doubting the ability to doubt

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Philosophy is many things, but one is the pursuit of an ideal of reasoning. Every idea, assumption, argument is put through a rational grinder and the hope is that the result is that we only hold ideas with the most solid reasoning. With the strongest foundations.

But, in order to do that, one must have confidence not only in ones philosophical methodology, but also ones ability to execute that methodology. Philosophy, as the purest of reasoning, exists within us and yet outside of the everyday us. The us that has bodily needs, that has social obligations and wants, the us that does not have the purest of motives, that us that is pulled this way and that way by emotional tides.

Philosophy as an ideal executed by a agent that is far too imperfect. After all, how many philosophers are there whose works do not have tracts of work that makes one think “What were they thinking!”. How many even of us would-be (and real) philosophers on this board are swept away by the words we speak rather than the ideas they represent?

Aside from not being able to adequately doubt everything, when one stumbles across a idea that does not appear to be doubtable, there is always that nagging itch in the back of your brain that seems to be whispering “It seems to be right, but only in the framework you’re working in, what if you have missed the point?”

Ah yes, I feel like I’ve fallen in some deep dark skeptical hole, yet I want so much to have something to hang my hat on. When I write the ideas I hold, I want so much for them to be as close to the “truth” as possible, as close to the ideal of philosophic reasoning as possible. I try to write convincingly, yet… I cannot go too far, if I hold my own ideas as truth I would become complacent in the method of doubt and critical examination, and when things seem all too true, I wonder whether it is truth I have stumbled upon or my limitations as a philosopher.

edit: even in reading over my post again, I see a lack of sophistication here and a lack of clarity there. The sloppiness of my argument particularly in reference to different types of truths and knowledge, a mistaken reference to absolute truth, etc etc. And yet paradoxically, the inadequacy of my post is a example of its adequacy.

2

It seems to me that no one can doubt in a vacuum. To doubt you have to have a reason to doubt, and that reason cannot just be that everything is dubitable. Doubting in a vacuum is what the American philosopher, C. S. Peirce called “paper doubt” or “sham doubt”. After all, doubting cannot consist just in mouthing the words, “I doubt” “Some people” Peirce remarked, “seem to think that doubting is as easy as lying”. So, if I claim to doubt that there is a table in front of me, and also that I am holding a vase in my hands, and then I go on to place the vase firmly on the table, wouldn’t it be legitimate to wonder just what my doubting consists in, and even whether I am using the word “doubt” properly? As I mentioned before, one needs some (specific) reason to doubt what one says one is doubting. And, as Peirce pointed out, that reason for doubting must be something you, as least provisionally, believe. You cannot doubt everything at once.

Peirce also had another term besides “paper doubt” and “sham doubt” for doubting in a vacuum. He called it, “pretend doubt”. Peirce wrote, “Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts”.

3

Kennethamy, well spoken but in a way what I have presented is a reason for doubting anything: human limitation. Is it sham doubt to doubt something because you feel that you may be:

  1. working with a inadequate model but unable to create or envision a more comprehensive one
  2. intellectually lazy or just incompetent
  3. “in love” with your own words
    etc

Your point about provisitional truth and truth that we know in our hearts is well-taken. We must rely on our intuition, and we must be able to label something at least a pragmatic truth to build a foundation. Yet, I feel that my doubt in the human capacity to reason, to be unbiased, to be comprehensive, to doubt effecitvely is a doubt that is not a paper doubt and can be applied to any human reasoning.

I can doubt the vase, I can imagine several arguments to doubt its existence, but in my heart I acknowledge its existance. Similarly, I intuitively also believe my ideas about doubt to be “true”, that I am incapable of pure philosophical reasoning and doubt.

The vase exists to me, but that is not necessarily the truth as I may not be bright enough to doubt it adequately, or am I clever enough to intuitively know it exists? It seems that where intuitive truth and philosophical rigor clash is where the progress in the creation of more and more comprehensive concepts comes from. But the fact that they are forged by a being incapable of being unbiased, a being so suseptible to habit, to intuitive assumptions is a reason to continue doubting.

