Theoretical Issue With Total Skepticism

[Dre89]

I've been pondering whether the question "how can you know anything? is self-refuting. Essentially, the question functions as a rejection of logic. However, for the statement to have any merit, logic must exist, for the statement must be logical.

Any argument against logic will inevitably entail such logic. The question itself is a logical statement, yet serves to reject logic. If logic is faulty, then so is the sentence itself, and so is the conclusion, because that is derived logically.

Just some thoughts. I want to know what you guys think.

 

[Savon]

It seems like a paradox to me. You have pretty much answered your own question. When you ask the question of "how can you know anything?" you need a logical base for that statement. The statement is trying to breakdown the very standard that gives it merit in the first place. Not much else to say to be honest.

It is somewhat like the paradox stating :"Is the answer to this question no?"

Or trying to use evidence to claim that you can't rely on evidence. The question cannot be valid if the thing it is trying to disprove/discredit is what gives the question itself grounds.

 

[Dre89]

Exactly what I thought, except you worded it alot better.

So then does this mean that we do know alot of things, and aren't being deceived on a metaphysical level, or just that total skepticism is illogical?

 

[Mike]

Although the question you posed requires an answer derived from a reasoning system, I don't see how the belief "I don't know anything" requires any application of logic.

 

[Dre89]

"I don't know anything" is different to "you can't know anything". The first sentence suggests the inidivual knows nothing, but others can know things. Essentially, it is still accepting that there is merit in logic, that it can deduce truths. The latter statement is a rejection of the validity of logic entirely.

 

[Mike]

It doesn't accept that there is merit in logic, because that is something to be known. The statement is not necessarily even evaluable by logic. While it is true that the statement in itself can be seen as a form of knowledge, that is due to a limitation in language rather than concept.

 

[1048576]

http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100923.gif