What does skepticism mean? What's happened

A skeptic is a person who does not trust rumors, disseminated information, dubious ideas that he himself has not verified for veracity. The meaning of the word skeptic comes from the Greek "skeptikos". Greek skeptics represented a philosophical school in which they raised doubts about the real possibilities of thinking and doubts about the reliability of truth. Ancient philosophers of skepticism were able to find the weak side in the theories of knowledge and logic of various philosophical schools, as well as find the weak points of these teachings and criticize them.

What does a skeptic mean in the current understanding? The meaning of the word skeptic in its modern interpretation speaks of a person who constantly doubts the reliability of everything around him, so his attitude is permeated with mistrust.

A skeptic is a person who will never say that he knows exactly the right answer to anything. He never rejects or immediately takes anything for granted. He first examines the issue that has arisen, checks incoming information, looks for arguments, and only after analyzing all this does he express his own judgment and conclusions.

Naturally, it is impossible for one person to fully study all the information, to comprehend all the circumstances and aspects, but he does not need this. A stock of knowledge is required just enough to allow one to come to a common preliminary opinion. As long as the judgment is consistent with the facts, it will remain valid. But with the arrival of new arguments and additional information, the judgment may change.

It is quite difficult to influence the opinion of a skeptical person. He constantly explores new beliefs and not-so-new principles that he has, reflects, rechecks and evaluates for correctness. Thus, he conducts an “audit” of his own life attitudes.

A person who is characterized by healthy skepticism can correctly and accurately evaluate almost any phenomenon. Evaluate current events, actions done in the past, relationships, and various theories.

A skeptic always uses a balanced approach in his actions and does not give in to emerging emotions, so he is able to control his life.

Who is a skeptic

Where everyone will be uncontrollably rejoicing at good news, the skeptical person will be serious because he will not believe the news until he finds the appropriate evidence to rejoice in it.

What does skeptic mean? A skeptic is described as a person who differs from others in that he does not trust the first information he hears, especially if it brings a positive attitude and promises something positive or rewarding. Or vice versa, he will not immediately indulge in sadness when he hears sad news. Therefore, a skeptic is a person who does not obey the first emotion, but reacts neutrally until he becomes convinced of the veracity of the information.

It is sometimes confused with its characteristic gloominess. However, a pessimist is a priori tuned to a negative result, while a skeptic tries to find the true meaning, expecting neither a bad nor a good result.

Skeptics argue that a truth that is not supported by convincing evidence in the form of negative or positive experience cannot be considered truth.

The meaning of the word skeptic in the philosophy of antiquity defines the adherents of skepticism. The philosophy of skepticism denied the desire to trust truths without evidence.

Philosophical skepticism is a concept, the essence of which is the impossibility of comprehending objective reality based on speculative conclusions.

Skeptics of ancient times argued that comprehension of the sensory side of the world is not objective, since everyone who tries to explain the world from their side is an individual who has a subjective perception, which is why such explanations are often contradictory.

Philosophical skeptics believed that it was normal to criticize the philosophical views of others using only their own judgments and subjective reasons for skepticism. Actually, they played a pivotal role in history, since they questioned the theories of theologians, thereby preparing the preconditions for the creation of materialism. By denying the importance of reason in deep knowledge of the world, skeptics contributed to the development of religious beliefs.

The meaning of the word skeptic today is understood as a component of behavior, and not a philosophical doctrine, which casts doubt on the truth of a certain belief or any theory without one hundred percent convincing evidence. The existence of such a person in a team is assessed quite ambiguously. He is admired for his independence of views from the opinions of others, and disliked for his skepticism, which at times seems boring.

Skeptics are often picky bureaucrats who demand ten additional certificates to confirm it. Thanks to this feature of their character, they do not miss any unverified information. They approve new laws and projects, which they consider in all aspects and manifestations, taking into account all emerging problems and issues. This may affect the process, making it longer, slowing down the introduction of new technologies, but increases reliability.

Often, skeptics are pedants who, as managers, demand that their subordinates perform the assigned task with high precision. In an effort to get to the bottom of the truth, they often find convincing evidence of a certain motive, which sometimes lies very deep, so much so that they often seem unreal even in their existence.

Skepticism is an auxiliary property in many professions, but in the creative field it is required less, only in the form of self-criticism. Such individuals, due to their conservatism, cannot so easily allow themselves creative flights of fancy, since they can hardly come to terms with new views and trends.

The truest skeptics are children. After all, it is very difficult to make them believe in the veracity of certain phenomena; they still have to convince themselves. For example, a child is attracted to a bright fire, and no matter how much they say that the flame is hot, he himself will put his hand into it to make sure. This is a clear example of the main point of skepticism - every statement must be tested for truthfulness experimentally.

From the above, it becomes clear that a skeptic is a person who is not distrustful, but rather distrustful of theories and ideas that do not have convincing evidence.