4

anvildoc, no offence, but there should be border between doubt in different things. I definitely think that doubt in vase, for example, is paranoia :slight_smile: how can you doubt that vase is vase? You can doubt in several different characteristic of the object, but what else?

5

haha good point nofear.

This is sort of what I was refering to vaguely and completely implicitly in my statement about more and more comprehensive concepts when intuition meets philosophical rigor.

There are different ways of thinking about things, and in a certain framework of ideas something can accepted as truth, but similarly if you take a look at it in a different light, it can be doubted.

What you point out, is a need for a categorizaiton or increased sophistication of my ideas. To be sure that when I speak of something like doubt, I must at least refer to a particular framework - i.e. philosophical rigor.

The vase… in a pragmatic framework is not doubtable, it is there, I can fill it with water, i can break it, i can use it as a tool, etc.

the vase in another framework is not just a vase but a sum of all its particles experiences since the big bang. The vase exists but it so much more than the word vase conveys, not to mention its not just a “vase”, its THAT unique particular set of particles.

In yet another framework, when does the vase cease to be a vase? We can examine its components and ask when does it become a vase. What does the word vase refer to? What is a vase at all!

I dont know, I’m just throwing some ideas out. The pragmatic vase is not doubtable, but viewing the vase only pragmatically is doubtable. I’m giving myself a headache ;]

6

Yep, there is no exact appeal to quality, there’s just a word - ‘vase’ and we’re discussing over it. It’s bit hard for me to get into this Word game - ‘different meanings of vase’, cause I don’t know your language so well. I agree you about your point of view- there is different way to talk, think about the things. It all depends on your mind - it’s like association - how you see the subject in question. Different people see different things.

When it changes it’s form, it’s color, it’s ‘job’- what you see when you hear vase. When this quality changes itself vase stops acting like vase, it comes another object in the universe :wink:

7

I don’t think that there is any problem with the word “vase”. The problem is with the word “doubt”. How can I be doubting that there is a vase and a table when I put the vase on the table? Doesn’t doubting have any consequences for behavior. Let’s take a different example. Suppose you come to visit me, and, as I say “welcome”, I throw you down the stairs. Was I welcoming you? Saying that I doubt there is a table and vase while, at the same time, putting the vase on the table, would seem to put into question whether I know what the word “doubt” means, or whether I was just joking when I used the word; just as saying “welcome” while I throw you down the stairs puts into question whether I know what the word “welcome” means, or whether I am joking, or being sarcastic. How can I welcome you while throwing you out. And how can I doubt there is a table and a vase while putting the vase on the table?

8

ken,

it seems that you are stating that the existence of the vase is a self-evident truth. It seems to be more that, it is the connection between the word vase and the physical object is intuitive and self-evident.

We hold a concept of a vase: a hollow cylindrical decorative object.

Then there is a object that fits our concept, so we intuitively match the two and call it a vase.

Similarly, with the word welcome. We have a concept of what welcome means, and then there are the actions that correspond to it.

So how can you call something a vase, manipulate it, engage in a discussion with it, and yet doubt it?

doubt ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dout)

To be undecided or skeptical about:
To tend to disbelieve; distrust
To regard as unlikely

Well, to stick with the vase example for a while. In order to doubt the vase, you are saying I would need a reason to doubt it, there would need to be something about it that does not fit my definition of a vase.

But, even if its lets say the vase was fading in and out of this dimension, randomly changing shapes and colors, had impossible spatial dimensions, etc I would still recognize it as a vase but with special properties. And if it were a bucket and not a vase, I would see it and think “bucket”, so to doubt the buckets existence as a vase would also be pointless.

So you cannot doubt a vase when you acknowledge it simultaneously as a vase.

Onto the word doubt. Maybe it is insufficient, or we’re way outside of its context. In the case of the vase, I can doubt the vase in the sense that I doubt that I can accurately identify a vase.

