ultimate scepticism
'Scepticism may thus be carried to the point of denying
change and memory, and the reality of all facts. Such a
sceptical dogma would certainly be false, because this
dogma would have to be entertained, and that event would
be a fact and an existence: and the sceptic in framing
that dogma discourses, vacillates, and lives in the act
of contrasting one assertion with another - all of which
is to exist with a vengeance. Yet this false dogma that
nothing exists is tenable intuitively and, while it
prevails, is irrefutable. There are certain motives
(to be discussed later) which render ultimate scepticism
precious to a spiritual mind, as a sanctuary from grosser
illusions. for the wayward sceptic who regards it as no
more truer than any other view, it also has some utility;
it accustoms him to discard the dogma which an introspective
critic might be tempted to think self evident, namely that
he himself lives and thinks. That he does so is true;
but to establish that truth he must appeal to animal faith.
If he is too proud for that, and simply stares at the datum,
the last thing he will see is himself.'
the datum here is a construction or at least the result
of a reflection upon - what?
well the point is we cannot say until we reflect -
to describe is to express a reflection
and by that I mean (and we can only say this in reflection)
consciousness defining perhaps even objectify in some sense
this is just what the mind does -
so - yes - if he just stares at (posits) the datum
the last thing he will see is himself
but the very positing of it entails - the self -
the positer - crude - I know - but I doubt
there is any precision to be found here
for we are at this stage - reflecting reflection -
it is a meta activity of the mind
the act asserting the actor?
reason - it seems demands this procedure -
somewhat backward in coming forward
so we begin somewhere - and build up a picture -
a strange theoretical structure - to live in
and animal faith - well - here I suspect Santayana
is having a bet each way -
the idea of animal faith I would say is -
like any conception - an ideal construction -
an idea - a reflection
but if he has in mind some pre-reflective state -
well I am not convinced that there actually is such -
but even so - if we were to accept such an idea -
we'd be speaking of consciousness - that is not
self-conscious - some would suggest this as a pure
form of consciousness - in any case we are not thus
speaking of an epistemic state or condition - so by
definition - it would seem to be - not something we
could know
and that I suppose would be a picture of ultimate
scepticism
what this highlights though is that scepticism -
is a theory of knowledge
so the idea that it cannot be asserted without
contradiction falls away - once this is
understood
you might be thus disappointed and lament its
diminishing
but it's really about placing scepticism correctly
any denial of knowledge (in a total sense)
is itself defeated in its assertion
so let's leave it at that
and begin again - and start with the idea that
a theory of doubt must -
to get off the ground begin in a context of
assertion
and further understand that whatever its slant -
it never leaves this context
scepticism - to have any significance at all
must be - and is - positive
it asserts
this is the point of it - the reason of it -
to assert doubt - the rationality of doubt
in fact the reality of doubt
it is about what we can know
and the conditions of that knowledge
to say we can know nothing
is not to make an epistemic claim at all
and further it is to misplace and confuse
existence as the object of consciousness
when it is the presupposition of knowledge
any theory of knowledge presupposes existence
the final task for the epistemologist is to
characterize - describe that which is
presupposed
this - if it can be achieved - is a consequence
of the understanding of the internal and external
dimensions of existence - a synthesis if you
like of the subject and object - some characterization -
a reflection that can accommodate both aspects
in a unified theory - that's the idea -
to say my theory of knowledge tells me nothing exists
is to mistake philosophy for bungee jumping
it's to think you are doing one thing -
when you are doing another
it is a confusion
