DOCSLIB.ORG

On the Plausibility of a Strong Transcendental Response to Scepticism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On the Plausibility of a Strong Transcendental Response to Scepticism On the Plausibility of a Strong Transcendental Response to Scepticism Rosemary Jane Smith PhD University of York Philosophy May, 2015 Tom Stoneham Abstract I argue that the strong transcendental strategy can offer us a serious and robust response the sceptic who doubts that we can have knowledge of the extra-mental. This sceptic is motivated by sceptical hypotheses to worry that I could have all the thoughts and experiences I do in fact have if the world were radically different to how I take it to be. Transcendental arguments start from a premise about our thoughts or experience and move on to show that something must be the case because it is a necessary condition of our having such thoughts or experience. As such, transcendental arguments are particularly well- positioned to answer this sceptic, as the premises of a transcendental argument are drawn from the mental propositions the sceptic accepts. Some philosophers have argued that the same concerns that drive the sceptic to doubt the extra-mental should also give her cause to doubt the mental. To prevent the sceptic retreating to this thought, I show that these arguments are only effective against propositions that were unlikely to form the basis of a transcendental argument. Strong transcendental arguments (STAs) are differentiated from weak transcendental arguments as being those that move from mental premises to conclusions about the extra- mental world. I defend STAs against Stroud‘s objection that this is not possible, on the basis that the objection rests on an illicit assumption of dualism about mind and world. I argue for the plausibility of supervenience physicalism as a metaphysical picture upon which such inferences would be possible. I show how a dispositionally essentialist understanding of the laws of nature would plausibly support a metaphysically necessary psychophysical law, from which we could draw the bridging premise of an STA. This changes the dialectic, forcing the sceptic to defend specific metaphysical positions, such as resemblance nominalism, and to engage substantially with philosophy. The plausibility of strong transcendental arguments tells us something of what must be true of the world for the sceptic‘s arguments to even get started. 2 Tom Stoneham ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 7 AUTHOR’S DECLARATION ......................................................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 SCEPTICISM DEFINED .................................................................................................................... 9 1.2 SCEPTICISM, APPEARANCE, AND REALITY IN LITERATURE ..................................................................... 13 1.3 A POTTED HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHICAL SCEPTICISM ........................................................................... 16 1.3.4 SIXTH CENTURY BC—JAINIST EPISTEMOLOGY ......................................................................................... 19 1.3.2 FIFTH CENTURY BC—SOCRATIC SCEPTICISM ........................................................................................... 19 1.3.3 FOURTH OR SIXTH CENTURY BC—LAOZI ................................................................................................ 20 1.3.4 FOURTH CENTURY BC TO THIRD CENTURY AD—PYRRHONIAN SCPETICISM .................................................. 21 1.3.5 THIRD TO FIRST CENTURY BC—ACADEMIC SCEPTICS ................................................................................ 22 1.3.6 FOURTH CENTURY AD—AUGUSTINE ..................................................................................................... 23 1.3.7 MEDIEVAL SCEPTICISM ........................................................................................................................ 23 1.4 SCEPTICISM AS AN ENDURING CONCERN .......................................................................................... 25 1.5 TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS AS A RESPONSE TO SCEPTICISM ............................................................ 26 CHAPTER 2: TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................ 30 2.1 THE TRANSCENDENTAL DEDUCTION ................................................................................................ 30 2.2 KANT’S COPERNICAN TURN .......................................................................................................... 32 2.3 THE REFUTATION OF IDEALISM ...................................................................................................... 35 2.3.1 TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM AND MATERIAL IDEALISMS ............................................................................ 35 2.3.2 THE PROOF ........................................................................................................................................ 36 2.3.3 THE KANTIAN AND CARTESIAN ‘I AM’ ............................................................................................. 38 2.3.4 TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM, BERKELEYAN IDEALISM, AND SCEPTICISM ....................................................... 41 2.4 AUSTIN ................................................................................................................................... 