skepticism of the external world is a logically incoherent position because in doubting the existence of a world, you doubt the world as you experience it, which assumes there is a world that you experience. so it's a circular question in the same way there's circular logic to believing there is an external world.

>>8253541
not really. That argument gives a dream the same credence as reality.

>>8253478

I'd agree with this guy >>8253541, though I'd formulate things differently.
Skepticism is inherently self-refuting. I don't need to refute any position that can't be coherently established in the first place.

>>8253541
it just says that you can't be certain, if you want to believe the external world exists, go ahead.

>>8255023
As in, everyone obviously will, and it doesn't matter if it's coherent or not.

>>8253478
ignorance is bliss
obeying authority gets you good boy points

>>8253478
Galen Strawson

>>8253557
are you a butterfly or are you a Chinese man?

>>8253478
You can't, but not for the reason you might assume. skepticism isn't by any proper definition a belief, its simply a position of withholding belief, which is impossible to maintain or refute given that people always end up believing one way or another. I can choose be skeptical of the existence of gravity, but in practise I'm not going to be walking around in constant fear that I'm about to float off into space.

We need skepticism to survive as independent, intellectually rigorous beings - it isn't something that can be refuted, but no one is a skeptic outright, its simply a defence mechanism to guard us against stupid ideas.

You get a job

>>8255020
Any true skeptic would be refuting with themselves by definition and embrace it.

>>8253478
be skeptical about skepticism

???

profit

>>8255920
what does this even mean?

>>8255920
no, they would be refuting themselves and be skeptical of their own self-refutation.

stupid

skepticism isn't a "position" or even a fully formed "idea" in and of itself. in linguistics and psychoanalysis they use a the term "shifter" for words like "I," "you," "here," and "now," which are unintelligible outside of the particular instance they are invoked to describe or define. there is no abstract "here," only the here i mean when i say, "I am here." that is why it is a shifter, it shifts from one instance to the other as needed. skepticism is similar. one is never merely skeptical, only skeptical of some other proposition. it too is a shifter, less a thought in and of itself than an affect, less a philosophy than an attitude toward philosophies, less a theory than a corrective measure to curtail the overlording and imperial tendencies of thought in general.