• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 750 0

called the authors of sacred texts “buffoons” and thought that the mind is the result of the body just as alcohol is the result of fermentation (they were probably fun at parties, too). In a book called, The Lion of the Destruction of Principles, Jayarasi went one step further and denied that epistemology itself was even possible (since most epistemologists of his day were religious, this fit nicely with his school’s anti-religious sentiment). He denied epistemology by arguing in tremendous detail that no definitions of the terms used by the prominent epistemologists of his day could possibly be made coherent. If no definitions can be coherent, he thought, then the whole project of epistemology is impossible.

Neither Nagarjuna nor Jayarasi advocated suspending judgment in exactly the same way as the Pyrrhonists, but they did both think their more negative arguments could lead to happiness of some kind. As a certain kind of Buddhist, Nagarjuna thought that doing philosophy in his way would cause you to “relinquish all views” and stop grasping at beliefs to live a happy, Buddhist life. Jayarasi was no Buddhist, but did see his arguments as leading to happiness. He ends his book by saying, “Thus, when the principles are completely annihilated, all everyday practice (or: all thinking, speaking and acting) can be delightful in as much as it no longer has to be deliberated.”104 All this follows from realizing the utter futility of epistemology. Thus, the sound-bite slogan of Indian skepticism is “Concepts of knowledge are incoherent.”

Political Skepticism: American Democracy Inaction

If you ask me (and you are, since you’re reading this), skepticism is alive and well right here in America. Most Americans aren’t pondering the details of Sextus, Hume, or Nagarjuna, but there is a widespread suspicion whether anything as lofty as knowledge is possible when it comes to politics. Political skepticism applies some of the tactics of Pyrrhonism, Modern and Indian skepticism to the realm of politics.

We have plenty of opinions about politics, but these opinions are far from facts. In fact, I’d say that the strict dichotomy between fact and opinion, so carefully etched into the minds of American students, is one of the causes of political skepticism in the United States. Since we all agree that there are no facts about whether conservatives or liberals are right about highly controversial topics like abortion and immigration, all that remains are opinions with no more justification than my preference for Stephen Colbert’s Americone Dream over Willie Nelson’s Country Peach Cobbler (and this preference itself is based mostly on what Stephen has told me to prefer).105

Here many of us unwittingly apply two of the Pyrrhonian “modes” of suspension of judgment: the mode deriving from dispute and the mode of relativity. The mode deriving from dispute is like this: since there is widespread dispute on political matters, who’s to say who’s right? Political skeptics may, like Pyrrhonists, suspend judgment or, with a more Modern disposition, they may deny that knowledge is possible on political matters. The mode of relativity is like this: since political opinions seem relative to the person holding them (conservatives say one thing because they’re conservatives and liberals disagree because they’re liberals), we may likewise suspend judgment in a Pyrrhonian vein or deny knowledge in a Modern vein. As most professors of philosophical ethics courses will tell you, something akin to the mode of relativity is very popular with college students. I call this contemporary variant “shoulder-shrugging” relativism, which is the attitude that a shrug of the shoulders and the lackadaisical expression, “it’s true for them,” constitutes the appropriate response to any ethical or political dispute.

Stephen’s concept of “wikiality” takes the mode of relativity to the next level and some people might think it provides a way out of political skepticism. Wikiality is the idea that something becomes true if enough people say it. This idea is based