How to become a skeptic

A skeptic always gets to the direct source of incoming information. To become a skeptic you need to behave accordingly and adhere to certain rules. After all, a skeptic is a person who always critically analyzes the information that comes to him; accordingly, in order to learn this, it is necessary to check all kinds of arguments and double-check the material. Many people like to make up things in conversation; few people can remember all the facts. It is necessary to always ask clarifying questions, demanding precise and correct answers. For example, if an acquaintance says that he heard or read amazing information, then it is worth asking exactly when he heard it and where he learned it from.

If a dubious person tries to strongly impose certain information, you need to try to abstract yourself from it and from this person, but to grasp its very essence. Reliable sources need to be researched. Research this issue on the Internet, ask trusted people in whom you trust.

Skeptics rarely pay attention to sweepstakes, promotions and do not go for freebies. Often on the Internet you can see pop-up information about discounts that make goods practically free. Most people are still skeptical about it, but there are people who fall for it and then regret it. It is advisable to study all the news from various sources.

How to become a skeptic? We need to develop skeptical thinking. Even not all scientific theories are always reliable. There are many cases where over time they are recognized as ridiculous.

A skeptic always listens, checks and analyzes - this helps him keep his eyes wide. Skeptical thinking will allow you to see myths and track misinformation. It is necessary to check the evidence even against your will, so as not to be deceived. You need to listen and think about everything you hear.

If someone speaks very confidently, most likely he will be able to convince so much that a person will accept it as the truth if he hears it somewhere else. When a person does not think objectively and does not check the facts, his arguments may be perceived by others as erroneous if they have also researched the issue.

It’s worth checking ideas for authenticity yourself only when it makes sense. If a friend said that it is impossible to jump out of a car while it is moving and jump back in, then you should not prove to him that it can be done. There are a lot of similar ideas in the world, many of which are dangerous and strange, they appear so quickly that people do not have time to protect themselves from them. Skeptical thinking will help you protect your life at least a little from negative influences.

Efremova's Dictionary

Skepticism

1. m. A philosophical view characterized by doubt about the existence of something. reliable criterion of truth.
2. m. A critical, distrustful attitude towards something, doubt about the correctness, truth, possibility of something; skepticism.

Ozhegov's Dictionary

SKEPTIC AND ZM, A, m.

1. A philosophical movement that questions the possibility of knowing objective reality.

2. A critically distrustful, doubtful attitude towards something.

Culture of speech communication: Ethics. Pragmatics. Psychology

Skepticism

tendency to express doubt in many cases. A negative phenomenon, if excessive, extends to many issues and areas; Therefore, it is sometimes better to refrain from skeptical statements and assessments. They can harm the implementation of some useful plans, reducing the desire to act.

Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms

Skepticism

♦ (ENG skepticism) (from Greek skeptikos, lat. scepticus - thinking, researching)

philosophical term for the view that truth and reliable knowledge cannot be achieved in certain fields of study, such as morality, metaphysics or theology.

encyclopedic Dictionary

Skepticism

(from the Greek skeptikos - examining, investigating), a philosophical position characterized by doubt about the existence of any reliable criterion of truth. The extreme form of skepticism is agnosticism. The direction of ancient Greek philosophy: early skepticism (Pyrrho), skepticism of the Platonic Academy (Arkesilaus, Carneades), late skepticism (Aenesidemus, Sextus-Empiricus, etc.). In modern times (16-18 centuries) it is synonymous with free-thinking, criticism of religious and philosophical dogmas (M. Montaigne, P. Bayle, etc.).

Ushakov's Dictionary

Skepticism

skepticism, skepticism, pl. No, husband.(from Greek skepsis - examination) ( books).

1. An idealistic philosophical trend that denies the possibility of human knowledge of the existing world, objective truth ( Philosopher). Ancient skepticism.

2. A critically distrustful attitude towards something, doubt about the truth and correctness of something. Healthy skepticism can be helpful in research. I am very skeptical of his claims.

| complete doubt in everything, distrust of everything. “This skepticism, this indifference, this frivolous unbelief - how was all this consistent with his principles?” A. Turgenev.

Philosophical Dictionary (Comte-Sponville)

Skepticism

Skepticism

♦ Scepticism

In the technical sense of the word, it is something opposite to dogmatism. To be a skeptic is to believe that every thought is doubtful and we cannot have absolute certainty about anything. It is not difficult to notice that for the purpose of self-preservation, skepticism, questioning everything, must include itself in this system. Everything is doubtful, including the idea that everything is doubtful. Long live Pyrrhonism, Pascal said on this matter. This in no way eliminates the need to think; rather, on the contrary, it encourages us to constantly think. A skeptic, like any philosopher, seeks the truth (this is his difference from a sophist), but he is never sure that he has found it and that it can be found at all (this is his difference from a dogmatist). But this doesn’t upset him at all. He loves not authenticity, but thought and truth. In other words, he loves effective thought and the potential of truth. But this is philosophy as such. This is what Lanyo means when he claims that “skepticism is the true philosophy.” From which it does not at all follow that we are all obliged to be skeptics or adhere to the tenets of skepticism.

