You believe something, but you don't know it. So do you really know anything? Some
believe the answer lies within the arguments of skepticism.
I start by analyzing the argument from perspective. Do you believe that what
you see is what it is? Let's say you and I are sitting on the couch looking at a picture on
the wall. We both have different opinions of what we are looking at. And there's
more to the picture than what we really see. Many factors impel us to have different
opinions. Such as the position from where we are sitting, to personal views and
believes. But in return without hesitation we both believe that the object is on the wall.
A person has no reason to doubt even though they lack evidence. So since we
have different views, how can we be certain who's perspective is right? We now ask is
there even a picture? The naïve realist tells us the way it looks is the way it looks. Yet the
realist answers yes, and the idealist no, the skeptic answers who's perspective is correct?
The skeptic then asks if the picture is there, than what's it like. But can you make a
connection between what something looks like and what it is? The naïve realist maintains
that we cannot make a connection between what something looks like and what it is.
Without giving it much thought you answer with a quick yes. The skeptic would come
back with how do you really know you are where you think you are? And how do you
really know that this is a picture you're looking at? Since these questions leave room to
doubt, then you don't know.
The argument for skepticism also takes a look at hallucination. Hallucination is
defined as a non-true experience. Sometimes we see things that are not really there. Like
perspective there are...