True Vs False Skepticism Summary

[Juan Cruz Giusto]

“The supreme function of reason is to show man that some things are beyond reason”. Blaise Pascal

Modern skepticism masquerades as skepticism when really is just dogmatism. Pyrrhonism was the name of the original skepticism.

Leo finds Pyrrhonism the most accurate school of philosophy, epistemically speaking. It is named after Pyrrho. He traveled with Alexander the Great to India, and bumped into the gymnosophists (yogis) and from then, he learned very interesting insights about the nature of reality. They convinced Pyrrho that nothing is certain.

What did Pyrrho teach? That the greatest aim of life is Eudemonia. This is a Greek term that means happiness or living the good life - careful, don’t confuse it with pleasure or success – for them is living a contemplative life and embodying the truth and living from Good.

 Philosophy is about what is true. Pyrrhonism says that nothing can be known for certain because you have two ways of accessing reality. The first one is the senses and the other one is reasoning. The problem is that they are not reliable and can trick us very easily. Therefore, we have to be honest and admit that we cannot know reality for sure. Neither perceptions nor reasoning tell us the ultimate truth. Moreover, he taught us that reasoning or proof is either, circular, or involves an infinite regress that is ultimately groundless.

How do we usually know what is true? We claim something and then back it up with justifications and proofs and evidence, but if we really think about it this is groundless because for any evidence you provide, you will need more evidence to prove itself and so on. You cannot basically ground anything because you don’t any grounding proof. You cannot say something is true because with each statement, its contradiction may be advanced with equal justification. THEREFORE, PYRRHONISTS REFUSE TO TAKE ANY POSITIONS BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE GROUNDS FOR TAKING IT. THEY REFUSE TO TAKE SIDES. They will doubt anything beyond appearances because they cannot be ultimately proven. They also oppose that nothing can be known. The problem with the modern skeptic is that they doubt their own skepticism. You cannot know if nothing can be known. To make that sort of claim would be dogmatic.

“Skepticism is an ability or mental attitude with opposes judgement in any way whatsoever, with the results that, we are brought to a state of mental suspense, and then to a state of quietude. Suspense is a state of mental rest in which we don’t deny or affirm anything. Quietude is a tranquil condition of the soul. The main basic principle of the skeptic system is that of opposing to every proposition, an opposite proposition for we believe that as a consequence o this, we end to seizing to dogmatize.”

Pyrrhonists are continuing to talk about this topic of tranquility of mind. They are not skeptics just for the sake of it, they are skeptics to reach Eudemonia. They recognize that Eudemonia is happiness, and you achieve it by stopping taking positions about things we can never be certain.

“When we say that the skeptic reframes from dogmatism, we say that we he does not ascent to anyone of the non-evident objects of scientific enquiry. The philosopher absents to nothing that is not evident. Our doubt does not concern the appearance of things but the account of the appearance. For example, honey appears to us to be sweet. This we confirm. But, whether is also sweet in its essence is for us a matter of doubt since this is not an appareance but a judgment.”.

They accept that appearances are appearances, but they don’t claim anything. They differ appearances from judgments and conclusions. What is given to us to reality is appearance, and nothing more. We don’t know more.

“Even in the active annunciating the skeptic formula, the skeptic still does not dogmatize, for whereas the dogmatizer poses the thing about which he is said to be dogmatizing, as actually existent, the skeptic does not posit I any absolute sense. We must grasp the fact that we make no positive assertion regarding absolute truth.”

Pyrrhonism doesn’t claim that they are the ultimate school of philosophy. If they said that they are the right paradigm to see the world, they are becoming dogmatic. Instead, they are very careful, and say that even though they are skeptical, they hold their skepticism very loosely, which is why they don’t say that nothing could ever be known.

“The man who claims that something is by nature good or bad, is being disquieted. When he is without the things he deemed good, he believes himself to be tormented by the things naturally bad, and he pursues after the things which are, as he thinks good. Which then when he obtains these good things he keeps falling into more agitation of the mind because of his irrational claims, and he uses every endeavor to avoid losing the things which he deems to be good. On the other hand, the man who determines nothing as to what is naturally good or bad (the skeptic) that person neither escapes nor pursues anything eagerly and, as a consequence, is unperturbed.”

