True and unstable

The reason I read the book is, among other things, solipsism.
If I make a decision where I stand, =that there is indeed a criterion for reasonableness, then in other words I am actually making a decision without any basis… So I didn't understand what your words were useful for? But only moved the equation one step back, in the definition of reasonableness. And here too it cannot stand against the skeptical idea.

I argue that there is no need to deal with the skeptical idea except for those who are troubled by skepticism. And those who are troubled by it will never be able to deal with it (because one can always continue to question all reasoning). Such a search is unnecessary a priori and it is a shame to waste time reading books. My book is intended to tell the reader that, contrary to the initial feeling, skepticism is not a problem because truth is not the same as certainty. Anyone who does not find within himself agreement with this (and is not a fundamentalist) will remain a skeptic in any case.

So how does the Rabbi think it is possible to grow up and move beyond skepticism, and settle for reasonableness? (After all, even the measure of reasonableness can be questioned, as can recognition of the senses, understanding, and so on.)
What “understanding” does the Rabbi think I should know how to apply in order to move from adolescence to adulthood?

I do not know of a systematic way or possibility to get out of a skeptical position. Skepticism is a black hole. At most, you can discover that you are not a skeptic (you simply misunderstood yourself, and identified truth with certainty). If you doubt everything that can be doubted, there is clearly no way to get you out of it. I simply think that in order to doubt, you need a reason (not all lack of knowledge is a state of doubt. See Ein Aya, no. 12), and therefore the obvious assumption that everything that can be doubted should be doubted is incorrect.

Doubting doubt is an interesting way to think. But who guaranteed that this was indeed the right and rational way?

Michael, from the control tower: Are you with us?

We lost contact with the ground, hoping for new signals from the control tower, (how can one be reasonable about anything). Ruth for.

Indeed, we lost.

Maybe the control tower can give instructions to return and arrive at the ground safely!?

The control tower gave, but you are not with him. You are repeating the same question over and over again that has been answered. Read again.

Michael (the questioner), why do you mind remaining skeptical?
(I think thinking about it might help you).

I read again,
So in fact the Watchtower recommends implementing a three-step plan as follows –
I. The understanding that not everything should be doubted even if it can be doubted.
And in order to doubt, you need a reason. ?
II. Accept the indications of our consciousness, whether physical consciousness, the five senses, or intellectual consciousness. And not doubt them. (It is not so clear to me why I assume that they are indeed correct even if I accept section I. I would be happy for the Rabbi to clarify this point)?
III. ? Set out on a new path in the world “as a free and happy bird.” ? This point is very clear for a change.

What does the Rabbi think about it:
I simply think that I have no other systematic ‘tool’ except to rely on our basic assumptions – intuitions. And they also sound much more reasonable than the other possibilities. Moreover, it is also not really clear to assume that our head created the entire outside world, for example that other people know things that I don't. So this whole understanding is really very foreign to my spirit, and my soul really 'vomits' this skeptical understanding.

Israel,
If it seems unlikely that life is real but just a dream, I see no reason to live. And there are many ways to do so even in a dream. Don't you think this is the right approach?

II The first point says that if you have any intuition, you need a reason to doubt it. If you have an intuition that your senses and thinking are correct, you need a good reason to doubt them. In my opinion, there is no such reason, and the conclusion is to trust them. In the fourth notebook, I explained that faith in God lies at the heart of it, but that is a second level.

I don’t quite understand the next paragraph. That’s what I wrote, isn’t it? So if you’re not a skeptic, you have no reason to doubt it, and in any case, go your way at ease (your section III).

Michael, I was waiting for you to finish your argument with Miki. I don't know what your conclusion is, but if you're still bothered by the question, I'll continue a little in the direction I started above.

I asked you what it was like for you to be a skeptic (on the grounds that thinking about it could help), and you answered that if life isn't real, there's no reason to live (I didn't understand the second sentence in your words).
Now I'll add that for someone who is really willing to commit suicide if it turns out there's no way out of doubt, I have no answer. But I assume that a great many skeptics, and in fact, all those who haven't committed suicide, are not willing to give up on life. In other words, they have no doubt about one thing: they want to live. If doubt undermines their belief in all sorts of things, it fails to undermine their desire to live (even with the sufficiency).

Now, I suggest relying on this unshakable will (and as such it is 'certain') as the basis for all your certainty. This is what we learned from Descartes: the concept of ‘certainty’ is based on the inner experience of our existence (he formulated this in his famous sentence “I think, therefore I exist,” and from this starting point he analyzed the various experiences of this self, and developed them into certain beliefs and opinions).
That is, the skeptic forgets that the criterion by which ‘truth’ and ‘falsehood’ must be judged is the inner experience of ‘existence.’ All intellectual calculation and proof are nothing more than means that bring the thinking person to experience the existence of the thing.

For example: The simple inference that leads me from the melody heard by my ears to the existence of a musician does not leave me with a cold, verbal-intellectual conclusion: ‘There must be a musician’, but rather it leads me to perceive ‘sensorially’/‘experientially’ the existence of a person who plays [unconsciously I will refer not only to his ‘dry’ existence, but for example I will begin to think about the reasons that motivate him to play, or to locate his exact location, and so on. All these instinctive accompanying interests indicate to me that the inference led me to an experiential perception of the cold logical concept ‘the cause of the music heard’].
If we look at this inference, we will notice that it first relied on an “experiential” certainty: I hear music. From here, the experience (which does not accept anything without a reason: it intuitively 'felt' that there is a source for everything, even if philosophers have wrestled a lot with the question of whether it is 'right' in this or not, according to reality, that is how it was born) automatically moved to the feeling of the existence of the source/reason of the music, and here, the intellect came into action and 'defined' in logical terms this 'reason' as 'a person playing'.

What emerges from these things is that 'reason' and 'belief' (also called 'intuition') are based on an experiential feeling of our existence and of what happens to us (even if we do not know how to justify that feeling). Any 'adoption' or 'acceptance' of an opinion is based on a feeling/experience of the existence (or absence) of the thing that the adopted opinion claims.

For example, in the question of whether there is a creator of the world? The beginning of thinking will be with the natural feeling: I feel and experience the existence of The world (if not, there is no room for question). Hence, does this feeling accept/sense that there is or is not a Creator? Only after that, the intellect will analyze the sensations and define them in logical language.

Alternatively, the reading and study of the various proofs proposed by others will also be done on the basis of experience: Do the proposed logical claims arouse in me the feeling and experience of the existence of the thing they come to prove? If not, they will remain before you as a dead letter, and if so, you have been convinced by them. This means that the thing has become ‘certain’ for you, with the same certainty that you live. And there is no reason to ask for greater certainty than this, as you ‘want’ in life, which is not certain except at this level of experience.