You know (a lot) less than you think. Or perhaps you know (a lot) more than most Philosophers.
Why is it so difficult to counter Skepticism? This is because Philosophical Skepticism can leave you with nothing to build an argument with. The difficulty of dispatching Philosophical Skepticism becomes clearer by looking at how we cope with everyday skepticism. It then becomes clear that our normal means of proof simply do not exist when trying to counter a Philosophical Skeptic.Continue reading “The Skeptic’s Plight”
…if you are not a nihilist. One of the greatest difficulties with uncertainty is that, although you are unsure what the effects – if any – of your actions are, you cannot escape moral decisions.Continue reading “Moral decisions are inescapable”
What are concepts, ideas, arguments and logical inference? I will have a piece on this soon, but I wanted to raise an important question for y’all. Is Philosophy impossible?Continue reading “Is Philosophy impossible?”
The Munchhausen trilemma poses a pickle for philosophers, especially those who fancy knowing something at some point. A brief examination of Wikipedia alone shows the catch-22. It says that, to know if knowledge is true, you must provide a proof. However, this leaves three options which are not satisfying. I will show why these options are not appealing, but then why circular arguments do have a use in understanding some key concepts and axioms. If you have somewhere to be you can cut to the chase and go to the Where’s Wally? section straight away.Continue reading “‘Where’s Wally?’, The Value of Circular Arguments and the Münchhausen Trilemma”