Skepticism: A Way of Life for Inner Peace - How?

[Iwannaplato]

Some people will say that inner peace is the proper goal of life.
Some people will say that achievement is the proper goal of life.
Some people wills say that family is the proper goals of life.

People in each of these groups have made and can make good arguments for their position. They can even make good arguments that their priority is important enough that the other groups' goals need not be considered.

We cannot choose which of these goals MUST be the correct one.

Therefore according to Pyrrhonists themselves, we should suspend judgment over whether pursuing any of these goals is proper.

They just erased the purpose of their own project without seeming to notice.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Inner peace or equanimity is a fundamental ground that facilitates the well-being of one's life whether it is related to achievements of whatever [family, etc.].
The optimal performance of any human endeavor is facilitated by inner peace, calmness, equanimity with full concentration.

To Pyrrhonists, the "suspension of judgment" is to alleviate the source of pains and sufferings related to 'dogmatic judgment in the belief an mind-independent objective ultimate reality without justified evidence.'

Analogy:
When a splinter is embedded within one flesh, there is the real feeling of pains and sufferings.
Removing the splinter will remove the source of the pains and sufferings.

To Pyrrhonists, the "suspension of judgment" [is like removing the splinter] to alleviate the source of pains and sufferings related to 'dogmatic judgment in the belief an mind-independent objective ultimate reality without justified evidence.'

In that situation, a Pyrrhonist has to suspend judgment on any 'dogmatic judgment in the belief an mind-independent objective ultimate reality without justified evidence' but making the provision he will change his mind if evidence is justified as proof.

When a a Pyrrhonist suspends judgment on any [philosophical, moral, scientific, etc.] beliefs, it does not mean he is giving up on the whole matter, rather he will continue to seek and/or await justified evidence to accept any claims on reality. This is what a non-Scientific_realist is doing.
One of the central principle in Pyrrhonism is probability, thus leading to degrees of objectivity.

I am not a full fledge Pyrrhonist; I agree with Pyrrhonism but complement it with critical philosophy [Kantian].

[Iwannaplato]

Inner peace or equanimity is a fundamental ground that facilitates the well-being of one's life whether it is related to achievements of whatever [family, etc.].
The optimal performance of any human endeavor is facilitated by inner peace, calmness, equanimity with full concentration.

And note that there is no justification here. One could argue that passion (to achieve, to protect one's family, to create) is what has driven the best things, and that dynamic attitudes has facilitated human endeavors. And then both sides could argue away with neither demonstrating one conclusion must be better than the other. So, according to P Skepticism, one should therefore abstain from believing either postion.

To Pyrrhonists, the "suspension of judgment" is to alleviate the source of pains and sufferings related to 'dogmatic judgment in the belief an mind-independent objective ultimate reality without justified evidence.'

They were not at all clearly anti-realists.
Further they also were skeptical about values.
And then, where's the evidence?
Just a lot of deductive speculation.

Analogy:
When a splinter is embedded within one flesh, there is the real feeling of pains and sufferings.
Removing the splinter will remove the source of the pains and sufferings.

To Pyrrhonists, the "suspension of judgment" [is like removing the splinter] to alleviate the source of pains and sufferings related to 'dogmatic judgment in the belief an mind-independent objective ultimate reality without justified evidence.'

The good old fallacy of analogy.

And note the begged question: should we evaluate everything through whether it alleviates suffering? Well, that would suggest to artists that striving to achieve great works is wrong. In fact striving in general. And of course it could make one an antinatalist. If you have a child that child will suffer. So either all parents are wrong to have children or there are other things more important, at least to many people, than the reduction of suffering.

In that situation, a Pyrrhonist has to suspend judgment on any 'dogmatic judgment in the belief an mind-independent objective ultimate reality without justified evidence' but making the provision he will change his mind if evidence is justified as proof.

When a a Pyrrhonist suspends judgment on any [philosophical, moral, scientific, etc.] beliefs, it does not mean he is giving up on the whole matter, rather he will continue to seek and/or await justified evidence to accept any claims on reality. This is what a non-Scientific_realist is doing.
One of the central principle in Pyrrhonism is probability, thus leading to degrees of objectivity.

