Skepticism: What gives?

Well, this forum seems to fit the best, here goes....

This is an essay I turned in for my philosophy class. Hopefully, my professor won't fail me. I threw it together in like an hour...lol.

The term 'skeptic' derives from a Greek noun, skepsis, which means examination, inquiry, and/or consideration. What leads most skeptics to begin to examine and then eventually to be at a loss as to what they should believe, if anything, is widespread and seemingly endless disagreement regarding issues of fundamental importance. Many of the arguments of the ancient skeptics were developed in response to the positive views of their contemporaries, especially the Stoics and Epicureans, but these arguments have been highly intriguing for subsequent philosophers and will continue to be of great interest as long as there is widespread disagreement regarding important philosophical issues. When a person begins to ponder both sides of an argument, he begins to form his own opinion. Many times, that opinion is skeptical in nature. Take for example the title of this paper. Once people begin to ponder the �glass half empty� argument, they begin to wonder whether or not the glass is actually there.
However, why is skepticism even considered in the first place? I mean, what makes a person �decide� to be a skeptic? After all, they can�t accept any proof for the argument of �becoming� a skeptic, can they? Descartes once said something about our knowledge, and more specifically, our imagination. He said that basically, our imagination can�t include something that isn�t possible, based on previous experience. Based on what Plato said about pre-knowledge, this is makes the entire Idea of skepticism very interesting. Let us just say for example that Plato�s theory of pre-knowledge was correct. With that, Descartes could not have been wrong with his theory about the human imagination, as he wouldn�t have been able to imagine it, if it weren�t possible in his mind. This brings us to a dilemma about skepticism. If we can perceive, and even consider the possibility that we�re living in a world where everything, including our all-important senses can deceive us, (much like in Plato�s Allegory of the Cave) how can Skepticism even remain afloat as a philosophical viewpoint? It all becomes a convoluted knot in which the questions just continue to come: Can we trust that we can�t trust anything? Can we even trust in that?
The truth about skepticism is that it�s built on a very shaky platform of believing nothing but what I know for certain, just from knowing through learning to be true (IE, Fire is HOT!) However, even having accepted this, many skeptics begin to question whether or not what they just felt was actually �heat� from a real �fire�, or even more commonly, whether or not it was actually a �fire�, and not something else that we have been conditioned to believe is a fire. People who have seen The Matrix know very well what I�m saying here. Perhaps it is possible, due to Plato�s theory of pre-knowledge that we are in fact living in a simulated reality, controlled by evil machines. After all, the Wachowski brothers were able to imagine it, were they not?
On the other side of this argument, stand the Epicureans. They believe only what they can gather with their 5 senses. As to the fire, It�s a fire because it a fire, and it�s hot because fire is hot. Simply put, skeptics don�t want to believe that epicureans exist. Which brings us to another fine question. Why exactly do skeptics take such an approach to their beliefs? No human comes naturally into the world, and believes that they are being deceived. No, skepticism is a learned response to the stimulus one encounters during the course of life. Put simply, one has to want to be a skeptic, and learn to be one, as big of a fallacy as that may be. Another way of stating it would be: Skepticism is unnatural. Even more evidence of this is that pessimism is unnatural, and to be perfectly blunt, the overwhelming majority of skeptics are in fact pessimists. It is my personal belief that skepticism is merely an extension of pessimism. When one considers, again, the �glass half empty� debate, you can imagine asking a pessimist, and hearing him say that the glass is half empty. With that, you could ask a skeptic, and he�d probably say something like �we see it as half empty, but we can�t be sure that it�s actually there at all�.
Overall, skepticism has been one of the most intriguing schools of thought for many young philosophers, but one still has to consider the fallacy of the philosophy itself. It was made to create an argument, firstly. As it says in the opening paragraph, the skeptical movement was created in response to the positive philosophies of the Stoics and Epicureans, which simply states the possibility of the skeptical movement being merely a movement made �for the sake of argument�, with no real reason other than they wanted to have a group who disagreed with the mainstream thinkers of the day. It is my opinion that skepticism is not the best way to think philosophically. Basically, it�s arguments hold little, if any water, and fail to convince me in the slightest.

OH, come now, I refuse to believe that...

Quotable Quotes and Memerable Moments...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nice Essay.
Welcome back Loki.
I'm a skeptic.

Originally posted by Loki
With that, you could ask a skeptic, and he�d probably say something like �we see it as half empty, but we can�t be sure that it�s actually there at all�.

Ah, this is very true of some skeptics!

I think a nice dose of skepticism can be healthy, but overdoses can be brutal!

Sorry 'bout that smirkley. Didn't know I was making a counterpoint. Oh well.

Rightly don't know if I believe in skeptics or not. Need more proof.

Certainly we have a lot of circumstancial evidence for skeptics, but I have yet to be shown any convincing physical evidence that they exist.

Yes, I'll have to remember that the next time a skeptic tells me something, I'll tell him to prove that HE's not an Illusion.