Susanna Rinard - Reasoning One's Way Out of Skepticism

[@galacticfarmer4272]

Uh, timely video. I've been watching your videos and getting deeper into epistemological debates. Can't help but notice a - dangerously strong - skepticism growing inside of me. Will watch this right now :P

[@galacticfarmer4272]

Just watched. Nope, it didn't help. Now I'm skeptic about my skepticism. Nice 🤣

[@elijahwest7126]

I appreciate you bringing female scholars into the mix. I always appreciate your discourse.

[@VictorGijsbers]

Thanks! I was happy to find that for my contemporary epistemology course, having a serious number of female authors happened more or less automatically. In that sense, things have really changed.

[@NamelessBody]

I have no idea why this was recommended to me, but I guess it's a good enough fit. Thank you.

[@morganeperquy813]

Zou u nog filmpjes kunnen maken over de Tractatus van Wittgenstein?

[@VictorGijsbers]

Dat is wel het plan, maar het zal zeker niet voor de zomer zijn.

[@cliffordhodge1449]

The distinction between more-or-less instantaneous reasoning and the more protracted reasoning processes is given short shrift here. The corrigibility of memory is a problem for the latter, but perhaps not so much for the former. Also, keep in mind we are talking about skepticism, not cynicism. Both being uncertain, and concluding that you are uncertain, are not shown to be irrational; and in a state of uncertainty or agnosticism, declining to make a choice of which position to endorse would seem to be rational, and further, seems to be forced on you if you are trying to be rational.

[@VictorGijsbers]

Skepticism about X is usually not understood as being uncertain about C, but as the position that holds that there are no rational reasons to believe one thing rather than another about X. This is why the standard arguments for skepticism aim to show that there is some kind of indistinguishability: since there is no way to tell the difference between A and B, there can be no reason to prefer believing A to believing B.

[@schwilly6667]

My take would be to be rational is to be pragmatically part of this external world. If the world isn't true, it's merely appearance. To reject it or suspend belief, it doesn't matter if it's irrational, as that process (rationality) is part of external pragmatic world. That snake just eats itself

[@alannolan3514]

spinoza please!

[@dennisdeslager3382]

Nice 12-o-clock upload, for those who really need their metafysics-fix

[@VictorGijsbers]

I'm too lazy to change KZbin's default scheduled time!

[@MV-vv7sg]

*Philosopher solves global skepticism. Existentialists hate her. Find out how she does it with this one reasoning trick* (May contain philosophically controversial premises and hidden lemmas, purchase at own risk)