I say that because I, for one, haven't come across such a text. — Agustino

The irony is that this is why Banno's point was a good one. You made a general claim that actually told us more about you. So did the original poster, except that he made a whole bunch of 'em.

Of course you don't see that here, to this guy. That's because my understanding, which I believe is correct, is that this guy didn't start a discussion on multiple issues, but was just using them as examples. — Sapientia

My understanding is that he threw a bone, to let the dogs fight. The truth may emerge from the fight.

So you're accusing me of being an ass towards him. I think that that's unfair. I've been no more of an ass than he has. I mirrored his own terminology and attitude.

And his complaint in its entirety isn't fair, hence my criticism. He merely raised some interesting and arguable points, but he didn't go into detail. Yet you seem to expect only me (and not him) to do so. The burden doesn't work like that. — Sapientia

Yes his post isn't fair. He's throwing you a bone. He's challenging you. That's why it's insulting and derisive. He doesn't want to make a point himself - he wants YOU to make a point. He is merely putting words there in order to provoke you. But you shouldn't react violently to that, because it is an opportunity for you to showcase your understanding, and share your understanding with others. You're here to do philosophy afterwards, not to deny challenges, but to take them head-on.

No, they're not hard to find. You must not have looked hard. Right of the cuff, G.E. Moore comes to mind, and there are plenty more realists and others who have made non-sceptical arguments along those lines. — Sapientia

I didn't find Moore convincing at all for example. Wittgenstein in "On Certainty" sent Moore back to school.

Laugh at their expense?! Don't try to twist this into something personal. It's about the position, not the person. Look at the title of this thread, for Christ's sake. He called philosophy an absolute joke, and said that scepticism has won, whereas I think that it's more the other way around. — Sapientia

Yes, what did I tell you? It's the bone. It's a challenge to prove it otherwise. Take it! Stop complaining that he's challenging you. He called philosophy a joke not because he believes it, but to outrage you, so that in your outrage you may show him the way.

Tell that to the original poster, who you're clearly biased in favour of. — Sapientia

When I'm thrown a bone, I bite it and prove my point. That's what a philosopher does - fights the good fight, and shows the way. What kind of a philosopher are you if you never fight?

The irony is that this is why Banno's point was a good one. You made a general claim that actually told us more about you. So did the original poster, except that he made a whole bunch of 'em. — Sapientia

Yes I know. So what? Everyone knows what Banno said. There's nothing worthy or great about his comment. That was self-evident.

Yes his post isn't fair. He's throwing you a bone. He's challenging you. That's why it's insulting and derisive. He doesn't want to make a point himself - he wants YOU to make a point. He is merely putting words there in order to provoke you. But you shouldn't react violently to that, because it is an opportunity for you to showcase your understanding, and share your understanding with others. You're here to do philosophy afterwards, not to deny challenges, but to take them head-on. — Agustino

I agree with the gist of that, but you're exaggerating.

didn't find Moore convincing at all for example. Wittgenstein in "On Certainty" sent Moore back to school. — Agustino

I do, but I only brought him up as an example, not to suggest that I agree with his arguments.

When I'm thrown a bone, I bite it and prove my point. That's what a philosopher does - fights the good fight, and shows the way. What kind of a philosopher are you if you never fight? — Agustino

I do do that, when I'm in the right mood, or when I feel like they've earned it. Currently I'm at work and shouldn't even be on my phone. :D

Currently I'm at work and shouldn't even be on my phone. :D — Sapientia

LOL me too but my work is slow today (and this week, since clients are already wrapping up and going on Holidays, and I've postponed a project till after) >:O - I don't have much to do.

Yes I know. So what? Everyone knows what Banno said. There's nothing worthy or great about his comment. That was self-evident. — Agustino

It was correct and concise. What more do you want? That's a good reply in my book.

In any situation there is the "what", the "how", and the "why", along with other factors.

In the case of the original post, the "why" of the situation unknown. (Why is this question asked and what are the questioner's motives.) The "what" was a fairly standard philosophical question. The "how" in this case might be the key to understanding the situation and determining how to respond, if a response is warranted. It is difficult to miss the tone of the OP with words like "nonsense", "absolute failure", and "absolute joke". Little subtlety there. If i were to yell at someone "hey you! tell me now what time is it?!?", they would be right to glare at me and walk away. If someone wished to ignore the tone, and proceed with their response, that is their choice. But to ask others to close their eyes to the dominant factor in the situation risks acting in bad faith, as Sartre would describe it. What on the surface appears to be merely a question of metaphysics, becomes a question of ethics when all given factors are considered.

Yes, if you like and appreciate people who say what's obvious, certainly. But what's obvious is never all that interesting in the first place to me.

Um... those five items are of vital importance. — lambda

Then don't you think we should keep trying to figure them out?

If you don't know whether your cognitive faculties are reliable, whether you're dreaming, whether the people around you are conscious, whether you are truly morally responsible for your actions, or whether the walls of your room continue to exist when you're not experiencing them, then you are in a state of total intellectual paralysis. — lambda

False. Life is filled with assumptions. You will keep on living and breathing even if you don't know if anyone else exists. Much has been written about this.

