All genuine skepticism, the correct stance that one does not know what one does not or cannot know, still depends on what one does know to distinguish the difference. Otherwise, a skeptic is only assuming, and assumptions, as unproven beliefs, are not knowledge. To know that one does not know anything at all is an impossible contradiction, and logical necessities are inherently true, so there are things that can be known with absolute certainty. Total skepticism is thus intrinsically erroneous due to reason and introspection. Though it to hinges on the preceding truth and verifiability of logical axioms, I can know that I exist because if I doubt or deny this or even passively perceive anything at all, it could only happen if I already do truly exist as a mind that experiences.
One can only know that one's memories of events might not be accurate, for it is unprovable as to which logical possibility is correct, only if one knows that there is a memory that could be misleading. Of course, though they might still experience memories or emotions or intense sensory perceptions, a non-rationalist cannot know that they have these experiences within their mind until they become rationalistic: without recognizing and accepting the logical axioms that are true in themselves, upon which all else hinges, they cannot know anything that depends on axioms for its necessity or very possibility. It does not matter what their beliefs or experiences are. They are not in alignment with reason.
On the contrary, a rationalist can identify that which they do not or cannot know. However, pinpointing that they do not know is itself a matter of knowledge. They can have absolute certainty, for instance, that seeing fire a river or an airplane does not mean that it is actually there outside of their consciousness. The only way to know this very fact is is still to know logical axioms, for apart from them there is no metaphysical truth and without grasping them there is no knowledge of anything else, including that they exist as a consciousness that they perceive the exact sensory perceptions they are experiencing at a certain moment. This is far too abstract for the typical person to be likely to ever realize, but it is all a matter of simple logical necessity that is accessible to every willing person.
Valid skepticism—rationalistic skepticism, which is neither a denial of absolute certainty where it can be found thanks to reason and introspection nor an arbitrary skepticism of things that one might otherwise be subjectively persuaded of—is grounded in reason and knowledge of reason. Someone who believes an idea like theism or emergent naturalism is false is not a skeptic regarding that matter, and someone who disbelieves or holds to an agnostic stance about an issue of hearsay for personal reasons, such as being uncomfortable with the hearsay claims in question, is not a rationalistic skeptic. He or she is an irrationalist to the extent that they hold a worldview rooted in anything but logical necessity and thus a fool to that same extent. The only way to know that one does or cannot know a given thing is to be a rationalist and to know logical axioms, one's own mind, and what does or does not follow from the things which cannot be false.
No comments:
Post a Comment