Do all those who study philosophy have constant fears and doubts because of skeptical ideas and constant uncertainty?

Question

There are many skeptical ideas: solipsism, skepticism of the external world, skepticism about moral doctrines, etc.

Philosophers and all those who study philosophy constantly live in fear that skeptical ideas such as solipsism or the simulation hypothesis may turn out to be true because it is impossible to definitively reject these ideas?

That is, everyone who is related to philosophy has a constant fear of being alone, mistrusting their feelings, fearing that everything could be a lie,there is no way to disprove skeptical ideas etc. ?

Answer 1

This is not a question for philosophy. One would have to do a proper sociological study, which so far as I know haven't been done.

In a general sense I would wager more than likely yes, but not necessarily. A proper philosophical analysis problematizes many of the barriers against a nihilistic worldview. In our contemporary secular climate this seems more so the case. A rigorous breakdown of multiple categories and traditional solutions don't hold water under certain axioms. But fortunately, most people, including philosophers don't problematize in such a way their pillars. Most people maintain a common sense of things or find ways to try to maintain one's starting positions.

From my own personal experience, yes. Most do battle with issues. It seems that philosophy now is more about making questions. In a sense, fortunately, analytic philosophy does not tend to go deep into real foundations, so many can do philosophy without dealing with worldview-destroying skepticism. There is also a trust in science(unwarranted in my view) that it will fulfill what philosophy has not.

This is why I don't recommend doing philosophy. Most people benefit more from not doing philosophy, or only in a casual sense.

Answer 2

People generalize too much.

There are many kinds of scepticism. Almost none of them translate into actual fears or doubts that the lived experiences of the sceptic are somehow not to be trusted. Sceptic philosophers generally do not suffer from schizophrenia or some kind of pathological fears or delusions.

There is a variant of radical scepticism, called Pyrrhonistic scepsis, or Pyrrhonism, going back to Pyrrho of Elis (3d century BCE) and developed in the books of Sextus Empiricus, that is generally totally misunderstood, misrepresented, and overly simplified, even by certain famous modern philosophers. This form of scepsis does have practical relevance and is related to lived experience. It presents itself as a biographical narrative - taking extraordinary care not to make any knowledge claims - where the sceptic reports that while searching for truth, they just were not able to find any convincing arguments for or against any of the knowledge claims that other philosophers tend to make. But yet, while keeping an open mind about any of those issues, they also found the peace of mind that they'd originally hoped to find. Originally they thought that this peace of mind could only be found by discovering some truth they could really believe in, but it turned out (it so happened for them) that by giving up, by keeping an open mind, rather than adhering to some dogma, they found that peace of mind. -- Scepsis here does translate into a way of life (though not a "view" or "philosophical theory" or something like that) and goes hand in hand -- not with doubting everything but with keeping an open mind. Scepsis doesn't mean doubt - but inquiry, staying curious, not stopping with questioning.

When a sceptic then presents sceptical "arguments", those arguments are really challenges to anyone who does have positive opinions, to anyone who does believe they really know this or that. For instance the following argument, from Sextus book Against the Logicians - I've never seen a convincing argument against it:

Those who claim for themselves to judge the truth are bound to possess a criterion of truth. This criterion, then, either is without a judge's approval or has been approved. But if it is without approval, whence comes it that it is trustworthy? For no matter of dispute is to be trusted without judging. And, if it has been approved, that which approves it, in turn, either has been approved or has not been approved, and so on ad infinitum.

Sceptics are usually well aware that a claim like "There is no truth" is self-contradictory. So, they do not make claims like that.

A non-biased, excellent overview and explanation of this form of scepsis - both as way of life and in regards to it's possible importance - can be found in Arne Naes' study Scepticism

In the Chinese classical tradition, in particular in Zhuang-zi, we find a sceptic who is just as radical as Sextus -- and who has a similar level of logical finesse -- but whose sceptical attitude seems to have been more inspired by a basic indeterminancy of language. For instance, consider this passage:

Now, saying is not blowing breath. Saying has something to say. Only, what it says is never fixed. Have we then actually said something? Or have we perhaps never said something? If you consider it different from the twittering of baby birds, is there actually a distinction, or is there no distinction? How is the Way hidden that we have "genuine" and "false"? How does saying conceal so that we have a "right" and a "wrong", "it's the case" versus "it's not the case"? The Way is hidden by shallow accomplishments. Saying hides by it's flourishes and verbiage.

Language has often been seen as something that is uniquely human - but is it so, really? Recently there have been some exciting breakthroughs in decoding the click language of sperm whales So, I'm tempted to take Zhuang-zi's question about the baby birds literally :)

Answer 3

Philosophical studies are very similar to religious studies. They are underpinned by ideological lines, accepted dogmas and misleading conclusions.

Philosophers have to maintain the narrative, praise the founders and be on the good side with the rest of the sect.

Good literature and poetry, on the other hand, are usually free of inherited narrative and not afraid to innovate.

Answer 4

"Philosophers and all those who study philosophy constantly live in fear that skeptical ideas such as solipsism or the simulation hypothesis may turn out to be true because it is impossible to definitively reject these ideas?" If by "definitely reject these ideas" you mean be absolutely certain that they are false, then no, pretty much no philosopher think we can be absolutely certain that these ideas are false. But you should note that mere logical possibility of something is not a reason to believe it's true or plausible. There are a lot of things that are logically possible, your cousin is plotting to murder you, your mother is actually an alien disguised as human using advanced technology, you have an invisible finger on your right hand, China doesn't exist and everything you know about it is fabricated,... You can't be absolutely certain that these things are false. But you can be reasonably certain that they are, using logical inferences and deductions. A rational person believe in theories that are justified by logical inferences and deductions, and not worry about stuff they have no reason to believe in, even if they are logically possible.

Edit: It seems you are having mental health issues. Consulting mental health professional may help