45 3 Tom Stoneham 2.5 STRAWSON: INDIVIDUALS ............................................................................................................ 48 2.6 STRAWSON’S TRANSCENDENTAL DEDUCTION AND THE BOUNDS OF SENSE ............................................... 50 2.7 STROUD AND TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS .................................................................................. 52 2.7.1 TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS AS ANTI-SCEPTICAL ................................................................................. 53 2.7.2 GOALS FOR TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................ 55 2.7.3 STRAWSON: NATURALISM AND SCEPTICISM ............................................................................................ 56 2.7.4 STROUD AND WEAK TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS................................................................................ 57 2.7.5 STROUD’S TAXONOMY OF TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS ........................................................................ 59 2.8 WHY A STRONG TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT IS NEEDED TO ADDRESS MY SCEPTIC ................................. 60 2.8.1 AGAINST WEAK TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS ..................................................................................... 61 2.8.2 STRAWSONIAN WEAK TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS ............................................................................. 62 2.9 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 63 CHAPTER 3: WHAT’S SO SPECIAL ABOUT THE MENTAL? ........................................................................ 64 3.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 64 3.2 DOUBTING ONE’S OWN MIND ...................................................................................................... 65 3.3 EMOTION ................................................................................................................................. 66 3.3.1 ANTICIPATED AND REMEMBERED EMOTION ............................................................................................ 67 3.3.2 LINGUISTIC VAGUENESS ....................................................................................................................... 68 3.3.3 DISTINGUISHING MOODS AND EMOTIONS .............................................................................................. 69 3.3.4 PRESENTLY FELT EMOTIONS.................................................................................................................. 70 3.4 VISUAL EXPERIENCE .................................................................................................................... 73 3.4.1 ‘I THINK I CAN PROTRUDE MY TONGUE WITHOUT ITS COMING OUT’ ............................................................. 73 3.4.2 ‘I SEE A SEAL AS MY SISTER’ ................................................................................................................... 74 3.4.3 ‘I THINK I SEE A RED CARPET THAT’S NOT RED’ .......................................................................................... 75 3.4.4 INTROSPECTION, INTROSPECTIVE JUDGEMENTS, AND NEUROSURGEONS FROM ALPHA CENTAURI ..................... 78 3.4.5 BLINDSIGHT ....................................................................................................................................... 80 3.5 PERIPHERAL AND FOVEAL VISION ................................................................................................... 80 3.6 THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF THOUGHT .............................................................................................. 83 3.7 THE GENERAL ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analytic Transcendental Arguments
    Analytic Transcendental Arguments Jonathan Bennett From: P. Bieri et al. (eds), Transcendental Arguments and Science (Reidel: Dordrecht, 1979), pp. 45–64. 1. Locke on the objective world nothing could follow about what exists other than myself. Can we strengthen the conclusion by strengthening the Someone who thinks that his own inner states are the basis premises? Could a more contentful belief about an outer for all his other knowledge and beliefs may wonder how world be defended as explaining certain further facts about anything can be securely built on this foundation. He need my inner states, e.g. about the order or regularity which not actually doubt that his own edifice is securely founded, they exhibit? Locke does argue like that, but unfortunately though he may pretend to have doubts about this in order he pollutes all his premises—which should be purely about to consider how they could be resolved if they did occur. inner states—with an admixture of statements about the This person is a ‘Cartesian sceptic’. which implies that he outer world; for instance, he uses the premise that men is not sceptical at all. He is untouched by such crude English with no eyes have no visual states. But that seems to be moves as Locke’s protest that ‘nobody can in earnest be so an accidental defect in Locke’s treatment. He could have sceptical’, or Moore’s holding up his hand as proof that there cleansed his premises, as Hume nearly did, so that they is a physical object. Such intellectual bullying is irrelevant spoke only of the order, coherence etc.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Disjunctive Conception of Experience As Material for A
