Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

Pyrrhonian skepticism (or Pyrrhonism) is, essentially, the philosophy that no belief is ever justified. Now, I find myself accepting this worldview in theory because it seems entirely logical - I can see no fault whatsoever with the reasoning. However, I physically cannot stop myself from believing things; I'm not convinced that it is even possible to function as a conscious life-form without having beliefs of a sort. So, I consider myself a theoretical Pyrrhonist, but I can never quite manage to live up to the title in practice.


Anyway, here's the reasoning behind it:


In laymans' terms, the argument goes as follows:
-when someone justifies a belief, that justification itself should also be subject to justification (i.e. a premise must be true to soundly support a conclusion)
-this justification should also be subject to justification
-this can go on ad infinitum
-this can be terminated by circular reasoning (a justification premise relies upon a previous justification or the original belief itself)
-this can be terminated by reaching one (or more) axioms i.e. beliefs that are assumed to be true without justification
-if the chain of justifications is infinite, then the belief lacks absolute justification and should not be held
-if the chain of justifications is circular, then the belief cannot be justified and should not be held
-if the chain of justifications reaches beliefs that are assumed and cannot be justified, then the belief lacks logical justification and should not be held


I suspect most of us are not Pyrrhonists; can anyone provide a logical refutation of this basic philosophy? Can an example of a belief or justification that does not result from infinite regress, rely upon circular reasoning or axioms be supplied?


Thoughts, anyone?

Then I guess Pyrrhonism isn't justified either. It's a belief just like most everything else. Can you justify why things have to be justified in order to be justifiable?

Honestly it doesn't matter if beliefs are justified, that's what I think. You believe what you want to believe, so long as it makes sense to you then it doesn't matter what others deem justifiable. Really you could argue back and forth as to what is deemed justifiable and what is not.
Hell i could believe something and justify it with "cupcakes". Makes no sense to you but it's perfectly justifiable to me.

You can always find a way to make an infinite loop, but that doesn't mean the belief itself unjustifiable. It all totally depends on who is doing the justifying. Because justification totally depends on the person. Why would they believe in it in the first place if they couldn't justify it?
Going by that logic then only Pyrrhonism would be unjustifiable because it has no reason or justification because it bases itself off reason and justification of others. When the belief of others and the justification is the root to a belief then how could you justify caring about what others believe? Why does it matter? Why do you believe it's unjustifiable?

Point is that you can create a loop out of anything. It just depends on how personally satisfied you are with the answers.
Also that justification depends on the people involved. You're definition or reasoning is different than mine more that likely. So what is justifiable and what is not is not set in stone. I could simply have no other reason to believe in something aside from "cupcakes". And that's the only reason why. In my mind, that's perfectly justifiable. Esp. if there's no other reason. It's just point 1 to belief 1.

And finally, it just flat-out doesn't matter. If that's what you want to believe, then so by it. You have your own justifications for believing in that. That's all fine and good. I also have my own reasons and justifications for believing in what I believe in.
People believe whatever they want. Justification depends on who you ask.

That is exactly what I was going to say.

You are correct: I cannot even be certain that nothing is certain.



Right I'm sorry; I should have been clearer in my original post. My issue with all of this is that you appear to have misunderstood the term justification: I am not referring to the subjective definition that is justification in the sense that I can reconcile something with my current beliefs. I'm talking about the objective logical definition of justification i.e. justification in the sense that a premise justifies a conclusion if it logically demonstrates that conclusion to be true. It's not a subjective idea: either a premise supports a conclusion or it doesn't. If two people disagree on whether or not a premise does support a conclusion, it isn't that they're both right in subjective ways: one of them must be wrong.

Can you state a belief that does not necessitate an infinite loop, circular reasoning or assumed axioms in its objective justification?

Oh and yes I'm well aware that this idea isn't really that practically important for life, I just thought it'd be an interesting topic for some of us wannabe scientists/philosophers! Obviously you disagree and that is, of course, fair enough!


---


Oh and I'd like to clarify that I am talking about all beliefs: I don't just mean religions and philosophical worldviews. This applies as much to one's theistic belief (or lack thereof) as it does to one's belief in sunrise, or that books have page, or that books and the sun actually exist, or even that one exists as an individual.

In Philosophy of Epsitemology, the approach that I would sit on somewhat tentively is often refered to as the Integrative or Triperspectivalism. I read a book by Esther Lightcap Meek entitled, "Longing to Know". Where she presents a case for it. Other people know for contributions to it are Michael Polanyi, and John M. Frame.

This is known as internal incoherency, and demonstrates it is false.


Comparable to saying, "It is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth."

Either way you chose to try and solve the paradox, you lose what you're trying to claim.

It isn't paradoxical, actually...

P1: The argument states that no belief can be justified
P2: The argument is true (A)
C1: Therefore the argument is not justified

This is not paradoxica; while justification necessarily implies truth, something can be true without being justified. On the other hand, although we don't reach a paradox if we assume that the argument is false, we have no reason to assume that it is false (as far as I understand). So, if we say the argument is false then we are being irrational (dismissing the argument with no logical reason) and if we allow the argument to be true (as logic would appear to dictate), we are forced to conclude the it may not necessarily be true.

tl;dr: it's a tough one, but you can't refute through reducio ad absurdum as the conclusion is not actually absurd (i.e. contradictory or paradoxical).