Question

Skepticism is a good tool: not accepting statements and starting assumptions just because they exist. On the other hand, skepticism in the radical sense challenges absolutely everything. This skeptical starting assumption, in its moral or epistemic sense—I’ve seen that you don’t see much value in discussing it with those who advocate methods of that kind.
Radical skepticism like this, aside from challenging everything, is also stuck in place and entirely impractical. When a person becomes that kind of skeptic, he has nothing at all to do—maybe just enjoy himself and try to maximize pleasure in life until some point. What is the reason that when you encounter this skeptical notion—which certainly isn’t pleasant or agreeable to everyone, and certainly no one wants to follow it in its radical sense—you don’t accept it? Why do some people emerge from the starting assumption of skepticism and others do not?