Dictionary of heresy and sect (Bulgakov)

Skepticism

Skepticism actually refers to the direction of philosophy that questions the beginning and possibility of knowledge. To doubt generally means, when examining a subject, to find such important reasons for the other side of it that we cannot have complete confidence in it until we have decisive reasons for it. Such doubt stems from our limitations, according to which we can only reach the objective truth after long research. And it is not only reprehensible, but also very useful for us. Our conviction in the truth becomes stronger the more we examined it and the more we saw the strength and convictions in its foundations compared to the foundations of the other side; Without this, we cannot be free from error even if we had accepted something true into our consciousness, because we did not recognize it as true, but accepted it out of prejudice, out of blind faith alone. Much of the knowledge communicated to us comes from an impure source, some contain a contradiction in themselves, others contradict the undoubted truths we have already known. In such cases one cannot help but doubt; here doubt is a means to protect oneself from delusions and preserve mental peace. The apostles themselves instruct us “not to believe every spirit, but to test the spirits, whether they are from God, and to test everything, and to hold on to what is good” “1 Sol. V, 20; 1 John." IV, 1). But besides this useful doubt, there is also harmful doubt. This is absolute skepticism. In the religious sphere, he denies even the very possibility of knowledge of God. There were such skeptics in Ancient Greece, such as Pyrrho and the Sophists. Another type of skepticism, relative skepticism, allows only sensory knowledge, but denies the possibility of knowing the existence of the supersensible, denies, in general, all knowledge except that gained through external experience, denies metaphysics. It is clear that relative skepticism does not allow for the possibility of knowledge of God. Representatives of relative skepticism in the last century were Hume (1711–1776), to whom Kant (1724–1804) partly adheres. Skepticism, which by its very essence destroys the very foundations of all truth and all faith, is harmful and destructive. Such skepticism is nothing more than an inclination or malicious effort to disagree with the truths of faith and morals and to question everything, without any sound grounds, or on imaginary grounds alone - not in order to reach the truth, but in order to reject all truth, bring her into doubt and make her inaccessible*.

* the source of such a mood of spirit is: insufficient education in religion, false philosophy, reading harmful books, community with blasphemers and blasphemers, a corrupted heart. If doubt concerns the theoretical truths of faith, then it is based primarily on arrogance and pride of knowledge; if it relates to practical truths, it comes from immorality, which does not tolerate legal restrictions on the part of religion and therefore tries to cast doubt on it and reject it. Such skepticism in religion has the most harmful consequences: being unable to suppress the aspirations of our spirit for knowledge and not giving it confirmation in anything, it disturbs all the inner peace and happiness of a person; Some of these people commit suicide, others become absurdly superstitious, others go to the other extreme - into the abyss of unbelief. The Holy Apostle James said “that a person whose heart is double” is “unsteady in all his ways” (James 1:8).

Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron

Skepticism

I.S. is one of the main philosophical movements that is opposite to dogmatic philosophy and denies the possibility of constructing a philosophical system. Sextus Empiricus says: “the skeptical direction in its essence consists in comparing the data of the senses and the data of reason and their possible opposition. From this point of view, we, skeptics, due to the logical equivalence of opposition in the objects and arguments of reason, first come to abstain from judgment, and then to complete peace of mind" ("Pyrrho's Principles", I, § 4). In modern times, Aenesidemus (Schulze) gives the following definition of S.: “skepticism is nothing more than the assertion that philosophy is not able to give firm and generally accepted positions either regarding the existence or non-existence of objects and their qualities, or regarding the boundaries of human knowledge.” A comparison of these two definitions, ancient and new, shows that ancient skepticism was practical in nature, while the new one was theoretical. In various studies on skepticism (Steidlin, Deschamps, Kreibig, Sasse, Owen), various types of skepticism are established, and, however, the motives from which skepticism follows are often confused with skepticism itself. In essence, only two types of S. should be distinguished: absolute and relative; the first is the denial of the possibility of all knowledge, the second is the denial of philosophical knowledge. Absolute skepticism disappeared along with ancient philosophy, while relative skepticism is developed in the new in very diverse forms. The distinction between skepticism as a mood and skepticism as a complete philosophical movement has undoubted power, but this distinction is not always easy to make. Skepticism contains elements of denial and doubt and is a completely vital and complete phenomenon. So, for example, Descartes' skepticism is a methodological technique that led him to dogmatic philosophy. In any research, scientific skepticism is a life-giving source from which truth is born. In this sense, skepticism is completely opposite to the dead and deadening S. Methodological skepticism is nothing more than criticism. Such skepticism, as Owen notes, is equally contradicted by both a positive affirmation and a definite denial. S. grows out of skepticism and manifests itself not only in the philosophical sphere, but also in the religious, ethical and scientific sphere. The fundamental question for S. is epistemological, but the motives for denying the possibility of philosophical truth can be drawn from various sources. S. can lead to the denial of science and religion, but, on the other hand, conviction in the truth of science or religion can lead to the denial of all philosophy. Positivism, for example, is nothing more than the denial of philosophy on the basis of confidence in scientific knowledge. The main reasons used by skeptics of various times to deny the possibility of knowledge are as follows: a) the difference in opinions of philosophers served as a favorite topic for skeptics; This argument was developed with particular zeal by Montaigne in his Essays and by French skeptics who imitated Montaigne. This argument has no significance, because from the fact that the opinions of philosophers are different, nothing follows in relation to the truth and the possibility of finding it. The argument itself needs proof, because perhaps the opinions of philosophers differ only in appearance, but in essence they converge. The possibility of reconciling philosophical opinions did not turn out to be impossible, for example, for Leibniz, who argued that all philosophers are right in what they affirm and differ only in what they deny. b) Limitations of human knowledge. Indeed, human experience is extremely limited within the limits of space and time; therefore conclusions drawn from such experience must seem ill founded. This argument, for all its apparent convincingness, has, however, not much more significance than the previous one; knowledge deals with a system in which each individual case is a typical representative of an infinite number of others. General laws are reflected in particular phenomena, and the task of human knowledge is exhausted if it succeeds in deducing from particular cases a system of general world laws. c) The relativity of human knowledge. This argument has philosophical significance and is the main trump card of skeptics. This argument can be presented in various forms. Its main meaning is that cognition is the activity of the subject and cannot in any way get rid of the stamp of subjectivity. This basic principle breaks down into two main motives: one, so to speak, sensualistic, the other rationalistic; the first corresponds to the sensory element of knowledge, the second to the intellectual. An object is cognized by the senses, but the qualities of the object are not at all similar to the content of the sensation. Sensory cognition delivers to the subject not an object, but a phenomenon, a subjective state of consciousness. An attempt to distinguish two kinds of qualities in an object - primary, belonging to the object itself and repeated in sensory knowledge, and secondary (subjective, like color) - leads to nothing, because the so-called primary qualities, i.e. definitions of space and time, turn out to be just as subjective as secondary ones. But since, the skeptic-sensualist continues, the entire content of the mind is given by sensations, and only the formal side belongs to the mind, then human knowledge can never deal with objects, but always only with phenomena, that is, with the states of the subject. The rationalist skeptic, inclined to recognize the primary importance of reason and its independence from the senses, directs his arguments against the activity of reason itself. He argues that reason, due to the principles inherent in it, in its activities falls into fundamental contradictions, from which there is no outcome. Kant tried to systematize these contradictions and presented them in the form of four antinomies of reason. In the very activity of the mind, not only in its results, the skeptic finds a contradiction. The main task of reason is to prove, and any proof ultimately rests on obvious truths, the truth of which cannot be proven and therefore contradicts the demands of reason. - These are the main arguments of skeptics against the possibility of philosophical knowledge, based on the relativity of human knowledge. If we recognize them as solid, then we must at the same time recognize the futility of any attempt at philosophical quest within the sensualistic and rationalistic area; in this case, only S. or mysticism remains, as an affirmation of the possibility of supersensible and superintelligent knowledge. Perhaps, however, the strength of the skeptic's arguments is not as great as it seems at first glance. The subjective nature of sensations is beyond doubt, but it does not follow from this that nothing in the real world corresponds to sensations. From the fact that space and time are forms of our intuition, it does not follow that they are only subjective forms. As for reason, the unresolved nature of antinomies does not imply their insoluble nature. The unprovability of axioms does not in the least speak against their truth and ability to serve as the basis of evidence. Many authors have worked to refute S. with greater or lesser success, for example. Crousaz in his "Examen du pyrrhonisme".