I’m not a expert on vases, I havent seen all vases, I’m certainly prone to mistakes. And because, I, as a human, can make the mistake of acknowledging something as a vase, I can still doubt the vase no matter how self-evident the vase is: because I’m human.

However, my argument seems wrong since there is no “objective” vase or meaning of a vase, I would still be corresponding to my subjective definition of a vase - so even if I’m mistaken, in a way I’m still correct in identifying it as my version of a vase.

In relation back to my original topic, I guess the quesiton is: Is there a objective or Ideal methodology of doing philosophy, of rationality, rigor, etc. If there is, then I can certainly doubt my ability to interpret that method and apply it because I am… after all human. And that would be a doubt in my ability that would not be a paper or sham doubt, since it is in the context of a real problem that is the limited faculties of the human (more precisely: my) intellect.

edit: for clarity, I’ve decided to throw in another statement:
a paper doubt would be one where you are doubting something that has no failure point. I.e. that X is not X. Paper doubts may exist if phrased a certain way, but I do not feel I am committing a paper doubt since I’m disputing my ability to distinguish between X and not X in a sense, even if X was blatantly self-evident there is room for error.

9

Hi Anvildoc

There is an old truism I grudgingly must agree with that states the hardest joy to give up is the joy of ones own suffering. A lot of philosophy is really just an attempt at self justification and the support of our own sufferings through logic in the cause of “truth”. Our ego gets off on this suffering.

So IMO a person has to finally admit to their motives in order to know what to hang their hat on. If we want to justify our own sufferings through concepts, then we support what justifies us and argue over its legitimacy. If we have a serious need to understand through the entirety of ourselves then we must sacrifice this joy of suffering and become open beyond logic and without expectation. Simone Weil understood this so philosophy didn’t obstruct her need for the experience of reality:

10

I am just arguing that there are behavioral implications of what people say. Just as if when a person says “welcome”, and then kicks the person he addressed down the stairs, so, a person who says, “I doubt this vase or table exists” and then places the vase firmly on the table, seems to show a disconnect between his words and his actions. What should we make of such an occurrence either in the “welcome” case, or in the “I doubt” case? Should we, as you perhaps suggest, just ignore the person’s behavior and allow that in one case he did welcome the person, and in the other case, he is doubting? That’s one possibility, I suppose. Another possibility, however, is not to ignore what the person did, but try to make sense of the combination of his words and his behavior. Behavior is often a test of sincerity. Could a person who says welcome but kicks the person down the stairs be sincere? Similarly, someone who claims to doubt the existence of the vase and the table when he, at the same time, puts the vase on the table: could such a person be said really to doubt the existence of the table and vase? Another possibility is that the person is joking. Or that the person doesn’t really know what the word “welcome” means; or what the word “doubt” means.

So I don’t see how it is that, as you say, “…it seems that [i] am stating that the existence of the vase is a self-evident truth” In fact, I don’t see how my question has anything to do with my belief about whether or not the vase exists. I am just pointing out that a person who claims to doubt the vase exist, but who acts for all the world as if the vase (and the table-don’t please forget the table) exists, poses a problem as to what it is he is really saying. And raises the question whether just saying that one doubts is doubting?

And let me make a further point: this is something that has been raised in different ways on other threads too.

I have no objection to questioning, or of doubting, or whatever you like, statements which I believe are true, or most people believe are true. Why should I? I don’t hold any belief sacroscant. On the other hand, I don’t see how doubting or questioning, can be done in a vacuum. Shouldn’t there be some reason to doubt or question? If I believe there is a table in front of me, and you tell me that you doubt it, then, fine. I believe you. But now, am I not entitled to ask you why you doubt it (or question it)? What is going on that leads you to doubt there is a table? Do you suspect some trickery? That we are all hallucinating? (Whether it makes sense to ask that question if, indeed, we are all hallucinating, is a further question). But I don’t see why I am not entitled to ask you questions like that. After all (and I don’t mean this as a merely rhetorical question) if you think it is proper to ask me whether it is not questionable, or dubitable whether there is a table before me, and so, ask me to defend my belief that there is a table in front of me, then why can’t I ask you why you believe that my belief is questionable, or dubitable. After all, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Isn’t that so?

