WEEK 2
What do you think about methodological skepticism? Do we ever follow this procedure in our daily lives, or do we do the opposite. In other words, do we tend to believe things until it becomes impossible to believe them, rather than doubting everything we can? If so, does this suggest that methological skepticism is not a good strategy?
I really enjoyed Descartes. Some of the things that he said I never really thought about. ¨I am, I exist¨ this is great. That means that we can doubt anything, but once I think and doubt things I can’t doubt that ¨I think, therefore I am¨.
Descartes tries to put solid bases for the true knowledge. ¨ I realized that it was necessary, once in the course of my life, to demolish everything completely an start again right from the foundations if I wanted to establish anything at all in the sciences that was stable and likely to last.¨ What I understand from that is if you have simple but solid bases for your knowledge you will be able to reconstruct a more complex knowledge.
I don’t think that we doubt everything we can in our daily life but it doesn’t mean that methodological skepticism is not a good strategy. Lots of things that we see in our daily life we just can´t doubt. Simple things like a chair is a chair or a car is a car and so on but in the other hand some of our believes we are a little skeptical even though we don’t want to admit. Lets talk God for example. We believe that there is a God, but what are the SOLID BASES for this kind of thinking? Another example that I would take is evil. Is the evil really exist or is just our imagination? For this we have to argue that if evil did not exist how would we know what good is? Some things about skepticism I think we just accept based in our own life experience.
What do you think about methodological skepticism? Do we ever follow this procedure in our daily lives, or do we do the opposite. In other words, do we tend to believe things until it becomes impossible to believe them, rather than doubting everything we can? If so, does this suggest that methological skepticism is not a good strategy?
I really enjoyed Descartes. Some of the things that he said I never really thought about. ¨I am, I exist¨ this is great. That means that we can doubt anything, but once I think and doubt things I can’t doubt that ¨I think, therefore I am¨.
Descartes tries to put solid bases for the true knowledge. ¨ I realized that it was necessary, once in the course of my life, to demolish everything completely an start again right from the foundations if I wanted to establish anything at all in the sciences that was stable and likely to last.¨ What I understand from that is if you have simple but solid bases for your knowledge you will be able to reconstruct a more complex knowledge.
I don’t think that we doubt everything we can in our daily life but it doesn’t mean that methodological skepticism is not a good strategy. Lots of things that we see in our daily life we just can´t doubt. Simple things like a chair is a chair or a car is a car and so on but in the other hand some of our believes we are a little skeptical even though we don’t want to admit. Lets talk God for example. We believe that there is a God, but what are the SOLID BASES for this kind of thinking? Another example that I would take is evil. Is the evil really exist or is just our imagination? For this we have to argue that if evil did not exist how would we know what good is? Some things about skepticism I think we just accept based in our own life experience.
posted by Monica @ 10:51 AM
1 Comments:
At 5:10 PM,
Professor Roger said…
Perhaps we could say it is a good strategy if you are trying to found an area of inquiry, but not something that should apply across the board in our lives.
Post a Comment
<< Home