II. S.'s history represents a gradual decline and exhaustion. S. originated in Greece, played a small role in the Middle Ages, was revived again during the restoration of Greek philosophy during the Reformation, and was reborn into softer forms (positivism, subjectivism) in the new philosophy. In history, the concept of S. is often too widespread: for example. Saisse, in his famous book about S., classifies Kant and Pascal as skeptics. With such an expansion of the concept of S., the entire history of philosophy could be squeezed into its framework, and those followers of Pyrrho who, according to Diogenes Laertius, classified Homer and the Seven Wise Men as skeptics, would have been right; Cicero laughs at such a dissemination of the concept of S. in his “Lucullus”. S. appeared in Greece; True, Diogenes Laertius says that Pyrrho studied in India, and Sextus Empiricus mentions the skeptic Anacharsis Scythus (Adversus logicos, VII, 55), but there is no reason to attach significance to this information. It is also unreasonable to classify Heraclitus and the Eleatics as skeptics for the reason that the younger sophists associated their negative dialectics with the above-mentioned philosophers. The Sophists prepared skepticism. Their subjectivism naturally should have led to the affirmation of the relativity of knowledge and the impossibility of objective truth. In the sphere of ethics and religion, the teachings of Protagoras contained elements of S. The younger generation of sophists - for example. Gordius of Leontinus and Hypnia of Elis serve as representatives of the purest denial, although their denial was of a dogmatic nature. The same should be said about Thrasymachus and Callicles, described by Plato; they lacked only the seriousness of conviction to be skeptics. The founder of the Greek school of skeptics was Pyrrho, who gave S. a practical character. S. Pirrhon tries to give a person complete independence from knowledge. It is not because little importance is attributed to knowledge that it can be erroneous, but because its usefulness for the happiness of people - this goal of life - is doubtful. The art of living, the only valuable one, cannot be learned, and such art in the form of certain rules that could be transmitted does not exist. The most expedient thing is to limit knowledge and its role in life as much as possible; but it is obvious that it is impossible to completely get rid of knowledge; While a person lives, he experiences coercion from sensations, from external nature and society. All the “paths” of skeptics therefore do not have meaning in themselves, but represent only indirect indications. - The practical direction of Pyrrhonism indicates little connection between sophistry and S. ; this is confirmed by historical information, which makes Pyrrho dependent on Democritus, Metrodorus and Anaxarchus, and not on the sophists. Sextus Empiricus (in Pyrrho's Principles, Book I, § 32) clearly points out the difference between the teachings of Protagoras and Pyrrho. Pyrrho did not leave behind any writings, but created a school. Diogenes Laertius mentions many of his students, such as Tychon from Phlius, Aenesidemus from the island of Crete, systematizer S. Nausifan, teacher Epicurus, and others. Pyrrho's school soon ceased to exist, but S. was adopted by the academy. The first skeptic of the new academy was Arkesilaus(about half of the third century BC), who developed his skeptical teaching in the fight against Stoic philosophy. The most brilliant representative of the S. new academy was Carneades Kirensky, founder of the so-called third academy. His criticism is directed against Stoicism. He tries to show the impossibility of finding a criterion of truth either in sensory or rational knowledge, to undermine the possibility of proving the existence of God and to find an internal contradiction in the concept of the Divine. In the ethical sphere, he denies natural law. For the sake of peace of mind, he creates a kind of probability theory that replaces truth. The question of how much Carneades enriched S. and how much he is an imitator is not sufficiently clarified. Zeller believes that S. Aenesidemus owes a lot to Carneades; but this is contradicted by the words of Sextus Empiricus, who strictly distinguishes the systems of the Academicians from the Aenesidemic teaching. The works of Aenesidemus have not reached us. Associated with his name are the so-called ten “paths,” or 10 systematized arguments against the possibility of knowledge. Here the concept of causality is analyzed in particular detail. The meaning of all paths is proof of the relativity of human knowledge. The paths are listed in Sextus Empiricus' Pyrrhonian Principles, Book I, § 14. They all refer to facts of perception and habit; Only one (8th) path is devoted to thinking, where it is proven that we do not know the objects themselves, but only objects in relation to other objects and to the cognizing subject. Younger skeptics propose a different classification of paths. Agrippa puts forward five of them, namely: 1) the endless variety of opinions does not allow the formation of a firm conviction; 2) every proof rests on another, also in need of proof, and so on ad infinitum; 3) all ideas are relative depending on the nature of the subject and the objective conditions of perception. The 4th path is only a modification of the second. 5) The truth of thinking rests on the data of perception, but the truth of perception rests on the data of thinking. Agrippa's division reduces the tropes of Aenesidemus to more general points of view and does not stop exclusively or almost exclusively with the data of perception. The most important skeptical writer for us is Sextus Empiricus, a physician who lived in the 2nd century. according to R.H. He is not very original, but his writings are an irreplaceable source for us. In the Christian era, S. acquired a completely different character. Christianity, as a religion, did not value scientific knowledge, or at least did not recognize knowledge as an independent and guiding principle. Such S., on religious grounds, still has its defenders (for example, Brunetière, “La science et la Religion,” Par. , 1895). Under the influence of religion, the doctrine of double truth appeared - theological and philosophical, first proclaimed by Simon of Tournai at the end of the 12th century. (see Magw a ld. "Die Lehre von d. zweifachen Wahrheit", Berl., 1871). Philosophy is not completely free from it to this day. During the Renaissance, along with attempts at independent thinking, ancient Greek systems reappeared, and with them S., but it could no longer acquire its former meaning. S. first appeared in France. Michel de Montaigne (1533-92) with his “Experiences” evoked a number of imitators, such as: Charron, Sanchetz, Girnheim, La Mothe Le Vaye, Huet, Glanville (English), Baker (English), etc. All Montaigne’s arguments are contained in his great experience about the philosophy of Raymond of Sabunda: Montaigne does not have anything fundamentally new. Montaigne is a skeptic in mood rather than a skeptic in the sense of Epesidemus. “My book,” says Montaigne, “contains my opinion and expresses my mood; I express what I believe in, and not what everyone should believe in... Maybe tomorrow I will be completely different if I learn I'll change something." Charron essentially follows Montaigne, but in some ways he tries to extend his skeptical mood even further; eg he doubts the immortality of the soul. The closest to the ancient skeptics is La Mothe Le Vaillé, who wrote under the pseudonym Oracius Tubero; of his two students, one, Sorbier, translated part of Sextus Empiricus into French. language, and another, Fouche, wrote the history of the academy. The largest of the French. skeptics - Pierre Daniel Huet (1630-1721); his posthumous essay “On the Weakness of the Human Mind” repeats the arguments of Sextus, but he has in mind the contemporary philosophy of Descartes. The work of Bishop Hue is the largest work of skeptical philosophy after Sextus Empiricus. Glanville was Hume's predecessor in the analysis of the concept of causality. In the history of S., an extensive place is usually given to Peter Bayle (1647-1706); Deschamps even dedicated a special monograph to him (“Le scepticisme é rudit chez Bayle”); but Bayle’s real place is in the history of religious education, and not in the history of S.; he is in the 17th century. was what Voltaire was in the 18th. S. Bayle appeared in his famous historical dictionary, published in 1695. The main problem that led him to S. was the problem of the source of evil, which intensely occupied the 17th century; his skeptical principles are set out in an article on Pyrrho and the Pyrrhonists, from which it is clear that S. is important to him mainly as a weapon against theology. Refutations by S. date back to approximately the same time. , written by Martin Schock (Schoock, "De skepticisme", Groningen, 1652), Sillon ("De la certitude des connaissances humaines", Par., 1661) and de Willemandou ("Scepticismus debellatus", Leiden, 1697). In new philosophy, starting with Descartes, there is no place for absolute S., but relative S., that is, the denial of the possibility of metaphysical knowledge, is extremely common. The study of human cognition, starting with Locke and Hume, as well as the development of psychology, should have led to increased subjectivism; in this sense, one can talk about S. Hume and find skeptical elements in the philosophy of Kant, since the latter denied the possibility of metaphysics and knowledge of objects in themselves. Dogmatic philosophy also arrived at a somewhat similar result on this point in a completely different way. Positivism, represented by Comte and his followers, affirms the impossibility of metaphysics, like Spencer's evolutionism, which stands for the unknowability of being in itself and for the relativity of human knowledge; but it is hardly fair to put these phenomena of new philosophy in connection with S. Worth mentioning is the work of E. Schulze, “Aenesidemus oder ü ber die Fundamente der von H. Reinhold geliferten Elementarphilosophie” (1792), in which the author defends the principles of S. by criticizing Kant philosophy. Wed. St. äudlin, "Geschichte und Geist des Scepticismus, vorzüglich in Rücksicht auf Moral u. Religion" (Lpc., 1794); Deshamps, "Le scepticisme é rudit chez Bayle" (Liège, 1878); E. Saisset, "Le skepticisme" (P., 1865); Kreibig, "Der ethische Scepticismus" (Vienna, 1896).