11

Clearly you could sit here for days and rant on about the joys of philosophy. But when you think about it, don’t you have other responsibilities in life, like a job, your families, etc.? Philosophy is made for great thinkers and also other people that want to think about it. However, there are other things in life that are much more important.

12

True enough. There are other things in life more important than playing chess, or listening to music, or eating good food. Does that mean that we shouldn’t play chess, listen to music, or eat good food?

13

Without a doubt, things done for pleasure can’t be simply ignored. But it doesn’t seem useful or even fun to ask a question that ends up with a seemingly contradictory statement. What exactly is the point of that? You run around like a chicken its head chopped off without really making a point or proving someone wrong or right. I can understand listening to music or playing chess: those are pleasures. And eating food is a need. On the other hand, what enrichment or happiness comes from typing a question that you spend half an hour determining that it has no real answer?

14

Well, first of all, I happen to think that philosophical problems do often have answers (whether they have “real” answers is itself a philosophical problem so you would have to tell me the difference between an answer and a real answer). Of course, the answer to the problem might be that the problem itself is ill-conceived. But that is a kind of answer, although maybe not what you would call a “real” answer.

In the second place, there is no better way to improve your critical thinking skills and logical skills, in general, than to philosophize. And that is not something to be sneezed at. I have found that most of the people who are interested in philosophy, and spend time on it, can run rings around those who are not, and who do not. Of course, that depends on the kind of philosophy you do. There are those who think that philosophizing consists in painting pretty mental picture, and not bothering about argument. I do not mean that sort of philosophy.

But, I think that it may be that your hostility to philosophy is simply a result of your not being much interested in philosophy. You may be tone deaf to philosophy the way some people are tone deaf to music. Of course, there is no shame in that. I have known very bright people who have called music “tunes”. All music. Some people are simply not interested in abstract matters. That’s fine. Different interests make an interesting world.

What is bad is people who try to philosophize and have absolutely no talent for it. Or, maybe it is not bad. It is pitiful. They want to do it, and simply don’t know how. It is as awful and scratchy as a bad violinist playing the violin.

15

I used to say that doubt is an action, a positive, doubt is not absence of certainty or plain knowledge, knowledge is an absence of doubt. knowledge is an agreement.
but you bring up good points about the pitfalls of thinking and our limitations in knowing. maybe there is nothing here but a choice to make, are you happier rigorously exploring the possibility of superior knowledge at the cost of being able to hang your hat, or happier with good-enough knowledge that you can live on. i don’t know, but what if there is no right way to look at it? what if it’s all related to purpose? I suppose the issue of limitations and mental faults withstanding, it pays to doubt ni order to find the most effective viewpoint for a purpose. maybe you should define a purpose, maybe even What it is that you want to perceive, and then find the best way of accomplishing that. i don’t know, though. and anyway it seems to mostly come back down - or up? - to the issue of seeing with your heart, though. also i’d go back to his point about what exactly it is that you’re doubting when you doubt teh vase. and that does bring to mind something i just mentioned on another thread - the shape and color of the vase is what it is merely to illicit reaction; it’s superficial to its essence, at least in a sense in which natural things aren’t, or aren’t entirely… although it does -remind- you of something real. real in the sense that truth=beauty. or so i read.

16

sometimes a pretty mental picture is the best approximation to truth for the circumstance. something that actually works, and gets you somewhere. something that can’t be argued because it can’t be empirically derived; it’s grace. the fact that somehing that doesn’t resolve to a good argument is meaningless to you is akin to your doubting whether any philosophical answer can be a real answer. as for the rings, you could run rings around God if you like. if your basis of argument is nothing but logic and doubt, are you attempting to trap your opponent or run away from him?

[quote]