1

SCEPTICISM AND AGNOSTICISM

Philosophy is said to have begun with wonder. Man investigates, speculates, argues
and discusses, and comes to a settled opinion of the nature of things in this wonderful
world. This becomes his philosophy. Man commenced doubting the validity of authority
and dogma no less than that of accepted traditional beliefs. By scepticism is not meant
doubt about or disbelief in some tenet or tenets. It is an attempt to become aware and to
doubt all preconceptions.

Scepticism as a principle followed that all philosophy begins in wonder and doubt. But,
though philosophy may begin in doubt, it should not end in doubt. An acute and sincere
thinker and a great philosopher, Descartes, his philosophy began with doubt but ended
in absolute certainty regarding the nature of reality.

Agnosticism is the idea that we cannot currently know for sure, and other times it is
presented as the argument that it is fundamentally impossible to know with certainty.

Skepticism is a general critical attitude towards all knowledge (though it can, of course,
be used in a more specific sense). It implies a certain level of doubt towards all
propositions and demands a certain standard of proof before something can be
reasonably accepted as a belief.

Example:
Agnostic - it is impossible to prove the existence or nonexistence of imaginary things,
specifically god(s).
Skeptic - No, I won't take your word for it (whatever it is). You'll have to show me some
proof.

EMPIRICISM AND RATIONALISM

Empiricism as a method of philosophy is mainly confined to sense-experience. The laws
of reason, according to empiricism, are copies of and controlled by knowledge which
is a posteriori. No a priori knowledge in the sense of what rationalism contends to be
present in reason is ever possible. Rational concepts are by-products of the experiential
material. The source of knowledge is sense-experience and not mind or reason. The
method of acquiring knowledge is inductive. Ideas are reducible to sensations.
Knowledge cannot be gained by merely finding that the opposite, which is
inconceivable, as rationalism holds, and truth cannot be established by the fact that to
deny it implies, somehow, its reaffirmation. A priori knowledge independent of sense-
 2

experience is inconceivable. There are, therefore, no universal and necessary self-

evident truths that are adumbrated by rationalism. So goes the bold empiricism.

There is a distinct difference between rationalism and empiricism. In fact, they are very
plainly the direct opposite of each other. Rationalism is the belief in innate ideas,
reason, and deduction. Empiricism is the belief in sense perception, induction, and that
there are no innate ideas.

With rationalism, believing in innate ideas means to have ideas before we are born.-for
example, through reincarnation. Plato best explains this through his theory of the forms,
which is the place where everyone goes and attains knowledge before they are taken
back to the visible world. Innate ideas can explain why some people are just naturally
better at some things than other people are- even if they have had the same
experiences.

Believing that reason is the main source of knowledge is another clear distinction of
rationalism. Rationalists believe that the 5 senses only give you opinions, not reasons.
For example, in Descartes wax argument, he explains how a candle has one shape to
begin with- but once the candle is lit, it begins to melt, lose its fragrance, and take on a
completely different shape than it had started with. This argument proves that our
senses can be deceiving and that they should not be trusted.

Deduction is the third characteristic of rationalism, which is to prove something with

certainty rather than reason. For example, Descartes attempted to prove the existence
of God through deductive reasoning in his third meditation. It went something like this: I
have an idea of a perfect substance, but I am not a perfect substance, so there is no
way I could not be the cause of this idea, so there must be some formal reality which is
a perfect substance- like God. Because only perfection can create perfection, and
though it can also create imperfection- nothing that is imperfect can create something
that is perfect.

Unlike rationalists, empiricists believe that sense perception is the main source of
knowledge. John Locke explained this by dividing ideas into 2 parts: 1) simple, and 2)
complex. Simple ideas are based only on perception, like color, size, shape, etc.
Complex ideas are formed when simple ideas are combined.

Another belief of empiricists is that ideas are only acquired through experience, and not
through innate ideas. Empiricists reject the concept of innate knowledge because, for
example, if children had this knowledge, why do they not show it? Like why does a baby
need to learn to walk or talk, why does he or she not have this knowledge at birth? Lock
 3

believed that only with experiences could one form simple ideas, which could then be
combined into complex ideas.

Induction is the final characteristic of empiricists. It is the belief that very few things, if
any, can be proven conclusively. For example, we know of things by using our sense
perception. We know that the color of the chalkboard is green and that the color of the
dry erase board is white, but we cannot without a doubt conclude that those perceptions
agree with the objects themselves. There is no way to conclusively prove that the chalk
board stays green once we leave the room and stop perceiving it. There is no way to
conclusively prove that the chalkboard even exists once we stop perceiving it. George
Berkely would explain this by first proving that God exists, and then by saying that God
is perceiving all objects and that is why they exist even when people stop perceiving
them.