σκεπτικός - considering, exploring) - a philosophical direction that puts forward doubt as a principle of thinking, especially doubt about the reliability of truth. Moderate skepticism limited to knowledge of facts, showing restraint in relation to all hypotheses and theories. In the ordinary sense, skepticism is a psychological state of uncertainty, doubt about something, forcing one to refrain from making categorical judgments.

Sextus Empiricus in his work “Three Books of Pyrrhonian Propositions” noted that skepticism does not consider doubt as a principle, but uses doubt as a polemical weapon against dogmatists, the principle of skepticism is a phenomenon. One should distinguish between ordinary skepticism, scientific and philosophical skepticism. In the ordinary sense, skepticism is abstention from judgment due to doubt. Scientific skepticism is consistent opposition to teachings that have no empirical evidence. Philosophical skepticism is a direction in philosophy that expresses doubt about the possibility of reliable knowledge. Philosophical skepticism views philosophy, including skeptical philosophy, as a kind of scientific poetry, but not science. A distinctive feature of philosophical skepticism is the statement “Philosophy is not science!”

Ancient skepticism

Ancient skepticism as a reaction to metaphysical dogmatism is represented primarily by Pyrrho ( influenced by early Buddhism [not in the source]), then the secondary academy (Arkesilaus) and the so-called. late skepticism(Aenesidemus, Agrippa, Sextus Empiricus). Aenesidemus points out ten principles (tropes) of skepticism: the first six are the distinction of living beings; of people; sense organs; states of the individual; positions, distances, places; phenomena according to their connections; the last four principles are the mixed existence of the perceived object with other objects; relativity in general; dependence on the number of perceptions; dependence on the level of education, morals, laws, philosophical and religious views.

