You might be skeptical of skepticism, but I’m skeptical that the skeptics whose skepticism you’re skeptical of are sufficiently skeptical.
Btw, some typos here:
“Now, personally, I think the question for some sort of robust theoretical account of what “knowledge,” is, as though there is some distinct phenomenon, “knowledge,” awaiting our discovery is a fool’s quest.”
“In addressing the question of whether skepticism Huemer and other critics of skepticism criticize skepticism for being extreme, radical, or whatever else, this often appears plausible for at least three reasons:”
It's curious because in his book "Understanding Knowledge," Huermer expresses that he doesn't believe there is a "correct theory/analysis of knowledge" either; he has a more Wittgensteinian conception similar to the one Lance proposes here. In fact, he extends that analysis to the notions of truth, beauty, reality, etc., in a way that I think Lance would find a lot of affinity with
Jajajaja yeah I get I. Maybe you could watch the section between 14:40 and 28:07 of this video where Emerson Green reviews the book and see what you think about it. https://youtu.be/Vo484enDccA?si=G7Um11ttBCZIUqGe
Btw thanks for responding, Lance. I really appreciate it!
You can take it or leave it but if you accept it, all philosophical questions can be accepted with it and in relation to it. Skepticism is welcome but not required.
In this article:
You might be skeptical of skepticism, but I’m skeptical that the skeptics whose skepticism you’re skeptical of are sufficiently skeptical.
Btw, some typos here:
“Now, personally, I think the question for some sort of robust theoretical account of what “knowledge,” is, as though there is some distinct phenomenon, “knowledge,” awaiting our discovery is a fool’s quest.”
“In addressing the question of whether skepticism Huemer and other critics of skepticism criticize skepticism for being extreme, radical, or whatever else, this often appears plausible for at least three reasons:”
Fixed. Thanks.
It's curious because in his book "Understanding Knowledge," Huermer expresses that he doesn't believe there is a "correct theory/analysis of knowledge" either; he has a more Wittgensteinian conception similar to the one Lance proposes here. In fact, he extends that analysis to the notions of truth, beauty, reality, etc., in a way that I think Lance would find a lot of affinity with
I find it very unlikely I'd agree with Huemer about truth, beauty, reality, etc.
Jajajaja yeah I get I. Maybe you could watch the section between 14:40 and 28:07 of this video where Emerson Green reviews the book and see what you think about it. https://youtu.be/Vo484enDccA?si=G7Um11ttBCZIUqGe
Btw thanks for responding, Lance. I really appreciate it!
I can do that.
Here's the answers to everything in metaphysics: https://kaiserbasileus.substack.com/p/metaphysics-in-a-nutshell
You can take it or leave it but if you accept it, all philosophical questions can be accepted with it and in relation to it. Skepticism is welcome but not required.
He is wrong about everything