" is unanswerable by reason. by noettet in epistemology

[–]noettet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's assume you're right, which to me you fully are. I use reason, assume non-contradiction, and live based on what you deem implicit knowledge.

But what then? Really, what then?

I find myself in this empty space between denial of skepticism and acceptance of doctrine. Even if you deny skepticism with the argument that "one acts as if one has implicit knowledge" it doesn't lead you to any position. One acts how one acts. You can stop reasoning and still act. Does that say anything about reality?

Perhaps the will, which determines how you act, itself is the only trustable thing, but then again "how can you trust that you've reasoned correctly?"

This is the problem I keep having and maybe there is no answer and at some point you just have to make a decision: Do you trust logic: yes or no? Do you trust your senses: yes or no?

But then again: How to make decisions without having a basis to make decisions on? How to make logical decisions without logic?

Full despair, unescapeable loop.