Friday, February 13, 2009

Skeptics: Sopisticated Lazy Thinkers

Part II
Yesterday, we looked at the argument of Skeptics and found them to be based on the very certain belief that all knowledge is uncertain. We stated that since this is a certainty, the premise of Skepticism is self-refuting. Here's why.
In order to make the above claim, one must make one of two assumptions. First, that either reality as it is, in incapable of being known as qua reality, or two, our it is impossible for our minds to fully know its subject. In either case, we must have absolute knowledge, of reality and its knowable-ness, or our minds, and its ability to know. It is a fallacy of Borrowing where you take the premise you deny and borrow it to make your argument work. It's a type of circular reasoning which only makes people dizzy. If you like being dizzy, that is up to you.
As I said, a skeptic most likely will not care if he refutes himself or not, unless he or she is an honest skeptic. I have not YET run into an honest skeptic, though I am still looking. I have never had a skeptic tell me "Thank you, UL, you have shown me the error of my thinking. I am going to take some time in rethinking my entire orientation to reality, especially moral and theological reality." Never has happened.
In some cases, skeptics have become angry, for their false argument is exposed for what it is. This tells me they have NO intention of changing, or listening to more argument. At this point, I identify the prevailing problem they have in their thinking and stop the discussion. You cannot convince anyone of something they don't want to admit. They like their skepticism.
Other observations I make regarding skeptics is their approach to subjects of morality, on topics of "right and wrong." Invariably, they take this "not-knowing" approach when the challenge is directed to them, yet have sufficient means to debunk the thoughts of others. It's a gutless approach that seeks to avoid ANY criticism yet gives them perceived "safety" to attack others. It is a loser philosophy that makes sissies out its adherents.
If you are a skeptic and you are reading, please feel free to explain how it may be otherwise. Show me the courage you have in being a skeptic. You certainly don't have a logical basis for your belief; and since you deny our ability to know for certain what is morally right or wrong, how do you know you are courageous?
My advice to you all: Face it! The human being cannot avoid absolutes. Be virtuous enough to admit it! Be the courageous absolutist you REALLY are and let's engage in why you are the absolutist you are. Embrace the truth, no matter what. You'll find a freedom you never felt before and you'll rid yourself of the tiring sissified game of skepticism. Pax!

True Cost of Stimulus: $ 3.27 TRILLION

The mother of all Crap Sandwiches, according to the non-partisan CBO, has a slightly higher cost to us, our children, our grandchildren, great grandchildren. See it here at the Heritage Foundations article.

Blows my mind! Thanks Nancy, Harry and Barry! This ought to stimulate an emergency socialist/globalist takeover.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Skeptics: Sophisticated Lazy Thinkers

Part I

I need to take a break from the maniacal political environment to talk about more substantive issues pertaining to our culture, primarily our decaying, decadent Western culture. One of the contributing philosophical strands, broken strands that is, that have been woven into our culture is Skepticism. This is a philosophy in epistemology that states in general, that we cannot know the truth of things for certain. There are different forms, or perhaps ranges in skepticism that people subscribe to that prevent them from making any statement or doctrine that speaks of reality that is without any doubt.

What I am addressing is something different than the healthy skepticism that all of us should exercise when it comes to judging the integrity of people's character, advertisements, unproven but persuasive arguments; etc. What I am referring to is the thinking that says that any truth claims, especially in the arena of morals, ethics and religion cannot be made with any certainty since it is impossible for us to know truth with certainty. It is this belief that allows for the rampant relativism that many people use to justify actions which were at one time considered immoral.

