In this blog post, we will examine how philosophical skepticism attempts to avoid its own contradictions and how this influences philosophical inquiry.
Philosophy has long claimed to be the highest of all academic disciplines. This confidence is based on the belief that philosophical knowledge is the most certain form of knowledge. For thousands of years, philosophers have explored the origins of human existence, the nature of the world, and moral values. In the process, philosophical inquiry has addressed the most fundamental questions ahead of all other disciplines. Therefore, philosophy has been regarded not simply as a field of knowledge, but as a meta-discipline that forms the basis of all knowledge. However, philosophy’s self-absorption is often challenged within philosophy itself, with skepticism at the center of that challenge. Skepticism has repeatedly appeared throughout the history of philosophy, putting philosophical certainty to the test. What role does skepticism, which thrives on doubt, play in philosophy, whose calling is the recognition of ultimate truth? This question forces us to reexamine the essence of philosophy and raises the need to redefine the direction of philosophical inquiry. The three propositions of Gorgias, which appeared in the early history of philosophy, are classic examples of skepticism. According to him, first, nothing exists; second, even if something exists, we cannot know it; and third, even if we know something, we cannot communicate that knowledge to others.
These three propositions challenge the very foundations of philosophical inquiry and fundamentally deny the possibility of knowledge. To those with anti-intellectual tendencies, this extreme view can be quite appealing. It denies the value of all academic inquiry and the pursuit of truth, which can be tempting to those who wish to undermine the seriousness of philosophy.
However, there is a fatal contradiction here. First, Gorgias cannot deny his own existence as the subject of extreme skepticism. Second, he cannot deny that he knows that he knows nothing. Third, he cannot deny that he is communicating to others his knowledge that nothing can be communicated. As soon as he denies what he wants to deny absolutely, he falls into a self-contradiction that negates his own argument. This contradiction suggests that skepticism cannot be used as a basis for philosophical justification and reveals the limitations of skepticism.
In modern times, extreme skepticism is typically manifested in Albert’s “fallibilism.” In particular, he seeks to render meaningless the philosophical knowledge system that derives other propositions from the first self-evident proposition by completely denying the possibility of “ultimate justification,” which determines the validity of all philosophical propositions. Albert fundamentally challenges the traditional goal of philosophy, which is the definitive knowledge of ultimate truth. His weapon is the Münchhausen trilemma. This trilemma is based on the fable of Baron Münchhausen, who, while riding a horse, fell into a swamp and tried to pull himself out by pulling his own hair. This fable raises the problem that the logic of philosophical justification cannot ultimately sustain itself.
According to Albert, any attempt to establish a first certain proposition that can justify all subordinate propositions is doomed to fail because it inevitably commits one of the following three errors.
1. Infinite regress: A higher proposition is established as the basis for justifying a claim, but this second proposition inevitably requires a third proposition, and the third proposition requires a fourth proposition, and so on, with the demands for higher propositions continuing endlessly, making final justification impossible in principle.
2. Circular reasoning: A second proposition is brought in as the basis for justifying a claim, but this second proposition is then justified by the first proposition, so it cannot be considered a final justification either.
3. Discontinuity of procedure: Since it is impossible to satisfy the continuous demands for justification, all discussion is stopped at a certain stage of the justification process, and a single proposition is established as a dogma that cannot be challenged. This interrupts the continuation of rational argument and cannot be considered a final justification.
The power of this trilemma is so formidable that it seems impossible to find a philosophical justification that can withstand it. As a result, modern philosophy increasingly recognizes the uncertainty of knowledge and the importance of empirical methodologies such as scientific inquiry in philosophical inquiry. However, it becomes clear that Albert, who absolutizes the uncertainty of all propositions, also commits a fatal error. In other words, by saying that his claim is “certain” based on the “absolute justification” of this trilemma, he falls into a conflict between his “explicit claim” and his “implicit act,” that is, a “performative contradiction.”
The discovery of performative contradiction shows that final justification is possible without falling into the Münchhausen trilemma, and the method of proof used here is “proof by contradiction.” This method of proof indirectly proves the validity of proposition p by showing that the moment the contradictory proposition ~p is stated, ~p must negate itself. This is a very important method in philosophical argumentation and can be used as a powerful tool to defend the possibility of knowledge against philosophical skepticism. In other words, Albert’s explicit claim that “there is no certain knowledge” implies the claim that “the recognition that there is no certain knowledge is certain,” which already presupposes the proposition that “there is certain knowledge,” which he sought to deny.
Through this method of proof, we secure the possibility of establishing certain propositions against agnosticism. Skepticism cannot become the ultimate philosophy because, when taken to extremes, it leads to self-destruction. However, skepticism plays a productive role in philosophy, which is prone to dogmatism.
In the process of philosophical inquiry, skepticism plays an important role in refining philosophical arguments and strengthening their validity. This is because the powerful challenge of skepticism contributes to the health of philosophy by forcing it to develop a justificatory logic that is strong enough to counter it. Through such challenges, philosophy constantly renews itself and gains the strength to continue its search for truth.