    The disjunctive conception of experience as material for a transcendental argument John McDowell University of Pittsburgh 1. In Individuals1 and The Bounds of Sense,2 P. F. Strawson envisaged transcendental arguments as responses to certain sorts of scepticism. An argument of the sort Strawson proposed was to establish a general claim about the world, a claim supposedly brought into doubt by sceptical reflections. Such an argument was to work by showing that unless things were as they were said to be in the claim that the argument purported to establish, it would not be possible for our thought or experience to have certain characteristics, not regarded as questionable even by someone who urges sceptical doubts. So the argument’s conclusion was to be displayed as the answer to a “How possible?” question. That has a Kantian ring, and the feature of such arguments that the formulation fits is the warrant for calling them “transcendental”. Barry Stroud responded to Strawson on the following lines.3 Perhaps we can see our way to supposing that if our thought or experience is to have certain characteristics it does have (for instance that experience purports to be of a world of objects independent of us), we must conceive the world in certain ways (for instance as containing objects that continue to exist even while we are not perceiving them). But it is quite another matter to suggest that by reflecting about how it is possible that our thought and experience are as they are, we could establish conclusions not just about how we must conceive the world but about how the world must be.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconciling Aesthetic Philosophy and the Cartesian Paradigm Taryn Sweeney IDVSA
    Maine State Library Digital Maine Academic Research and Dissertations Maine State Library Special Collections 2018 Aesthesis Universalis: Reconciling Aesthetic Philosophy and the Cartesian Paradigm Taryn Sweeney IDVSA Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalmaine.com/academic Recommended Citation Sweeney, Taryn, "Aesthesis Universalis: Reconciling Aesthetic Philosophy and the Cartesian Paradigm" (2018). Academic Research and Dissertations. 21. https://digitalmaine.com/academic/21 This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the Maine State Library Special Collections at Digital Maine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Academic Research and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Maine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AESTHESIS UNIVERSALIS: RECONCILING AESTHETIC PHILOSOPHY AND THE CARTESIAN PARADIGM Taryn M Sweeney Submitted to the faculty of The Institute for Doctoral Studies in the Visual Arts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy November, 2018 ii Accepted by the faculty of the Institute for Doctoral Studies in the Visual Arts in partial fulfillment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Committee Chair: Don Wehrs, Ph.D. Hargis Professor of English Literature Auburn University, Auburn Committee Member: Merle Williams, Ph.D. Personal Professor of English University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg Committee Member: Kathe Hicks Albrecht, Ph.D. Independent Studies Director Institute for Doctoral Studies in the Visual Arts, Portland iii © 2018 Taryn M Sweeney ALL RIGHTS RESERVED iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe a profound gratitude to my advisor, Don Wehrs, for his tremendous patience, sympathy, and acceptance of my completely un-academic self as I approached this most ambitious and academic of undertakings.
    [Show full text]
  • Virtue of Feminist Rationality
    The Virtue of Feminist Rationality Continuum Studies in Philosophy Series Editor: James Fieser, University of Tennessee at Martin, USA Continuum Studies in Philosophy is a major monograph series from Continuum. The series features first-class scholarly research monographs across the whole field of philo- sophy. Each work makes a major contribution to the field of philosophical research. Aesthetic in Kant, James Kirwan Analytic Philosophy: The History of an Illusion, Aaron Preston Aquinas and the Ship of Theseus, Christopher Brown Augustine and Roman Virtue, Brian Harding The Challenge of Relativism, Patrick Phillips Demands of Taste in Kant’s Aesthetics, Brent Kalar Descartes and the Metaphysics of Human Nature, Justin Skirry Descartes’ Theory of Ideas, David Clemenson Dialectic of Romanticism, Peter Murphy and David Roberts Duns Scotus and the Problem of Universals, Todd Bates Hegel’s Philosophy of Language, Jim Vernon Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, David James Hegel’s Theory of Recognition, Sybol S.C. Anderson The History of Intentionality, Ryan Hickerson Kantian Deeds, Henrik Jøker Bjerre Kierkegaard, Metaphysics and Political Theory, Alison Assiter Kierkegaard’s Analysis of Radical Evil, David A. Roberts Leibniz Re-interpreted, Lloyd Strickland Metaphysics and the End of Philosophy, HO Mounce Nietzsche and the Greeks, Dale Wilkerson Origins of Analytic Philosophy, Delbert Reed Philosophy of Miracles, David Corner Platonism, Music and the Listener’s Share, Christopher Norris Popper’s Theory of Science, Carlos Garcia Postanalytic and Metacontinental, edited by James Williams, Jack Reynolds, James Chase and Ed Mares Rationality and Feminist Philosophy, Deborah K. Heikes Re-thinking the Cogito, Christopher Norris Role of God in Spinoza’s Metaphysics, Sherry Deveaux Rousseau and Radical Democracy, Kevin Inston Rousseau and the Ethics of Virtue, James Delaney Rousseau’s Theory of Freedom, Matthew Simpson Spinoza and the Stoics, Firmin DeBrabander Spinoza’s Radical Cartesian Mind, Tammy Nyden-Bullock St.
