Hello and Welcome to the Skeptic Ape Website! Our mission is to spread skeptical thinking and encourage critical thinking. on the site you will be able to find blogs, shop, contact us and find out what skeptic ape is all about! I would like to reach as wide as audience as possible with our content so feel free to share and spread the word about Skeptic Ape.
The most important point from on certainty by Ludwig Wittgenstein was actionable certitude. Throughout the book, Wittgenstein challenges old philosophy by giving a foundation of knowledge that is Non-propositional. He does this through, multiple ideas with them being, language games, hinge proportions, and actionable certitude. Wittgenstein gives actionable certitude as the foundation for us to support further truths and knowledge. This is because actionable certitude is born out with our unreflective, habitual, and instinctive, actions. For example, getting out of bed feet first, or, another example, is moving out of the way if a ball was thrown towards you very fast. The main reason this is profound is it leaves the skeptic without a chance to logically question these foundational certitudes. We no longer have to prove the obvious that the external world exist and or, if I have two hands typing this paper. These are hinge-propositions if they are spoken as a knowledge claim. for all intents and purposes they are true and exempt from doubt.
The reason actionable certitude is the most important is, because, it solves the issues many philosophers have been bogged down by, and gives us a place for knowledge to continue growing. Wittgenstein offers the metaphor, of a rivers bedrock, as actionable certitude that serves as, the foundation for the changing of knowledge and of language games that are held up by the foundation of actionable certitude. Overall the book is pretty cryptic, but it has had a profound influence on epistemology, the philosophy of language, and the nature of belief and knowledge. It challenges us to rethink our ideas about certainty and foundations of knowledge in a more pragmatic and language-based way. Wittgenstein also gave us a way to kick the skeptic away for a second. Which allows for a pragmatic view of knowledge and certainty. Where there is a clear divide between things we can question (knowledge) and things we should accept (Certainty) based on Non-propositional actionable certitude.
The most important point from "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" By Edmund L.Gettier. Is that justified true belief doesn't necessarily mean, we have knowledge of that proposition. Gettier provides two examples of how someone can have a justified true belief and still not have knowledge of that same proposition. The first example he gives is two men, Smith and John, who are applying for a job. Where Smith believes John will get the job because a manager told Smith that John will get the job. Smith also knows John has ten coins in his pocket. So smith says that the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket. Based on Justified True Belief Smith now has “knowledge” that is justified and true. But little does he know, Smith will be the one to get hired and he also had ten coins in his pocket. This would suggest that Smith didn't have knowledge, even though, he propositionally satisfied Justified True belief.
The reason this is the most important is that it shows us not all justified true beliefs are knowledge. After all he does give us two examples that are logically hard to deny. Overall, I think that justified true belief has been a great way to decide what knowledge is. After all, it has been used in philosophy for decades as a way to produce knowledge. To Gettier point, justified true belief is not always knowledge. This is the case because we can imagine scenarios that justified true belief lead us to propositions that are indeed false. Such is the case with the example given above. This is because there is a coincidence that justified true belief doesn't account for. This coincidence surly can’t be found as knowledge. This is what I believe Gettier's objective was with his paper. He intended to show the flaws that are inherent in justified true belief. He achieved this by showing examples of how someone can have a justified true belief. And still not have any knowledge, because there was some kind of coincidence that proves the justified true belief to be false.
The most important point from Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" is that language can be the bounds of knowledge. That is, when we run out of language, we can't say anything meaningful about a subject. Wittgenstein argues that meaningful language corresponds to states of affairs in the world, and that statements that cannot be empirically verified or have no basis in empirical reality are nonsensical. He suggests that the structure of language mirrors the structure of the world and that the limits of language signify the boundaries of what can be meaningfully said. Additionally, Wittgenstein introduces the concept of the "picture theory of language," asserting that propositions in language function like pictures that represent states of affairs. He emphasizes the importance of logical form and the idea that the logical structure of language reflects the logical structure of reality. He argues how language can be a sort of boundary for knowledge. This is because as soon as we run out of meaningful language we have no basis in empirical reality.
The reason this is the most important point is that, without recognizing that our language is a boundary. We could form nonsensical questions and other expressions that can have no meaningful discourse. Overall Wittgenstein's work significantly influenced the philosophy of language and logic. His ideas about the relationship between language and reality, the limits of language, and the picture theory of language had a profound impact on how philosophers approached these issues. Wittgenstein famously concludes the Tractatus with the statement: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." This reflects his idea that there are limits to what can be expressed meaningfully in language. Not all questions or topics are within the scope of meaningful discourse, and some aspects of reality are beyond the reach of language. This is why I thought that the most important point from the Tractatus was the limits of language and how it influences our discussion of knowledge and reality.
The most impactful concept from, David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, for me was his ideas on Causation. Basically, what Hume suggested, was that experience doesn't tell us much about an event. Given two events, lets say the first event causes the second event, when they happen together. that meaning the two events are connected always. So when the first event happens we can expect to find the second event and because of this we are certain that the second event will always come after the first. “Due to their constant conjunction, we are psychologically certain that B will follow A” says Hume. This line of thinking leads Hume to the Problem of Induction ,which in my own simple definition means that our reasons for believing that the future will resemble the past are flawed and we can't have proof that the first event had anything to do with the second event. The reason this stuck out to me the most, was really, the Problem of Induction.
