Deep contextual metaphysical doubting is philosophical and therefore uneccesary. Its a road to nowhere.
Practical doubting is where its at. Basic behavioral repertoires for familiar experiences. Before crossing a road I “doubt” that I would have a better chance of making it without looking first and therefore I would look before crossing.
I think “doubt” serves to organize executive functions of behavior and regulates our exercise of routine and habit. We doubt all the time before and beyond language, and only when we try to define the essence of doubting with words do we notice it.
Deep metaphysical doubt is the doubting of the object in front of you…or even the solitary falling tree in the forest. Practical doubting is your involuntary tendency to not walk through the screen-door without having to think about it. Doubt, then, is not a concept, it is an actual nervous system function that occurs underneath your thinking.
I say go with that. Forget about Descartes and Berkeley
Doubt is the active ingredient in every box of critical thinking. It is the antidote to an overdose of blind acceptance of received knowledge (read: dogma). It’s not only good - it’s good for you. (I doubt that you’ll get anyone to give you an outline for your paper, and I doubt that they would be doing you any favors if they did.)
Think of philosophical problems as you would a crossword puzzle. Say you enter an answer at 1 across and you think you know the answers that cross it, but they won’t fit. Would you not begin to doubt your first answer (1 across)? I hope you would. Philosophical positions must fit together to form a unified whole. Sometimes you need doubt as a tool to make that happen.
Doubt is, like Detrop said, the ultimate spice to life. It’s what makes time flow; a river of conceptualizations we constantly pluck fish from. Without doubt we could not even play this game - it is the ball, it’s everything, it is our function as rational creatures.
It not that you should doubt but rather that you should start your thinking with no biases. To realize that just because something been believe for a 1000 years don’t make it correct. You can’t be given truth. You must discover truth. When someone tells you something is true, it is not that you should doubt but rather look at how he arrived at the conclusion. The thought path that leads to the conclusion is so much more important then the conclusion it self. After you look at the thought path make your own conclusion it might be the same as there it might not be.
The idea is to always think for your self. If you want to know the truth you must seek it not have someone hand it to you.
id agree with the current trend and say doubt is what makes imagination an effective planning tool when compared to what we believe absolutely. we use
our beliefs to form opinions and doubt is what arises when we think our opinions are conflicting with our concrete beliefs.
Hi everyone, it’s me again. I’m a high school student taking philosophy. This is my irst module, focus on “HOW DO YOU KNOW”. For the importance of doubt, i think it has some connections with the following question “Why is truth important”? Don’t you guys think so?
The question, “Why is it important to doubt?” suggests that it is up to the person whether or not he doubts. But is that true? If someone tells me to doubt there is a computer monitor in front of me, and I reply, “How do I go about doing that?” should he say, “Never mind, go ahead, and doubt!” For the life of me I don’t know how to doubt there is a computer monitor in front of me. I can, of course, say the words, “I doubt” but what makes me think I am doubting? Here I am, staring in front of me, trying to doubt. What should I do?
Doubting, it seems to me (and despite what Descartes tells us) is not something people can do. It is something that happens to people. If, for instance, the computer monitor seemed to disappear and then reappear, then I might doubt there was a computer monitor in front of me. In other words, don’t I need some reason to doubt in order to doubt?
Very informative and enlightening. Thanks. Only tell me. How am I to determine that I am using common sense? I am now doubting that you have written the post I am answering. Have I succeeded in my doubt? Let me know.
I guess I did, but I don’t know what common sense tells me. As C.S. Peirce once wrote, “Some people think that doubting is as easy as lying”. You want me to doubt? Sure. Here I go. I am doubting!
I responded to this same question in another forum. For those who don’t read both, I’ll duplicate my response here. I provided two quotes, one from William Clifford, which I included in my post about Russell, Kaufmann, and Martin on William James, and one from Clarence Darrow, who should need no introduction to those who know about the Scopes’ trial or have seen Inherit the Wind.