Though he should also suspend belief that suspending belief is the right thing to do, until it is demonstrated that the value of not making mistakes, or not being passionate, or not pursuing challenges (which, yes, sadly can lead to disappointment) are the right choices.

Nowhere has this been demonstrated, so they should suspend judgment on whether suspending judgment is the right choice.

And note the irony of someone who is constantly telling people he disagrees with that they are gnats or primitive, now telling people that if one cannot be sure, one should suspend judgment.

But further here we have someone who says that realism makes one more likely to commit violence. He has labelled other groups this way without a shred of empirical evidence. Just more speculative deduction. His 'evidence' is that realists have committed acts of violence. Well, duh. Most poeple have been realists. What he cannot show is that antirealists are less violent. It's not even that he cannot separate out correlation from cause, but that he can't even demonstrate comparative correlation.

But does he suspend judgement.....Nope.

In fact he with great regularity asserts speculation as if it is demonstrated knowledge.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To Pyrrhonists, the "suspension of judgment" [is like removing the splinter] to alleviate the source of pains and sufferings related to 'dogmatic judgment in the belief an mind-independent objective ultimate reality without justified evidence.'

The good old fallacy of analogy.

And note the begged question: should we evaluate everything through whether it alleviates suffering? Well, that would suggest to artists that striving to achieve great works is wrong. In fact striving in general. And of course it could make one an antinatalist. If you have a child that child will suffer. So either all parents are wrong to have children or there are other things more important, at least to many people, than the reduction of suffering.

In that situation, a Pyrrhonist has to suspend judgment on any 'dogmatic judgment in the belief an mind-independent objective ultimate reality without justified evidence' but making the provision he will change his mind if evidence is justified as proof.

When a a Pyrrhonist suspends judgment on any [philosophical, moral, scientific, etc.] beliefs, it does not mean he is giving up on the whole matter, rather he will continue to seek and/or await justified evidence to accept any claims on reality. This is what a non-Scientific_realist is doing.
One of the central principle in Pyrrhonism is probability, thus leading to degrees of objectivity.

Though he should also suspend belief that suspending belief is the right thing to do, until it is demonstrated that the value of not making mistakes, or not being passionate, or not pursuing challenges (which, yes, sadly can lead to disappointment) are the right choices.
Nowhere has this been demonstrated, so they should suspend judgment on whether suspending judgment is the right choice.


Strawman and arguing and insisting upon that strawman.

Again the main point;
"a Pyrrhonist has to suspend judgment on any 'dogmatic judgment in the belief a mind-independent objective ultimate reality without justified evidence' "

1. This refer to mind-independent things like things-in-themselves, God, soul, freewill, ghosts, ultimate cause, and whatever is claimed to be absolutely unconditional. This is philosophical realism.
The focus of the P Skeptics is on mind-independent things as above.

The P Skeptic is also skeptical of other ordinary claims without evidence but that is secondary. E.g. X is accused of being a thief upon hearsays but with no verified and justified evidence.

2. Suspending judgment is not something that is absolutely unconditional, rather it is conditioned upon the human conditions, i.e. a mind independent thing.

Since 2 is not 1 above, the P Skeptics do not suspend judgment on 'suspending judgment'.

P Skepticism in practice:
What a person clings to a self that is permanent, he will face a dilemma when his intellect and self-consciousness make him aware that he is mortal.
To ensure survival at least till the inevitable, all humans are programmed to be triggered with the GREATEST fears [sufferings] with any impending threat of death.
To resolve the terrible pains and sufferings arising from the above cognitive dissonance, it is most effective for the P Skeptic to suspend judgment there is a permanent self [note Hume's no self and Buddhism's anatta].
In suspending judgment in this case, he achieve inner peace in relation to this specific dilemma.

Now, it would be stupid to insist to the P Skeptic to suspend judgment on his 'suspension of judgment' in this case when he has achieved inner peace by suspending judgment.