What makes for a skeptic? Psychologically, I cannot say, although I can hazard a few guesses. First, if one is fearful of rejection of others, skepticism is a haven that allows for the differences in beliefs in others without engaging in arguments to prove who is right or wrong. The average modern or post-modern sees the arena of "right and wrong" the main cause of the world's ills, fighting, wars and racial battles. Remove the need to be "right or wrong", and you eliminate the fighting. It is a Utopian desire for peace that is primal in all of us. Perhaps the second reason is the need to be admired for embracing a very sophisticated philosophy, that seems to act like Teflon in any philosophical discussion. Skeptics have this way of wiggling out of any argument raised against them, unless one finds the basic of assumption of Skepticism. Then, the skeptic is in denial. Third, though the Skeptic is shown to be inconsistent in his skepticism, to him, it is immaterial. Why pursue this line of thinking when it doesn't matter if Skepticism is true or not? It is a useless endeavor to the skeptic, and he'll tell you so.

Steering clear of the psychology, I want to focus on the morality of a skeptic. Now mind you, I make generalizations, which means there can be exceptions, though I contend they may be few in number. The main moral reason the skeptic is what he is is pure laziness. It does not take much thinking energy to be a skeptic. You don't have to do the hard work of reasoning, determining what premises are true or not, which arguments are valid or invalid, if terms are clear definitions or ambiguous, or uni vocal or equivocal, if you are a skeptic. You simply economize your energy by stating it is unnecessary; why bother with finding the truth when it is difficult to know for certain?

It also allows for the ease of debunking classical arguments in morality in religion. You don't have to face the concrete logic that under girds classical morality. Your thinking allows you to do an end run and say these arguments are moot. You can subvert or debunk any moral claim and literally ignore it. You can leap frog over Metaphysics, and deny the existence of God, and therefore ANY accountability to God because it's impossible to know if he/she exists. And if this God does exist, he/she has no moral claim to be a just God and judge properly when it is impossible to know this god and his moral criteria. It seems to be philosophically impregnable, and therefore a very well used philosophy. In fact, it is a deep commitment to refuse to work at reason. This is not the result of thinking, but a lack in moral conditioning.

Skepticism then can become very favorable to anyone who is given to laziness, immorality, or fear--one who hates any accountability other than to oneself. This isn't to say that all skeptics are completely immoral or lazy. Skepticism is standard fare in education regarding morals or ethics, and because of this, it is considered the norm in thinking. To deviate from Skepticism is considered a slide into arrogance. Only those who are close-minded and arrogant think they know what is true. Thus, a hedge is built around this philosophy that leads to variant moral and ethical conclusions.

If you end up arguing with a skeptic, it is important to identify the main premise of Skepticism; all knowledge is uncertain. This does not necessarily apply to science, which is why often the skeptic leans on science as means to determine whether God exists or not. But, generally, all knowledge is uncertain is the active premise in Skepticism. And, if you notice, it is an absolute, which refutes the whole scheme of skepticiswm.

Now, don't be too optimistic that you can identify and counter-argue this point if your intent is to convince him or her. Remember, a skeptic is a skeptic because it is not based on anything logical. Plus, any refutation of Skepticism is immaterial, since the mind of the skeptic cannot bring himself to accept certainty in the first place. There are moral and psychological forces inside that prevent him from doing so. Therefore, he may agree with you that his argument is illogical. He can see that he refutes himself. It doesn't matter. In a twisted way, he considers this as proof of his philosophy. Thus, the credo of the Skeptic remains intact.

To appeal to a skeptic, one must have a two pronged approach that will address his lack of reasoning and also his morality. This will not be easy and we'll have to cover Part II tomorrow.

Monday, February 09, 2009

Is This Type of Health Care a Real Solution?

I saw the WSJ article here about Canadian Health Care that is not health care but "queue management," which strikes fear in me as I face my future health care needs.

Give it a read and ask yourself, "Is this what we REALLY want?" or "Do we want the entity that bungled Katrina aid to manage our healthcare?" I say, "NO!!!"

Thursday, February 05, 2009

Must See: Glenn Beck's "Comrade Update!"

Catch this! Glenn Beck is awesome and to the point--clear thinking in our muddled "have you hugged your Communist today?" Amerikan kulture.

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Governor Defiant Against Stimulus: RIGHT ON!!

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has great things to say about the brave minority in the US House who rejected the so called "Rescue Plan" of 2009. May people all over take time to see the small print of what's REALLY in it . Read the article here.