Many thinkers offer great philosophies and explanations for various challenges that come along.
Here is a simple tip for assessing thought options that are brought to you.
The first step you must follow is this: determine if the train of thought has logical consistency or if it is full of self-contradictions.
There are several tactics to achieve this goal. I would venture to guess that most folks that are offering explanations and rules for thought have yet to consider if their own arguments hold sway against the skepticism they hold towards others.
An example would be this: "Do not trust your mind", or "you cannot trust your thoughts".. These sound all well and good, but fail to pass the test they have given. Meaning, they have used their minds, and thoughts to arrive at these conclusions and want you to trust them. Its is fundamentally flawed.
Or this: There is no absolute truth
or: you cannot trust reason
The fallacy of these arguments should be quite evident.
Yet the same inconsistencies arise in most thought explanations, especially those skeptical of others ideas and doubtful of any type of concrete and absolute answers.
These most often are rife with self-contradiction and error primarily because the rules they use to exclude other explanations from being able to arrive at truthful conclusions almost always end up excluding themselves as well.
Most of these thinkers are subtle and smooth operators but cannot withstand the assault of their own skepticism. In essence they have committed intellectual suicide because they reject the very ground on which they claim to stand.
And for the most part, the thought has not even crossed their mind because they are so convinced of their own opinions.
This is true of so many veins of thought: athiesm (it is philosophically impossible to affirm a negative in the absolute) Post-modernism: A great meta-narrative, that doubts that meta-narratives can help us arrive at truth. Logical Positivism: Ayers has a eloquent definition of what constitutes "meaningful" yet fails to realize his definition of what it takes for a statement to be meaningful fails his own test!
I could go on. But know this: if you propose rules for thinking and are skeptical of others explanations--you had better examine your own criteria and see if your own ideas qualify!
Do not let anyone to say "it is impossible to arrive at truth" because they have just proposed a truth at which they think they have arrived!
Be skeptical, but only to a point, skepticism can be helpful but dangerous.
The purpose of an open mind is to clamp down upon something solid, there is no virtue in remaining open forever but many have come to value an open mind as an end itself. The end is to find an answer, the means is an open mind. Dont confuse the end with the means!
By the way, this is not a professional post, or something I have even proof read just stuff that comes across my mind and I want to get written.