If he suspends judgment, it will only bring him back to a state with potential terror or he has to resort to theism which has its own problems when threatened with exposure of the truth [wherein theists may even kill] those who oppose [blasphemous] them.

Because of 1 above, a P Skeptic countering against Philosophical-Realism, a P Skeptic is an anti-Philosophical_Realist in that sense.

[Iwannaplato]

To Pyrrhonists, the "suspension of judgment" [is like removing the splinter] to alleviate the source of pains and sufferings related to 'dogmatic judgment in the belief an mind-independent objective ultimate reality without justified evidence.'

The good old fallacy of analogy.

And note the begged question: should we evaluate everything through whether it alleviates suffering? Well, that would suggest to artists that striving to achieve great works is wrong. In fact striving in general. And of course it could make one an antinatalist. If you have a child that child will suffer. So either all parents are wrong to have children or there are other things more important, at least to many people, than the reduction of suffering.

In that situation, a Pyrrhonist has to suspend judgment on any 'dogmatic judgment in the belief an mind-independent objective ultimate reality without justified evidence' but making the provision he will change his mind if evidence is justified as proof.

When a a Pyrrhonist suspends judgment on any [philosophical, moral, scientific, etc.] beliefs, it does not mean he is giving up on the whole matter, rather he will continue to seek and/or await justified evidence to accept any claims on reality. This is what a non-Scientific_realist is doing.
One of the central principle in Pyrrhonism is probability, thus leading to degrees of objectivity.

Though he should also suspend belief that suspending belief is the right thing to do, until it is demonstrated that the value of not making mistakes, or not being passionate, or not pursuing challenges (which, yes, sadly can lead to disappointment) are the right choices.
Nowhere has this been demonstrated, so they should suspend judgment on whether suspending judgment is the right choice.

Strawman and arguing and insisting upon that strawman.

You are confused about what a strawman is. I was not saying you said those things. I was pointing out that if you are going to suspend judgment, in the ways that you have described Pyrronists suggest one should this ENTAILS suspending judmgent on, for example, making the criterion finding inner peace, THE goal.

You do not understand the difference between someone
Attributing a position to you
and someone
Pointing out what is entailed by your position.

Or to put this another way: Someone asserts X is the case. Other people can then look and see if ACCEPTING that X is true leads to when it is applied to the conclusions or arguments or assumptions of that person.

When you react that this is a strawman argument you are confused. A strawman argument is where I attribute an argument to YOU that you didn't make. I was not doing that. I was accepting the premise about suspending judgments and applying it to the assumptions in Pyrronism and your version of it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

ChatGpt [with Reservations]:

Pyrrhonism Skepticism:
It is stated , one of the objective of Pyrrhonism Skepticism is the attainment of inner peace via the suspension of judgement on any claim of ultimate reality as mind-independent.
Question is, how do Pyrrhonists justify the above that suspension of judgment will bring about inner peace?

ChatGPT
Pyrrhonism is a form of skepticism named after Pyrrho, an ancient Greek philosopher. Pyrrhonists argue that attaining inner peace is possible through the suspension of judgment on any claim about ultimate reality as mind-independent. The justification for this idea can be understood through the following key points:

Agitation and Disturbance: Pyrrhonists believed that the quest for knowledge and the insistence on making definitive judgments about the nature of reality often led to mental agitation and disturbance. Constantly grappling with conflicting beliefs and the uncertainty of reality can create anxiety and inner turmoil.

Relief from Dogmatism: Pyrrhonists observed that people who hold strong beliefs or dogmas often experience distress when their beliefs are challenged or contradicted. Suspending judgment allows individuals to free themselves from the burdens of dogmatic thinking and the emotional distress that can accompany it.

The End of Disputes: Pyrrhonism emphasizes the suspension of judgment as a way to end philosophical and metaphysical disputes. The constant disagreement among philosophers and schools of thought was seen as a source of mental disturbance. By withholding judgment, one can step out of these debates and find tranquility.

