 22 Feb 2007 @ 19:07, by Unknown
A lack of belief is vastly different from a state of active disbelief.
Philosophical skepticism is the philosophical position that one should avoid the postulation of final truths.
Some forms of skepticism go back to Pyrrhonism (Pyrrho of Elis c. 360 to c. 270 BCE.)
Pyrrhonian skeptics withhold assent with regard to non-evident propositions and remain in a state of perpetual open-minded inquiry. Rather than disbelieving in, say, God, unknown powers, etc., based on the lack of evidence of such things, Pyrrhonians recognize that we cannot be certain that new evidence won't turn up in the future, and so they intentionally remain open-minded and continue their inquiry.
Pyrrhonians also questioned accepted knowledge, and view dogmatism (any dogmatism) as a disease of the mind. But, then again, I suppose that, in all fairness, turned on itself, skepticism would deny that it is infallibly certain that skepticism is itself a sane perspective or flawless or the only valid perspective. (The common anti-skeptical argument is that if one knows nothing, one cannot know that one knows nothing, and so may know something after all – LOL.)
This will serve to introduce the following rather well balanced essay, here (pdf file: Health and Illness) by astrologer Bill Herbst, on the theme of physical versus metaphysical approaches to life in general.
Readers might assume that the author would lobby for the metaphysical over the mechanical. Bill Herbstis, after all, an astrologer, and, in his own words, he has spent the bulk of his 56 years living in alternative culture, surrounded by friends, colleagues, and clients who have a decided bent toward the metaphysical. Despite all that, his earlier formal education through college was solidly grounded in science, which he still loves. In addition, he is skeptical by nature. Questioning authority is part of his hard-wiring.
In the author’s personal opinion, there is much to recommend for both of these quite divergent perspectives of life despite how mutually exclusive they seem. Also, he sees much to question and criticize within each point of view, both in their basic implications, and even more in the extreme bias and judgmental attitudes of some of the adherents of either views.
The author’s conclusion probably would qualify him as an enlightened skeptic (as opposed to a dogmatic skeptic), and a skeptic with a high reverence for life:
"What I lack in certainty, however, I try to make up for in reverence, the feeling of awe and respect for the often unexpected and always profound mysteries of life."
|
|
