The Practical Impossibility and the Theoretical Absurdity of Skepticism

In the world of Philosophy, there are always two groups of philosophers willing to exchange their ideas to rebut what the other group asserted; the believers and the skeptics.

Believers are those with positive outlook in all fields of philosophy. These are the ones who are successful enough in presenting and defending their own doctrines which, until now, is still used in many Universities teaching Philosophy and all its fields. Examples of these philosophers are Aristotle, Socrates and Thomas Aquinas, whose works and doctrines are still very important today.

On the other hand, there will always be skeptics who fail to believe whatever it is that comes their way. In Epistemology, skeptics are those who assert that truth cannot be achieved in any way possible. Universal skeptics doubt or deny the validity of knowledge and assert that they cannot be convinced by any argument.

In this article, we are not trying to convert skeptics themselves but we will show them that skepticism is simply an absurdity in the field of Philosophy as well as in day to day living; we will show them that skepticism is an improper approach to attain the truth and thus logically, it is intrinsically wrong.

Why is SkepticismPractical Impossibility?

No man in his sound mind can ever live without certainty of any sort. Even the most renowned skeptic cannot deny the fact that he exists and that he can feel anything he touches, he can taste anything he puts in his mouth, he can hear a sound, he can see when he opens his eyes and can feel sad and happy. It is because it’s difficult to negate or get away entirely from the nature of being human.

What can a man do if he tries to deny anything he can see, touch, feel, hear and taste? Nothing. Therefore, it is a practical impossibility that a man can live without practical certitude in any way. And the fact that he knows exactly what his name is, is evident that he is certain what he is called.

Why is Skepticism Theoretical Absurdity?

No man can ever doubt or deny principles, arguments or every thing; not even in a very speculative way. And this has been proven by skeptics themselves due to their inconsistencies. In fact, skeptics are trying to convince everyone that we cannot attain the truth, and they are certain about it. In other words, they are trying to convince us thateveryone cannot be certain, BUT they are certain about it.

Now, skeptics must either have valid reasons  for their doubt or have no valid reasons at all. The case is, if they have valid reasons they know something which is valid and true but that will make them not skeptics anymore. However, if they do not have reasons to support their arguments, then they do not have reason to doubt everything.


Not all skeptics remained skeptics along the way because they knew that it is just aphilosophic absurdity and that their arguments and doctrines will lead them nowhere if they continue to doubt in anything. The point is, it would always better to believe in something or someone, than to roam the world without having something or someone to believe in.

As for the skeptics out there or those people who are trying to believe they are skeptics, here are passages from St. Augustine to make you think;

“If I err, I exist. For one who does not exist, cannot err; and by the very fact that I err, I exist. Since, therefore, I exist, if I err, how can I err about my existence when it is certain that I exist if I err?”

“If he doubts, he lives; if he doubts, he remembers why he doubts; if he doubts, he understands that he doubts; if he doubts, he wants to be certain; if he doubts, he thinks; if he doubts, he knows that he does not know; if he doubts, he judges that he must not give a hasty consent.”

~Thanks SM!


2 thoughts on “The Practical Impossibility and the Theoretical Absurdity of Skepticism

  1. Pingback: Impossible Minds « InnerDialect

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s