Through his meditations and wax theory, Descartes clearly illustrates that he is a
rationalist.

In his wax theory, Descartes explains how one cannot rely on ones sense perceptions
using the example of a candle. When the candle is in its original state, it has a unique
shape. Once the candle is burned down and melted, it clearly has a completely different
shape as well as many other different characteristics.

In his meditations, Descartes attempts to prove that both himself and God exist. When
proving that he himself exists, he claims that because he is thinking, he exists. Because
thinking requires thought, and in order to have thoughts you must exist. When proving
God exists, Descartes concludes that you cannot think of God without thinking of
existence, and because existence is a relationship and not a characteristic, God must
exist.

THE CRITICAL METHOD OF KANT

The critical or transcendental method of philosophy employed by Kant takes stock of the
arguments of empiricism and rationalism and builds a new system of tremendous
importance in the history of philosophic thought. He points out that, though the material
of our knowledge is supplied by the senses, the universality and the necessity about it
comes from the very nature and constitution of the understanding, which is the knower
of all things in the world. But the world which we thus know through synthetic a
priori knowledge is not the real world, for, it is built by the materials supplied by the
senses, which gain the characters of universality and necessity when they are brought
into shape by the categories provided by the understanding.
 4

The critical method in metaphysics is a scientific method, in that it seeks insight that
goes beyond, and may contradict, the deliverances of common sense. In the broadest
sense, the critical method seeks to determine the bounds of the application of rational
principles to the world. In so doing, it exposes the natural, unavoidable errors of reason
in its pursuit of metaphysical knowledge of the world.

THE DIALECTICAL METHOD OF HEGEL

Kants critical method was taken much further and completed by Hegel in a staggering
system of idealism built by means of what he termed the dialectical method.

This method of Hegel consists in the constructive dialectical process of opposition and
reconciliation. Thesis, antithesis and synthesis are its moments. The existence of the
finite and its assertion of itself as such is the thesis. This thesis naturally evokes the
existence and assertion of the finite that is its opposite. This is its antithesis.

The relation between the thesis and the antithesis implies a reconciliation of these two
in a higher synthesis brought about by the evolving force of the Whole, which
transcends the isolated factors of the existence and the assertion of the thesis and the
antithesis. This reconciliation results in the cooperation of the thesis and the antithesis
and in a blend of the existence and the assertion of the unity of the synthesis. Then this
synthesis itself becomes a thesis to which there is an antithesis. The two again get
unified and transcended in a still higher synthesis. This process of dialectical unification
in higher and higher syntheses continues in various grades, progressively, until the
Absolute is reached, where all contradiction is finally and fully reconciled.

Dialectic is a form of reasoning based upon dialogue of arguments and counter-

arguments, advocating propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses). The
outcome of such a dialectic might be the refutation of a relevant proposition, or of a
synthesis, or a combination of the opposing assertions, or a qualitative improvement of
the dialogue.

Simple presentation of the threefold manner

Problem Reaction Solution

Three-valued logical model of Hegel

Abstract-Negative-Concrete
 5

OTHER METHODS

1. The Socratic method - consists in arguing out the entire anatomy of the subject in
question, in the manner of a dialogue. Applying the prima facie view literally
means, on first sight, so, it is without proof or without further thinking.
No logic proof of moral statedments seems possible, so, people say, one cannot
proof them, so they are not absolute.
2. Platos dialectic method - a scientific method of studying the metaphysical reality
of forms and the good.

3. Pragmatic method - pragmatism asserts that there is no way of discovering

ultimate truths and that it is enough to evaluate statements about the truth if they
can be applied effectively to something to produce useful results
4. The psychological method of Descartes
5. Bergsons intuitional method in biological evolution - Seers entered into the heart
of Reality in intense concentration of mind, in meditation, ecstasy, rapture and
attunement, and proclaimed to the world in their simple language and powerful
style that Nature is, in truth, one. Example: YOGA
6. Spinozas geometrical method - Spinoza applies the geometrical method to
ethics. The Geometrical Method is the style of proof (also called
demonstration) This is in contrast to natural philosophy which is based on
observation, experiment, and speculation, not at all on mathematics.

THE INTEGRAL METHOD

Empiricism, rationalism, transcendentalism and absolutism come to a loving embrace in

the most catholic system of Swami Sivananda. His method combines revelation,
meditation and reason in one. Human knowledge, for Swami Sivananda, is not an exact
representation of reality, nor is the world a mere projection of the human mind. The
world is the objective appearance of the Absolute, thus being ideal, but is also the cause
of the representation of the same in human knowledge, thus being real .