Skepticism

I consider myself an "unresolved skeptic." This means that I subscribe to some strong arguments regarding skepticism (particularly those of Hume) while not completely abandoning hope for some rational/consistent framework for thinking and knowing. I find Hume's arguments about the futility of deduction by inference particularly convincing, but without the ability to deduce things except by logic, I see little strength to the claim that I know facts about the world.

I am, however, not skeptical of my knowledge of my own current thoughts. I claim that such knowledge is in fact absolute, because what it means to be "my thought" includes me having knowledge of it (this is not to say that I deny the existence of unconscious urges or even thoughts, but I don't count them among the thoughts of which I claim knowledge). I also don't find compelling the idea that I could be deceived about the contents of my immediate perceptions. Perhaps those perceptions are manufactured, but "what perceptions are you having right now?" seems to be a question that I can answer with complete veracity (although of course my ability to communicate this answer correctly to others is suspect). Of course, all of this acceptance of certain self-knowledge is rather futile given the untrustworthy character of memory: as soon as I know something about my current perceptions or thoughts, that knowledge is ripped away from me as it becomes simply a memory of such perception or thought, which is naturally untrustworthy.

So given the positions I have accepted, I should by all rights disavow most knowledge, and perhaps even throw myself into a state of intellectual despair. However, like Hume and most people I know, I have a need to function in the world, and so I ignore my skeptical side in most situations that aren't discussions of philosophy. But this simple dual mindset isn't what drives me to call myself an "unresolved skeptic." Rather, I feel that there may in fact be some logical construct built just upon logic and the little knowledge that I have granted myself that can deal with "the world" in a more satisfactory way than to say that it may or may not exist and that we can't know anything about it. Perhaps some move like reliabilism (which, incidentally, I detest) will strike my fancy and I will find a satisfactory framework for working with the world (albeit one that isn't perhaps "the one and only rational outlook"). Because of this feeling, I label myself "unresolved" in the (perhaps false) hope that I may eventually find some framework or construct that helps to resolve the problems of skepticism with the necessities of daily life.

Of course, as an amateur philosopher, I don't have nearly the background in philosophical literature that I should, having only read tiny excerpts from a very small sampling of authors. An undergraduate skepticism course drove most of my current thinking about philosophy, and I may well be missing some important pieces of the debate or viewpoints critical to a deeper understanding of the issue. I welcome any thoughts on this matter or suggestions for further reading (just email me at pmawhorter@gmail.com).