    [Show full text]
  • Pyrrhonism and Cartesianism – Episode: External World and Aliens
    Philosophy department, CEU Budapest, Hungary Table of Contents Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... Pyrrhonism and 2 List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. 3 IntroductionCartesianism: ................................................................................................................................ external 4 1.Methodological and practical skepticism: theory and a way of life ........................................ 6 2.Hypothetical doubt,world practical concerns and and the existence aliens of the external world .................. 13 2.1. An explanation for Pyrrhonists not questioning the existence of the external world .... 18 In partial2.2. An analysisfulfillment of whether ofPyrrhonists the requirements could expand the scope for of theirthe skepticism to include the external world .................................................................................................... 21 3.Pyrrhonism, Cartesianism and degreesome epistemologically of Masters interesting of Artsquestions ..................... 27 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ by Tamara Rendulic 37 References ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • New Directions for Transcendental Claims. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 93 (2)
    Giladi, Paul (2016) New Directions for Transcendental Claims. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 93 (2). pp. 212-231. ISSN 0165-9227 Downloaded from: https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/621126/ Version: Accepted Version Publisher: Brill DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-09302006 Please cite the published version https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk 1 New Directions for Transcendental Claims Keywords: transcendental claims; transcendental arguments; epistemology; post-Kantian philosophy This paper aims to provide an account of the relationship between transcendental claims and the project of using transcendental argumentation that differs from the mainstream literature.1 By a ‘transcendental claim’, I mean a proposition which states that y is a necessary condition for the possibility of x.2 In much of the literature, such claims are said to have as their primary value the overcoming of various sceptical positions. I argue that whilst transcendental arguments may be narrowly characterised as anti-sceptical, transcendental claims do not have to be used in only this way, and in fact can be useful in several areas of philosophy outside the issue of scepticism, and so can be used by transcendental arguments more broadly conceived. I offer four examples of transcendental claims that are not used in narrow, anti-sceptical transcendental arguments. I argue that these broader arguments use transcendental claims but not in an anti-sceptical way. From this, I conclude that one can separate the project of making transcendental claims and the project of using transcendental arguments to defeat scepticism. Given the well-known difficulties transcendental arguments in this narrow sense seem to have had in defeating scepticism,3 distinguishing narrow transcendental arguments clearly from transcendental claims as such in this manner can provide a way for the latter to still serve an important role in philosophy, by showing how such claims can be used more broadly, regardless of any doubts one may have about the anti- sceptical value of such claims.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Varieties of Skepticism
    1 2 3 4 Two Varieties of Skepticism 5 6 James Conant 7 8 This paper distinguishes two varieties of skepticism and the varieties of 9 philosophical response those skepticisms have engendered. The aim of 10 the exercise is to furnish a perspicuous overview of some of the dialec- 11 tical relations that obtain across some of the range of problems that phi- 12 losophers have called (and continue to call) “skeptical”. I will argue that 13 such an overview affords a number of forms of philosophical insight.1 14 15 16 I. Cartesian and Kantian Varieties of Skepticism – A First Pass 17 at the Distinction 18 19 I will call the two varieties of skepticism in question Cartesian skepticism 20 and Kantian skepticism respectively.2 (These labels are admittedly conten- 21 tious.3 Nothing of substance hangs on my employing these rather than 22 23 1 The taxonomy is meant to serve as a descriptive tool for distinguishing various 24 sorts of philosophical standpoint. It is constructed in as philosophically neutral a 25 fashion as possible. The distinctions presented below upon which it rests are 26 ones that can be deployed by philosophers of very different persuasions regard- 27 less of their collateral philosophical commitments. A philosopher could make use of these distinctions to argue for any of a number of very different conclu- 28 sions. Some of the more specific philosophical claims that I myself express sym- 29 pathy for in the latter part of this part (e.g., regarding how these varieties of 30 skepticism are related to one another) do, however, turn on collateral philo- 31 sophical commitments.
