weirdway

An Argument for Epistemological Skepticism

The most straightforward and common definition of knowledge offered by convention is that knowledge is justified, true belief.

First, knowledge cannot be true or false when there is no objective world to which your subjective beliefs might correspond. If you believe the sky is blue, you are not right or wrong, because there is no actual sky that is either blue or not-blue. There are only your experiences, memories, expectations, and structuring beliefs.

Second, knowledge cannot be ultimately justified. For a belief to be justified, it must be justified by other beliefs. So, the justifying beliefs for (C) “Socrates was mortal” are: (P1) “Socrates was a human” and (P2) “All humans are mortal”. But this justification is only contextual, presently. It assumes that P1 and P2 are already accepted as true. But, for C to be ultimately justified, we need to justify P1 and P2 as well.

Further, whatever beliefs justify P1 and P2 themselves would need to be justified in order to ultimately justify C, ad infinitum. If knowledge requires an infinite chain of justification, then there are no beliefs that have ever been ultimately justified.

Thus, knowledge, as conventionally understood, is impossible.

Maintaining rationality in context of illusion

Instead of being ultimate, it's obvious that justification is only and ever contextual. It's a way of demonstrating what beliefs make sense in context of certain assumed beliefs. It's important to note that you are free to believe things that conflict with your other beliefs. Contemplating your own belief-system and refining it is not mandatory. Rationality is a choice. The less self-critical you are, the more conflict will exist between your beliefs (and the less stable of a realm you will be able to manifest). The more self-critical you are, the more coherent your beliefs will be (and the more stable your manifested realm will be).

Coherency is the standard of rationality, not truth or ultimate justification. Completely opposing worldviews can both be 100% internally coherent and therefore 100% rational. This is because your primary beliefs are not, and cannot, themselves be justified by other beliefs.

Infinite opposing beliefs, which are themselves unjustifiable, stand before you in the realm of potentiality. You may assume any belief, and, as long as you assume it, you will start to structure your mind according to that belief. If you maintain that belief for an extended time, then your memories, experiences, and expectations will shift until your reality completely coheres with that belief. This is the nature of illusion.

Rationality is possible, even when your beliefs are only rooted in potentiality (that is, are hypothetical and illusory).

Manifestation: Contemplating the hypothetical

I want to explore the nature of this assumption of belief. When we assume a belief, we are adopting a possible way of structuring the mind. Our belief doesn't become categorically true when we believe it (because nothing is categorically true), rather it is a hypothetical model we are focusing on and emphasizing. We may be accustomed to focusing on one particular hypothetical model of reality and possible way of structuring the mind. This accustomation, or habit, is what makes it seem effortful or difficult to focus on a new belief system - to magically change the nature of reality. We're fixated on one particular hypothesis – one particular state of mind.

Generally, when we contemplate abstract ideas, we do so with a level of non-commitment. So, I might contemplate what it would be like to believe in the Christian god, or what it would be like to believe in fairies, but I usually maintain a certain sort of personal distance from that contemplation. However, what happens when we contemplate with a level of commitment?

I could select one abstract belief and focus on what it is like to believe it – say, Christianity. As time moves on, I would become skilled and accustomed to focusing on this new belief. This would give me the opportunity to explore the realm of possible beliefs within this primary belief. So, then I could contemplate what it would be like to believe in an immanent rapture v. believing Christ won't return for thousands of years. I could further commit to contemplating one of these beliefs and gradually get more and more specific and concrete. Eventually, I could reach a point where I was contemplating what it would be like to experience a world as a Christian believing in an immanent rapture, who wants to start a Christian family, who has a male body and lives in America...etc. At that point, I could be vividly imagining the life of such a being from their POV and having concrete experiences of their life. The focus of my contemplation could become how to succeed in living that kind of life. Questions like “how do I get a good career?” or “how do I impress pretty Christian girls?” might be what I spend most of my time thinking about.

In such a state of focus, I might forget that all of my most abstract beliefs about that imaginary world are hypothetical. The more I focus on the details of living that life, the less I will focus on the hypothetical nature of that life. As I become emotionally invested in my imaginary world, I might begin to fear losing my hypothetical job or upsetting my hypothetical wife or the death of my hypothetical body.

This state of focus on the concrete details of a hypothetical life is exactly the situation you are in now. This is the hypothetical nature of the world. This is synonymous with the idea that everything is a dream. Becoming lucid in the waking dream is the same as becoming aware of the hypothetical beliefs you've assumed and becoming aware of your fundamental nature as a being that contemplates hypothetical realities, and learning to use that knowledge.

Reality is a contemplation of the hypothetical.