Scepticism

read Merleau-Ponty and Gadamer and you'll be fine

>>9289553
can you give me the basic gist?

If everything is false and pointless, I'd doesn't matter if you try or now. If everything is real and has meaning then it's beneficial to try the hardest you can.
It's illogical to be sceptic to the point of nihilism.

>>9289623
Try or not

>>9289578

descartes' conditions for knowledge are self-defeating and do not describe a theory of knowledge even worth attaining. removing knowledge from its historical situation is (or would be) god's knowledge, not human knowledge. if heidegger is right, and ~temporality~ is the proper horizon for meaning (and he is), then descartes' theory of knowledge is describing something unattainable, which he doubles down on by literally making the objects of the world unknowable unless they are subjective representations. it would be like digging a hole between us and knowledge and then contemplating why we can't have a bridge. we will never get to knowledge so long as we only think that knowledge can be confirmed by a subjective representation, but we have to remember that this is a mere development in thought, not thought's developing.

although being and time failed to overcome or dispel skepticism, i believe that merleau-ponty has the greatest critique of cartesianism doubt in the phenomenology of perception, which is located in the last few sections i believe. i've not read it in a while, but you should check it out because that book is in the top 5 of the 20th century.

File: 1483676676465-lit.jpg (2MB, 1570x2100px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1570x2100px

>>9289652
reading this mad me smarter

>>9289623
Im not really interested in the application of scepticism in identity or personal goals but rather how it relates to epistemic questions of truth and ontology, whether this translates into nihilism seems based on normative assumptions or maybe an individuals experience of life, in other words variance

>>9289652
thanks buddy

If it presents itself in the dogmatic form then we can dismiss it as self-contradictory.

If it presents itself simply as a challenge it's synonymous with asking questions and that's a good thing. Judge on a case by case basis instead of asking how to deal with spooky skepticism which is a self defeating notion.

>How is it possible to know anything? How is it possible to justify anything?
Synthesis a priori m'cartes.

>>9289665
we JAMA now

>>9289689
Isn't this the same as saying that all statements are a priori, hence scepticism?
If scepticism is presented dogmatically does that not then become un-sceptical? (not sure how to word that)

>>9289546
Read Descartes and find out, OP.
Read about epistemic justification, and find out, OP.

>>9289738
HOLY SHIT ARE YOU A GENIUS OR SOMETHING>!>!?
pls bless me with your infinite wisdom