    [Show full text]
  • A Weakly Pragmatic Defense of Authoritatively Normative Reasons
    NIHILISM AND ARGUMENTATION: A WEAKLY PRAGMATIC DEFENSE OF AUTHORITATIVELY NORMATIVE REASONS Scott Simmons A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2020 Committee: Michael Weber, Advisor Verner Bingman Graduate Faculty Representative Christian Coons Molly Gardner Sara Worley ii ABSTRACT Michael Weber, Advisor Global normative error theorists argue that there are no authoritative normative reasons of any kind. Thus, according to the error theory, the normative demands of law, prudence, morality, etc. are of no greater normative significance than the most absurd standards we can conceive of. Because the error theory is a radically revisionary view, theorists who accept it only do so because they maintain the view is supported by the best available arguments. In this dissertation, I argue that error theory entails that it is impossible that there are successful arguments for anything, thus defenses of error theory are in tension with the view, itself. My argument begins with the observation that it is natural to think a successful argument is one that gives us an authoritative normative reason to believe its conclusion. Error theory entails that there are no authoritative reasons to believe anything. What are arguments for error theory even supposed to accomplish? Error theorists may respond that their arguments are solely intended to get at the truth. I argue that this reply fails. One problem is that it cannot make sense of why in practice even error theorists still want evidence for the premises of sound arguments. Error theorists may try to capture the importance of evidence by appeal to our social norms or goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Sceptical Paths Studies and Texts in Scepticism
    Sceptical Paths Studies and Texts in Scepticism Edited on behalf of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies by Giuseppe Veltri Managing Editor: Yoav Meyrav Editorial Board Heidrun Eichner, Talya Fishman, Racheli Haliva, Henrik Lagerlund, Reimund Leicht, Stephan Schmid, Carsten Wilke, Irene Zwiep Volume 6 Sceptical Paths Enquiry and Doubt from Antiquity to the Present Edited by Giuseppe Veltri, Racheli Haliva, Stephan Schmid, and Emidio Spinelli The series Studies and Texts in Scepticism is published on behalf of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies ISBN 978-3-11-058960-3 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-059104-0 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-059111-8 ISSN 2568-9614 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 Licence. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Control Number: 2019947115 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019 Giuseppe Veltri, Racheli Haliva, Stephan Schmid, Emidio Spinelli, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg, Ms Cod. Levy 115, fol. 158r: Maimonides, More Nevukhim, Beginn von Teil III. Printing & binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com Contents Introduction 1 Carlos Lévy Philo of Alexandria vs. Descartes: An Ignored Jewish
    [Show full text]
  • Perception and Reflection
    PERCEPTION AND REFLECTION Anil Gomes Trinity College, University of Oxford Forthcoming, Philosophical Perspectives [accepted 2017] What method should we use to determine the nature of perceptual experience? My focus here is the Kantian thought that transcendental arguments can be used to determine the nature of perceptual experience. I set out a dilemma for the use of transcendental arguments in the philosophy of perception, one which turns on a comparison of the transcendental method with the first-personal method of early analytic philosophy, and with the empirical methods of much contemporary philosophy of mind. The transcendental method can avoid this dilemma only if it commits to our possessing a capacity for imaginative reflection, one which is capable of identifying certain formal properties of experience. This result indicates some of the commitments which must be made if transcendental arguments are to be used in the philosophy of perception, and it has implications for those views that take the philosophy of perception to be autonomous of the empirical science of perception. 1. Introduction Questions about perception arise across the academy: philosophers, psychologists, neuroscientists, and others are interested in the nature of perceptual experience and its role in our cognitive life. And it is a salient fact to anyone who is interested in these questions that there is disagreement both across and within these disciplines as to the nature of perceptual experience. In some cases, this is the kind of disagreement which one would expect in any healthy body of research. But in some cases it seems to betray a deeper disagreement about the methods appropriate for studying the nature of perceptual experience.