Epoche (Suspension of Judgment): The Pyrrhonian skepticism practice of epoche involves the suspension of judgment on all matters, recognizing that we lack sufficient evidence to determine the ultimate truth of any claim. By embracing this suspension, individuals avoid getting entangled in the complexities and uncertainties of philosophical debates, which, in turn, contributes to a state of mental calmness.

Acceptance of Appearances: Pyrrhonists acknowledge that human perception and understanding are limited. Rather than insisting on an absolute reality beyond appearances, they advocate for a humble acknowledgment of the limitations of human cognition. This acceptance is thought to lead to a more tranquil state of mind.

In essence, Pyrrhonists argue that the suspension of judgment serves as a path to mental tranquility by removing the individual from the constant turmoil of conflicting beliefs and the emotional distress associated with dogmatism. By adopting a position of epoche, individuals can find peace in accepting the limitations of human understanding and embracing a more relaxed, open-minded approach to the complexities of reality.

This is why I had argued, theists and philosophical_realists of the same feathers grounding their ideologies in an illusion, are in a state of internal emotional distress [at least subminally] and will even kill those who apposed [threatened] their ideology; glaringly and evidently as it is happening with Hamas' current massacres of babies and adults.

It is the same with realists [philosophical] in this forum who felt very agitated when presented with alternative and more mature views by ANTI-Philosophical_realists.

Any counters to the above?

[Iwannaplato]

ChatGpt [with Reservations]:

Pyrrhonism Skepticism:
It is stated , one of the objective of Pyrrhonism Skepticism is the attainment of inner peace via the suspension of judgement on any claim of ultimate reality as mind-independent.
Question is, how do Pyrrhonists justify the above that suspension of judgment will bring about inner peace?

ChatGPT
Pyrrhonism is a form of skepticism named after Pyrrho, an ancient Greek philosopher. Pyrrhonists argue that attaining inner peace is possible through the suspension of judgment on any claim about ultimate reality as mind-independent. The justification for this idea can be understood through the following key points:

Agitation and Disturbance: Pyrrhonists believed that the quest for knowledge and the insistence on making definitive judgments about the nature of reality often led to mental agitation and disturbance. Constantly grappling with conflicting beliefs and the uncertainty of reality can create anxiety and inner turmoil.

Relief from Dogmatism: Pyrrhonists observed that people who hold strong beliefs or dogmas often experience distress when their beliefs are challenged or contradicted. Suspending judgment allows individuals to free themselves from the burdens of dogmatic thinking and the emotional distress that can accompany it.

The End of Disputes: Pyrrhonism emphasizes the suspension of judgment as a way to end philosophical and metaphysical disputes. The constant disagreement among philosophers and schools of thought was seen as a source of mental disturbance. By withholding judgment, one can step out of these debates and find tranquility.

Epoche (Suspension of Judgment): The Pyrrhonian skepticism practice of epoche involves the suspension of judgment on all matters, recognizing that we lack sufficient evidence to determine the ultimate truth of any claim. By embracing this suspension, individuals avoid getting entangled in the complexities and uncertainties of philosophical debates, which, in turn, contributes to a state of mental calmness.

Acceptance of Appearances: Pyrrhonists acknowledge that human perception and understanding are limited. Rather than insisting on an absolute reality beyond appearances, they advocate for a humble acknowledgment of the limitations of human cognition. This acceptance is thought to lead to a more tranquil state of mind.

In essence, Pyrrhonists argue that the suspension of judgment serves as a path to mental tranquility by removing the individual from the constant turmoil of conflicting beliefs and the emotional distress associated with dogmatism. By adopting a position of epoche, individuals can find peace in accepting the limitations of human understanding and embracing a more relaxed, open-minded approach to the complexities of reality.

This is why I had argued, theists and philosophical_realists of the same feathers grounding their ideologies in an illusion, are in a state of internal emotional distress [at least subminally] and will even kill those who apposed [threatened] their ideology; glaringly and evidently as it is happening with Hamas' current massacres of babies and adults.