Criticism of skepticism

The skeptic says that knowledge requires certainty. But how can he know about this? Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn write about this: “Unless skeptics are sure that knowledge requires certainty, they cannot know that it does.” This gives good reason to doubt the assertion that knowledge requires certainty. According to the laws of logic, based on this statement, one can doubt skepticism and challenge skepticism in general. However, reality does not consist solely of the laws of logic (in which there are insoluble paradoxes that nullify all of the above), so such criticism must be treated with caution. (Example: there are no absolute skeptics, so it is not at all necessary that a skeptic will doubt obvious things)

Skepticism in medieval and modern philosophy

The most important representatives:

Notes

Literature

• V. P. Lega. Sextus Empiricist: Skepticism as a way of life // Mathesis. From the history of ancient science and philosophy. M., 1991, p. 210-219
• Yuri Semyonov “Ideological fashion in science and skepticism”

Links

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Synonyms:

See what “Skepticism” is in other dictionaries:

- (from the Greek skeptikos considering, exploring) philosopher. a direction that questions the possibility of knowing reality or some fragment of it. S. may touch upon the boundaries of knowledge and assert that no knowledge at all or any absolute... Philosophical Encyclopedia

- (Greek, this, see previous page). The state of people who doubt. The teaching of those who are of the opinion that man cannot comprehend the truth. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. SKEPTICISM [Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

skepticism- a, m. SCEPTICISM a, m. scepticisme, German. Skeptizismus gr. skeptikos examining, examining. 1. Philosophical direction, expressing doubt about the possibility of reliability of objective truth, the surrounding world. ALS 1. Calls skepticism... ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

- (from the Greek skeptikos examining, investigating), a philosophical position characterized by doubt about the existence of any reliable criterion of truth. An extreme form of skepticism is agnosticism. Direction of ancient Greek philosophy: early... ... Modern encyclopedia

- (from the Greek skeptikos examining, investigating), a philosophical position characterized by doubt about the existence of any reliable criterion of truth. An extreme form of skepticism is agnosticism. Direction of ancient Greek philosophy: early... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

SKEPTICISM, skepticism, many. no, husband (from Greek skepsis examination) (book). 1. An idealistic philosophical direction that denies the possibility of human knowledge of the existing world, objective truth (philosophy). Ancient skepticism. 2.… … Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

SKEPTICISM- SKEPTICISM (from the Greek σκέπτομαι, “considering”, “exploring”, σκέψις, research), one of the influential trends in ancient philosophy in the period from the 3rd century. BC e. by 3rd century n. e. Traditionally, the history of skepticism is presented as divided into two... Ancient philosophy

Skepticism- (from the Greek skeptikos - examining, investigating), a philosophical position characterized by doubt about the existence of any reliable criterion of truth. The extreme form of skepticism is agnosticism. The direction of ancient Greek philosophy: ... ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

Distrust, Pyrrhonism, skepticism, mistrust, lack of faith, nihilism, suspicion, skepticism Dictionary of Russian synonyms. skepticism skepticism, lack of faith see also distrust Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. Practical information... Synonym dictionary

S. is one of the main philosophical movements that is opposite to dogmatic philosophy and denies the possibility of building a philosophical system. Sextus Empiricus says: the skeptical trend essentially consists of comparing data... ... Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron

Skepticism- Skepticism ♦ Scepticisme In the technical sense of the word, it is the opposite of dogmatism. To be a skeptic is to believe that every thought is doubtful and we cannot have absolute certainty about anything. It is easy to see that for the sake of self-preservation... Sponville's Philosophical Dictionary

Books

• Ancient skepticism and philosophy of science. Dialogue through two millennia, Gusev D.A. Hellenistic skepticism, represented not only by Pyrrhonism, characterized primarily by “internal emigration”, a peculiar “existential” turn of philosophical thought,…

19Mar

What is Skepticism

Skepticism is a term that is commonly used to describe a philosophical movement, the essence of which lies in doubts about the reliability of the information received.

What is SKEPTICISM - meaning, definition in simple words, briefly.

In simple terms, Skepticism is a philosophy or attitude in life that involves distrusting received knowledge or statements. In other words, we can say that skepticism is the habit of “not taking everything for granted” unless there is indisputable evidence and facts. People who follow this method of perceiving information are usually called skeptics.

Types and essence and principles of skepticism.

At the moment, we can clearly distinguish three main directions in the course of skepticism, which in turn are based on one basic principle: if there is no reliable evidence for something, then it cannot be a fact. It follows that any information should be treated as doubtful until it is confirmed or refuted.

Three types of skepticism:

• Scientific skepticism;
• Philosophical skepticism;
• Religious skepticism.

What is SCIENTIFIC SKEPTICISM.

This direction of skepticism is based on doubts regarding various scientific or pseudo-scientific statements. For example, scientific skeptics question:

• Efficiency and non-traditional methods of treatment;
• The existence of telekinesis, telepathy and so on;
• The existence of various supernatural entities (ghosts, spirits, angels, deities, etc.);
• Usefulness of cryptozoology and ufology;
• Popular Psychology Claims;
• The reality of pseudoscientific myths, and much more.

The main task of scientific skepticism is to prove or debunk information that is presented under “scientific sauce”.

What is PHILOSOPHICAL SKEPTICISM.

Philosophical skepticism has a more abstract meaning than scientific skepticism. Philosophical skeptics refrain from making any claims about the absolute truth of things, believing that anyone can be wrong. Sometimes, this type of skepticism is usually called Pyrrhonism, since its founder is considered to be the ancient Greek philosopher Pyrrho from Elis.