Skeptics understood that the game of materialism is never going to bring true happiness. You will fight for the things you think will make you happy, and when you achieve them, you will still struggle to keep them and defend them forever. It is a never-ending cycle. YOU WILL NEVER WIN THE GAME OF MATERIALISM.

“Does anything true really exist? It is impossible to decide the controversy because the man who says that something true exists will not be believed without proof of the opposing argument. And if he wishes to offer proof, he will be disbelieved if it is acknowledged that his proof is false. So, he has to declare that he has to declare that his proof is true, he becomes involved on circular reasoning. He will be requested to show proof of the proof. And then more proof of the proof and so on ad infinitum. It is impossible to know that something proof exists.”

When you are presented with so paradigm, ask what is the proof. And then, what is the proof of the proof, and so on until you get to the very bottom. You will notice that it goes around in circles or just stop somewhere. At some point, you will get to a position in which you will have to accept something on faith. And that is what the pyrrhonists recognize.

How to reconcile this with enlightenment? The skeptic truly, in his essence, doesn’t cling to anything, so they should be open to the possibility of Absolute Truth to exist. True skeptics should be open to the possibility that they are wrong. Pyrrhonism actually leads to non-duality. The problem with this school of thought is that they left out a 3rd possibility of knowing apart from reasoning and the senses. This third one is direct consciousness.

It turns out that total quietude of mind – what the Pyrrhonists talked about – is Absolute Truth at its deepest level.

False Skepticism

It is not pyrrhonism. It is a weaponized ideology against spirituality, mysticism and new age concepts. When you usually see a skeptic today, they are just rational, scientific thinkers and naïve realists and they are militants against religion and spirituality. He is taking a very clear position but calls himself a skeptic. The problem with this type of skepticism is that is blind to itself. It is a skepticism pointed outwards only.

The mind uses concepts and ideas to trap itself and become a tool of the ego. They think that science and rationality are not paradigms but accurate descriptions of reality.

What does True Skepticism looks like?

It recognizes the limits of rationality, logic and science. It questions all and doesn’t give nothing a special position. It questions every single assumption regarding how the world works. He questions itself and is self-reflective. It is brutally self-honest with itself. A true skeptic is interested in being open-minded and its final goal is happiness, not winning an argument.

True skepticism is a compassionate and loving philosophy since they don’t take positions. It aims at tranquility of the mind. It leads to true spirituality.

The components are:

-          Radical Open-mindedness

-          Perpetual Inquiry

-          It leads to Pragmatism: You get thrown back to your experiences and senses. You realize that ideology doesn’t get you to Eudemonia, and you can only get there by becoming one with your experiences and sensations. This leads to mindfulness and Enlightenment.

-          It creates an active vigilance against the mind’s trickery

-          It prevents paradigm lock

-          Holism: See everything as perspectives

-          You become a deep learner

-          A lucid state of robust equanimity

When you embody pyrrhonism, you become much more humble. You need to realize that your preferences are not reality and are not absolute; this will lead you to ideological humility.

Reasoning is useful when realizing its own limitations. You cannot be happy while being a dogmatist. You need to be open to evidence! The problem is not the content of the belief but the dogma itself.

The problem right now is not religion, is science, technology and materialism!

When you are disturbed, there is an ideological position there.

Dangers of Understanding this Philosophy

-          Don’t turn skepticism into a dogma: Apply skepticism to your skepticism

-          Don’t use it to promote inaction, laziness or nihilism. Remember! Our goal is to achieve Happiness or Eudemonia! Not Knowing should foster deeper inquiry.

WE ARE AFTER TRANQUILITY OF MIND! GO FOR THE BIG FISH! GO FOR THE ABSOLUTE! You will be living in a world of relativism, but you need to stop taking positions!