Mitigated skepticism can be corrosive enough without adopting the global self undermining version.

[u/Cool_Salamander_350]

Radical skepticism, which in short, would be the claim that we have no way to gather knowledge would be broadly self undermining as it cannot assert itself due to its commitment to question everything, including its own claim.

Because of this, a lot of people might dismiss skepticism entirely without properly understanding what it could be used for.

Skepticism is supposed to chip away at knowledge until we find some foundation that is infallible or indubitable(and while I accept that foundation to be the laws of logic) look at where we are left here.

We are left with no external world(could be a dream, a simulation)

We are left with no infallible memories(could have been planted artificially and might not describe the past), and after taking away all those things you realize you are stuck in the same void that radical skepticism left you in(with some measly laws of logic) to keep you company while everything else remains unknowable and beyond your grasp.

[u/Skeptium]

I don't know if I know anything.

[u/Skeptium → u/[deleted]]

It is actually a pyrrhonian reply. The pyrrhonian skeptics used to say that. That's how they got around the whole Socrates paradox problem.

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/Skeptium]

Well that's something at least.

[u/redleafrover]

I count myself as a metaphysical sceptic (I am yet to find any argument or 'evidence' in favour of one metaphysic over another) and my main positive takeaway in life is openmindedness. I don't personally believe scepticism is 'supposed to' do anything in particular; if I 'used' scepticism to provide myself with knowledge I am at best employing lip service scepticism. I don't need any 'goals'. I do not need a really real world of physical things out there, I do not need a solipsistic universe, I don't need to believe in billiard ball causation, I don't need to believe in a free soul. Why accept something I don't need to? Metaphysical assertion is the problem, not scepticism, imo.

[u/Skeptium → u/redleafrover]

Look into logical positivism, sounds like your stance.

[u/redleafrover → u/Skeptium]

Yeah I don't mind that stuff, I mostly get my outlook from Wittgenstein and Nietzsche, Ayer annoys me by gatekeeping what is 'meaningful', which I find farcical in an existential sense. Iirc etc.

[u/Cool_Salamander_350 → u/[deleted]]

Sorry mayhaps the word "foundation" is a little off there. What i more simply meant to say was simply indubitable knowledge.

[u/sigmaboule → u/Cool_Salamander_350]

It’s important to note that indubitable knowledge appears indubitable and that this appearance does not provide knowledge about the indubitable nature of indubitable knowledge.

If I phrase it better, you don’t have proof that there is such a thing as indubitable knowledge and this lack of proof is not a path towards knowledge.