Yeah but skepticism is skepticism isn't it? How far can it be adapted other than by varying how deeply you apply it? I do agree with skeptical logic - in so far as skepticism contitutes the application of reasonable doubt to any given circumstance - but to extend skepticism to the extents that you seem to be condoning just seems self defeating and, above all, pointless.
Check out the "Knowing that you know" thread to read my more in depth opinions on the issue.
speaking as someone who studies greek (and in a much more secure capacity than me when i pretend to know the slightest thing about philosophy) -
i dont think the ‘logos’ thing is anything to do with faith. literally and primarily word yes, but here doesn’t it mean argument? much less about faith in something external and much more about reasonable decisions?
[This message has been edited by chloe (edited 29 March 2002).]
Skepticism is a form of thought-reduction.
A filter.
Skeptics often fail.
To properly critique something, you must understand it.
And in philosophy, enemyship is often based on a false understanding of the other person’s ideas.
