skepticism
Skepticism is a good tool, the lack of acceptance of statements and assumptions just because they exist. On the other hand, skepticism in the radical sense challenges everything, including everything. This skeptical assumption, in the moral or epistemic sense, I saw that you see no value in discussing with those who advocate such methods.
This radical skepticism, besides being a challenge, is also stuck in a place of no action. When a person becomes such a skeptic, he has nothing and nothing to do, maybe just enjoy and try to get the most out of life to some extent. What is the point that when you see this skeptical term, which is certainly not pleasant and nice to everyone, and certainly no one wants to follow its path in the radical sense, you do not accept it? Why do some depart and some do not depart from the starting premise of skepticism?
I couldn’t figure out if there was a question here and what it was, and what the connection was with the introduction, which was worded very poorly and unclearly. You’re asking why some are skeptics and some aren’t? Why are there capitalists and some aren’t? Maybe you didn’t notice, but people have different opinions.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