The reason this was so profound to me was that we can't be certain about anything based on past experience. This sounds extremely crazy and counter intuitive because almost everyone lives their life learning from their past. But what Hume is saying is that we shouldn't rely on this way of learning, because we can not prove the causation of things, we can't say that any two events are related at all. Therefore we can not predict unobserved things based on previous observations. I personally think that there is a lot merit to this contribution of Hume. His thoughts on Causation and the Problem of Induction ,now a few hundred years after writing, have been paralleled by theoretical Physicists that are tackling String Theory. There is on the tiniest level (smaller than atoms) no sense of causation at all. This is exciting not only for Hume but society as a whole, because, we continue down this line of the unknown in search of new knowledge and understanding. searching for the order or unordered nature of the world.
.jpg)
The most important point from G.E. Moore's Proof of an external world is that his "proof" doesn't really prove anything because his argument begs the question. To quickly summarize his proof of the external world, he simply raises one hand saying “here is a hand”, then he raises the other, “here is another” and that therefore there now exists two hands. The problem with this explanation of an external world is that he assumes, he knows that “here is a hand” which is the same as assuming an external world. His conclusion is assumed in the premise of the argument. This is what makes his whole argument an assumption of the conclusion, he begs the question that his hand exists but by doing so he assumes the external world with his “proof” that it exists.
The reason this is the most important point is because before this, G.E. Moore wrote an article in 1925 before his Proof of an external world, called, a defense of common sense. The difference in philosophy comes as a shock because he use to stand for a common sense philosophy but when creating Proof of an external world, he may have unknowingly accepted the Cartesian philosophy simply because to prove a external world you also assume that there is an internal world as well. Whether Moore even thought about this I'm not entirely sure, but, because his proof has this feature of begging the question it leads me to believe he definitely did not. By accepting, willing or not, of the Cartesian / Humean philosophy of internal and external worlds, I think G.E. Moore fell down a slippery slope. Cartesian and Humean philosophy often leads to a logically permissible but also untenable model. For these reasons I think that G.E. Moore failed in his attempt in proving a external world but in all honesty I find the problem itself kinda silly as everyone knows things exist outside of ourselves. The problem arises when trying to prove their existents. Which is why I believe Moore may have been on a better path by using common sense philosophy because, do we really need to thoroughly prove the obvious.
The most important point from, Rene Decartes meditations on first philosophy, was the cogito Argument because it establishes the ,“Thinking thing”, it also shows us how Decarte separates the mind and body. He attributes the senses to the body,( touch, taste, sound, sight and smell) also known as extended things or “res extenga”. Decarte also defines attributes of the soul such as “doubting , understanding, affirming ,denying ,willing ,refusing, imagining and sensing” this is also known as the “Thinking thing” or “res cogitans”. The Cogito argument is how Decarte establishes the first thing he knows to be true; The famous phrase “I think therefore I am” comes from the cogito argument. Decarte uses this Cogito argument to prove that this is the best foundation to continue his line or skepticism because, it is the only thing he can be sure is real and not deceitful like the res extenga. Although he does later come back to say that only something clear and distinct should be accepted through the res extenga.
The Reason the cogito argument is the most important point is because Decarte showed to the imperialist through the wax experiment that the senses could be deceived, and raised the question how can you trust something if it even deceives you once? In the wax experiment, Decarte shows how wax can change almost every aspect of its appearance when placed next to a fire, this leads him to the question how we can be sure that the wax is the same piece of wax after all the changes had taken place. He uses this line of reasoning to basically say that our senses can be deceived and that we can't trust them. This is an important part because Decarte then says the only thing he can be certain of, is that he is a thinking thing. Decarte uses this to say, the foundation of are inquiry of the world, should be the mind, not the senses. The cogito argument which is his foundation of inquiry for the rest of the book is a clear most important point as it shows a compelling reason of doubting our senses and why we should start from the res cogitans.
In summary the social media platforms I've chosen are Facebook and Instagram. I chose Facebook because it is one of the widest reaching platforms without a doubt and I would like to reach as much of an audience as possible to help with sales and spreading my content. I also chose Instagram because of its image sharing capabilities and shorts, I think this is wise because it is an extremely used platform and the medium is perfect for my visual content I intend on posting their. Some of the research I've done has led me to these two platforms when researching instagram I found "According to Statista, 74% of art buyers use Instagram to purchase art from social media, making it a preferred platform for connecting with potential buyers and followers. Instagram's visual-centric layout is ideal for showcasing artwork." Also from the same article about Facebook I found this "Unlike Instagram, Facebook allows you to create a professional artist page to showcase your achievements. Facebook's Business pages enable artists to create an online presence, promote artwork, and even sell pieces directly through the platform's marketplace feature." These back up the reasons Ive chosen the platforms I have for the goal I plan to achieve.