    [Show full text]
  • Descartes and Flusser
    FLUSSER STUDIES 29 Wanderley Dias da Silva Flusser and Descartes The Unremitting Mindfulness of Thinking and Being Section 1: Arguments in Context To be a Cartesian can be frustrating at times. Of all modern scholars, Descartes is simply the one who has met with most criticism. And even though his formulation of the cogito – the affirmation that it’s madness to doubt my own existence while I self-reflectively doubt everything else – sounds pretty obvious, Hobbes, Locke, Leibniz, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Flusser, Žižek, Feminists, Catholics, Calvinists, Jesuits, orthodoxy, heterodoxy … all tried to poke holes in Descartes’ ideas. Žižek, for instance, goes as far as to claim that ‘post-modern anti- humanism’ begins with Descartes’ doubt; while Vincent Macnabb states that the Cartesian doubt is the “intellectual disease in some of the noblest minds of our age.” And what’s this ‘disease’ Macnabb is talking about except nihilism? But there’s no surprise here: Descartes’ name often comes up in history as a colorful moniker for whatever is wrong with postmodernity – including Nihilism. Descartes intentionally brought much of this criticism upon himself the very moment he boldly submitted the manuscript of his Meditations to some philosophers, theologians, a logician – and even to a self-declared intellectual enemy (Hobbes) – for objections before publishing it. However, Descartes did reply to those objections – and a set of Objections with Replies1 was published as a continuation of the Meditations. And the author deemed these section so important that, in the Preface, he begged his readers “not to come to any judgement on the questions he was raising until they had taken care to read the whole book carefully” – including the Objections, with their relative Replies.2 Needless to say, Descartes’ appeal did not help much; and his philosophical ideas have been harshly antagonized ever since.
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemology from Passivity: an Argument Against the Position of Complete Skepticism of an External World
    Aporia vol. 28 no. 2—2018 Epistemology from Passivity: An Argument against the Position of Complete Skepticism of an External World LUKAS MYERS he problems of Epistemological Solipsism are present in the minds of all those beginning philosophical inquiry as, perhaps, the most Tintriguing and difficult of questions—directly mystifying the universe and making panic stretch across the psyches of young philosophers in fear that they may be the only thing that exists. For those who continue on with philosophy for any period of time, such a problem likely never loses its difficulties, but maintaining that same level of ferocious intrigue seems unlikely. It is such a problem that many contemporary philosophers, so that they can actually do any productive philosophy, suspend their judgement or hold that the idea of Epistemological Solipsism whatsoever is redundant.1 Many hold that the idea is incredulous, or they reason that there is no ‘good enough’ positive evidence in favor of such a viewpoint as Epistemological Solipsism and so, if such a view desires to be taken seriously, it must pass a high burden of proof for a positive argument in its favor. The idea that radically skeptical positions of epistemology are simply lacking in utility or likelihood is a common one and often comes in two forms: the soft criticism and the hard criticism. In Bertrand Russell’s work, Our Knowledge of the External World, Russell states a similarly pragmatic view of extreme skepticism saying: 1Insofar as if we choose to maintain it seriously, there can be no more important reflection past that specific point.
    [Show full text]