You may say that philosophy is an absolute joke, but this is quite silly as your own statement is philosophical. So you have to constrain your view to a certain kind of philosophy, but you haven't.

Furthermore, the worthiness of some things is dependent upon what you personally find to be valuable. If you value finding something that can be implemented in the capitalistic society in which you live, then maybe philosophy isn't for you. But philosophy isn't itself constrained by capitalism and so those who study it don't really give a damn what anyone else thinks. That's called free-thinking.

"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts." — aletheist

I like this quote but at the same time dislike it. It can be seen as a pragmatic way of bypassing tedious debates, or it can be a way of affirming the status quo. What we "know" in our hearts is oftentimes "socially constructed". We see this a lot in ethics.

Peirce's main point is that we cannot "manufacture" genuine doubt.

"We must begin with all the prejudices which we actually have when we enter upon the study of philosophy. These prejudices are not to be dispelled by a maxim, for they are things which it does not occur to us can be questioned. Hence this initial skepticism will be a mere self-deception, and not real doubt ... A person may, it is true, in the course of his studies, find reason to doubt what he began by believing; but in that case he doubts because he has a positive reason for it, and not on account of the Cartesian maxim."

We do not need a reason to believe that we are not dreaming, that our cognitive faculties are reliable, that we are truly morally responsible for our actions, that the people around us are conscious, and that the walls of our rooms continue to exist when we are not experiencing them. Our common-sense instincts justify these beliefs, such that we would need a compelling reason in order to doubt any of them.

Moreover the fact that Cartesian doubt founders on its own petard and is only "saved" by a ludicrous "proof" for god's existence. Descartes is a great entry point to philosophy, but woe to those that sit there...

What matters most is knowing what it is that you don't know. Philosophy is surely the best tool for achieving that.

Philosophy has failed, miserably. Skepticism has won; by a rather large margin.

Skepticism is a philosophical movement, so you are saying philosophy has failed while a sub-field of philosophy has won?

Really some people, take Banno's comment, and even want to give it thumbs up. Is this for real? Like why should that deserve thumbs up? Is that a grand philosophical refutation or something? >:O Scoffing at those who disagree won't convince them otherwise. Neither will one-liners. — Agustino

Brevity has its benefits.

Skepticism has won; by a rather large margin. — lambda

And yet skepticism is a philosophy.

Hence Lambda's critique defenestrates itself.

Philosophy has failed, miserably. Skepticism has won; by a rather large margin. — lambda

I do solemnly swear that I had not seen your post before I posted mine. You made a good point.

Here's a summary of the past 2000 years of philosophy:

- Philosophers are still unable to determine whether they're dreaming or not.

- Philosophers are still unable to provide a non-circular justification for the reliability of their cognitive faculties (senses, memory, reason, intuition, etc.)

- Philosophers still can't offer any reason to believe in free will.

- Philosophers still can't offer any reason to believe in the existence of other minds.

- Philosophers still can't offer any reason to believe in the existence of a mind-independent external world.

Philosophy has failed, miserably. Skepticism has won; by a rather large margin.

The absolute failure of philosophy is a great example of how unaided human reasoning leads to nothing but absurdity.

Why does anyone still continue to study this nonsense? — lambda

While I like your enthusiasm, I'll just note that those are not the main charges against dogmatism. Anyway, why study philosophy? Many reasons. One might not be a pyrrhonic sceptic. Ataraxia might not be very high on your list. One might agree with academic scepticism, where the notion of "truth" is abandoned but "probability" is embraced. One might want to learn about other philosophers who started their investigations from a dubitative as opposed to dogmatic stance. Or one might want to study more dogmatic philosophers simply because they might have something to say.

The absolute failure of philosophy is a great example of how unaided human reasoning leads to nothing but absurdity. — lambda

Well then, perhaps we're dreaming, perhaps there is no "external world," perhaps there are no "other minds," and perhaps there is no free will. And now, back to living.

Descartes takes his date, Jeanne, to a posh restaurant for her birthday.

The sommelier hands them the wine list, and Jeanne asks to order the most expensive bottle on the list.

"I think not!" exclaims an indignant Descartes, and *POOF* he disappears.

:D lol! The philosophical comedy stylings of Mongrel, ladies and gentlemen!
I'll be here all week. Try the Plato' fries! Whatya a bunch of Stoics out there?!
X-)

Interesting summaries of quite a few Skepticism refutations below:

That is a bummer, mind if I ask why?

It was voted for.

Thanks.

The absolute failure of philosophy — lambda

Just curious, How much difference would it make if philosophy were merely a failure, and merely a joke rather than an "absolute failure" and an "absolute joke"? Are absolute jokes especially funny?

Maybe we should vote again, just like the Brits should return to the polls on Brexit and maybe get it right this time.

Philosophy has failed, miserably. Skepticism has won; by a rather large margin. — lambda

Huh? Philosophy in general has failed, but a form of philosophy known as Skepticism has won?

There's this excellent game you can play with a lively 2 year-old where you try and build something with wooden blocks, and they try to knock it down. The 2 year-old always wins, and they always find it hilarious. Silly adults, eh?

"Philosophy is an absolute joke"

Is it just me or does it seem odd that a skeptic would use the term "absolute"?

Meow!

GREG