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!
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.
He is wrong about everything