It is the same with realists [philosophical] in this forum who felt very agitated when presented with alternative and more mature views by ANTI-Philosophical_realists.

Any counters to the above?

Sure, none of that explains why the Pyrronists and you don't suspect judgment about the goal of inner piece. It is simply accepted as THE goal, implicitly the best goal. Given that no justification is given and in fact many of the great accomplishments of humans came about from dynamic struggle, there is not reason to believe that this should be the goal. Or that other goals should not be the primary ones. Nor is the mind-reading ad hom at the end justified, but that's another kettle of fish.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sure, none of that explains why the Pyrronists and you don't suspect judgment about the goal of inner piece. It is simply accepted as THE goal, implicitly the best goal. Given that no justification is given and in fact many of the great accomplishments of humans came about from dynamic struggle, there is not reason to believe that this should be the goal. Or that other goals should not be the primary ones. Nor is the mind-reading ad hom at the end justified, but that's another kettle of fish.

Strawman as usual.

I wrote in the OP;

"one of the objective of Pyrrhonism Skepticism is the attainment of inner peace via the suspension of judgement on any claim of ultimate reality as mind-independent."

I had never insisted "inner peace" is THE goal.

[Iwannaplato]

Sure, none of that explains why the Pyrronists and you don't suspect judgment about the goal of inner piece. It is simply accepted as THE goal, implicitly the best goal. Given that no justification is given and in fact many of the great accomplishments of humans came about from dynamic struggle, there is not reason to believe that this should be the goal. Or that other goals should not be the primary ones. Nor is the mind-reading ad hom at the end justified, but that's another kettle of fish.

Strawman as usual.

I wrote in the OP;

"one of the objective of Pyrrhonism Skepticism is the attainment of inner peace via the suspension of judgement on any claim of ultimate reality as mind-independent."

I had never insisted "inner peace" is THE goal.

1) The Pyrronists do...
2) At the end of the OP you are critical of Philosophical Realists for not having Inner Peace, in a post seemingly in support of the Pyrronist assumption that inner peace is the goal.
And, as usual, you do this by generalizing and mindreading those who disagree with you.

This is why I had argued, theists and philosophical_realists of the same feathers grounding their ideologies in an illusion, are in a state of internal emotional distress [at least subminally] and will even kill those who apposed [threatened] their ideology; glaringly and evidently as it is happening with Hamas' current massacres of babies and adults.

But if you are now stating clearly that you do not see Inner Peace as the main or primary goal, great.

[Iwannaplato]

It seemed implicit in other posts in the thread such as here.

5. The Buddha did not reject ordinary or common sense reality [nb: Two Truths Theory] but advocated the suspension of judgment of mind-independent things [soul, God, etc.] that are beyond the empirical without justification of evidences and experiences.
This is the basis of Buddhist skepticism where he introduced a life problem solving technique i.e. the 4NT-8FP to develop and sustained inner peace without grasping to philosophical realism.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

But again, if you are now clearly stating that achieving inner peace is not your primary goal, great.

Note that the Pyrronists suggest we must suspend judgment when other possible conclusions can be equally supported. So, as I've argued, they should suspend judgment over whether inner peace should be a goal, given that many of humanity's greatest achievements have been reached via struggle and dynamic non-peaceful states. Achievements in politics, science, the arts, technology and more.

[Iwannaplato]

Inner peace or equanimity is a fundamental ground that facilitates the well-being of one's life whether it is related to achievements of whatever [family, etc.].
The optimal performance of any human endeavor is facilitated by inner peace, calmness, equanimity with full concentration.

And here you seem to be prioritizing it. According to the Pyrronists one should suspend judgments on conclusions when other conclusions can find equal support. And equal or better support can be found for dynamic states that include frustration and challenges. We could all go off to the Buddhist Temple and meditate and achieve inner peace, but this would have undermined many of the greatest achievements of humanity. And then much more mundane but important for individual achievements also. If you want inner peace, and prioritize that, you would likely choose an easier job or avoid having children.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It seemed implicit in other posts in the thread such as here.