In simple words, the essence of the concept of philosophical skepticism can be described as doubt that reliable knowledge exists at all.

What is RELIGIOUS SKEPTICISM.

With regard to religious skepticism, everything is quite simple. Religious skeptics are people who doubt certain religious claims or

Now the question of who a skeptic is is more pressing than ever. Too much information circulates around a person every day. And he must necessarily have a healthy dose of disbelief in everything that the media talks about. In our article we will try to talk about the concepts of “cynic” and “skeptic”, about their relationship and mutual influence.

Definition of the concept. First representatives

Skepticism is a philosophical trend that proclaims that doubt should be the basis of thinking. If the reader is afraid that we will now venture into the philosophical jungle and get lost in them, then let him remain calm, because this will not happen.

To understand what skepticism is, one small example is enough, namely the image of Thomas the Unbeliever. An apostle who does not recognize the resurrection of Christ until he is provided with irrefutable evidence is a real skeptic. True, in this case we are dealing with moderate skepticism, but there is also radial skepticism, which does not even believe the facts, guided by the saying of A.P. Chekhov: “This cannot be, because it can never be.” Thus, skeptics (in short) are non-believers.

Of course, we could talk about the origins of philosophical skepticism. Turn to Pyrrhon, Montaigne, Voltaire, Hume. But we will not do this for fear of boring the reader.

It is better to immediately draw a definite conclusion at this point. The question of who a skeptic is can be answered in two ways: on the one hand, this is a person who believes facts and only them, but, on the other hand, if such a subject has doubt raised to an absolute, then he believes only those events and external phenomena. worlds that personally seem monolithic and irrefutable to him.

Experiments in extrasensory perception and skepticism

Everyone is somehow familiar with such phenomena as telepathy (mind reading), telekinesis (moving objects using the power of thought), psychometry (the ability to read information about a person by touching things that belong to him). Few people know that some of these phenomena have been tested in laboratory conditions, and some bearers of superpowers have been tested. So, a person who believes in facts will admit the possibility of the existence of parapsychological forces, but a dogmatic skeptic will still look for a catch. It seems that you no longer want to ask, who is a skeptic? So let's move on to the cynics.

Cynicism is a network of skepticism thrown over the sphere of morality and culture

Skepticism is a philosophical attitude that helps a scientist and philosopher cut off everything unnecessary and misleading. When an intellectual engaged in the scientific front closes his office, leaving a robe or any other work clothes in it, he does not change the grid of perception.

A dogmatic skeptic (ideally every researcher should be like this) turns into a hardened cynic in the real world. This always happens when a person is not equipped with an a priori belief in something. His consciousness (and, perhaps, the entire psyche) is controlled only by those facts that can be proven.

Sigmund Freud

Who is he - a skeptic, a cynic, or maybe both? It's hard to decide, isn't it?

One thing is clear: Freud destroyed many myths in the field of morality. First of all, there is the misconception that children are innocent. He also questioned morality as an autonomous spiritual entity, reducing it to human complexes. Of course, religion also got it, and not only from Freud, but also from his students.

Carl Jung wrote that certain beliefs arose when ancient man did not know the surrounding reality well; he needed at least some kind of hypothesis to explain what was happening. By the way, in this thought of the creator of analytical psychology there is nothing discrediting the honor of a religious worldview.

Fritz Perls touches not only ancient, but also modern people with his statements, and says: “God is a projection of human impotence.” This definition needs clarification.

Few people would argue with the fact that a person is a grain of sand in the world. For myself, the subject is, of course, space. He thinks something, wants something, etc. Ordinary human affairs, but then, for example, a brick falls on one of us on the head, and that’s it - our thoughts, suffering, experiences are over. And the most offensive thing about this is that a person, as Bulgakov said, is “suddenly mortal.” Moreover, he can die from a mere trifle, absolutely anyone. It is not surprising that such a small particle of the world needs a powerful protector, which is why man invents God as some kind of strong and big father who will not let his child be offended.

The dangers of skepticism and cynicism

So, the time has come to sum up some results, and also to say why it is dangerous to be a skeptic and a cynic.

From all of the above, it is clear that skepticism and cynicism do not do anything special; they simply call for approaching everything from the standpoint of reason, not faith. Therefore, if someone asks us, a skeptic is a person of what beliefs, we will say that he is someone who does not take anyone’s word for it and tests everything for strength with the strength of his intellect.

But there is also insidiousness in such a worldview. It consists in the fact that you cannot erect a building on empty ground. In other words, no matter how extreme a cynic and skeptic a person may be, he still has some kind of secret faith that feeds his courageous mind. When it is not there, it will soon appear, and then the current skeptic will become a believer. Someone will say, what if the conviction in the existence of something higher does not come to a person? Then the adherent of cynicism will fall into the clutches of nihilism. There is little good in the latter either; let us at least remember the fate of Bazarov, and everything will immediately become clear to us.

We hope that a comprehensive answer has been received to the question of who a skeptic is. And in this sense, the reader is left with no difficulties.