5. The Buddha did not reject ordinary or common sense reality [nb: Two Truths Theory] but advocated the suspension of judgment of mind-independent things [soul, God, etc.] that are beyond the empirical without justification of evidences and experiences.
This is the basis of Buddhist skepticism where he introduced a life problem solving technique i.e. the 4NT-8FP to develop and sustained inner peace without grasping to philosophical realism.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

But again, if you are now clearly stating that achieving inner peace is not your primary goal, great.

Note that the Pyrronists suggest we must suspend judgment when other possible conclusions can be equally supported. So, as I've argued, they should suspend judgment over whether inner peace should be a goal, given that many of humanity's greatest achievements have been reached via struggle and dynamic non-peaceful states. Achievements in politics, science, the arts, technology and more.

The above is off topic again.
You need to understand why [.. I had mentioned somewhere] and the reasons [negatives and evil potentials] why Pyrrhonists suspend judgment on specifically the idea of a mind-independent reality.

If the suspension of judgment SPECIFIC to the idea of a mind-independent reality eliminate the noises, pains and sufferings associated with it thus resulting in inner peace, it would not be rational and wise for them to suspend judgment on this positive move.

As humans, Pyrrhonists would have achieved degrees of inner peace via various [physical and mental] struggles but these are not related to the belief and clinging specifically to the [on topic] idea of a mind-independent reality.

[Iwannaplato]

And let's look at this in the context of the Pyrronists suggestions. They think one should withold from believing unless very certain. But all sorts of processes require the taking on of believes. This happens in all sorts of fields of inquiry. Sure, one need not be impervious to new information and counter examples, but beliefs allow us to try all sorts of things. We make models that we cannot be totally sure of, and this generate new research directions in science, or measures taken in business and many knowledge related field.

And, of course, this is true for moral realism....

Pyrrhonian moral skepticism holds that the reason we are unjustified in believing any moral claim is that it is irrational for us to believe either that any moral claim is true or that any moral claim is false.

[Iwannaplato]

Skepticism: A Way of Life for Inner Peace - How?

And while the title of the thread does not indicate whether you agree with the Pyrronists, it definitely indicates that they did not suspend judgment around having the goal be, the purpose be, achieving inner peace. Yet, they made no arguments that indicated that as a goal that should be chosen above others. And if your goal is inner peace this restricts one from many activities, many of them valued and justified by a wide range of FSK's.

[Iwannaplato]

The above is off topic again.

Nope, it is right on topic. It is a response to assertions and positions presented as Pyrric in the title of the thread and the OP: It is using the Pyrric ideas about suspending judgment - central to what is asserted about them in the OP and asserted by them - and aiming those ideas at their own prioritization of Inner Peace, which is central to the title of the thread and their own proclaimed intentions. What they did all that suspending judgment ..... for.

I am right on topic. There are certainly other ways to be on topic - in this thread that no one had responded to for quite a while - but mine is certainly one of these.

You need to understand why [.. I had mentioned somewhere] and the reasons [negatives and evil potentials] why Pyrrhonists suspend judgment on specifically the idea of a mind-independent reality.

I have read what you wrote and I have seen that in outside texts also. Yes, you covered that in the OP......also. and it seems part of the why is to achieve inner peace. It is one of the many ideas they suspend judgment regarding.

If the suspension of judgment SPECIFIC to the idea of a mind-independent reality eliminate the noises, pains and sufferings associated with it thus resulting in inner peace, it would not be rational and wise for them to suspend judgment on this positive move.

But first they must show that that is the criterion - achieving innner peace - we must make central. And they have not done that. Thus using their own arguments they should suspend judgment about making that the criterion for adopting the belief that that is the right goal.

As humans, Pyrrhonists would have achieved degrees of inner peace via various [physical and mental] struggles but these are not related to the belief and clinging specifically to the [on topic] idea of a mind-independent reality.

We have no idea if they achieved any special degree of inner peace or not.