Who can wrestle with this paragraph?!?

Question

"Should we then say we just know that we are awake, or that dogs are sensate creatures? Not I think if we offer that as a response to the sceptic while accepting as exhaustive his division between absence of doubt that is justified and absence of doubt that is a mere psychological phenomenon. In such circumstances to say that we just know there are other minds or that we are awake as self-evident warrant for the fact that we don't doubt these things is, I think, worthless. In the absence of an independent account of the faculty that so marvelously assures us that our certainty is justified, no mere psychological phenomenon, one mays as well, as children sometimes do, stamp our feet to declaim out virtue."

thank you all friends, and Leon (!). I have grasped the meaning in general but i want to know the exact sense in phrases such as "division between...." . What is the difference between justified doubt and doubt as a psychological phenomenon?

Dear dlin. I am just trying to translate this paragraph into a non-English language. This is an old question in philosophy, and I side with you, though we may be true or not. Anyway, lets forget polemic.

Answer 1

I just gave that thing a double suplex, followed by a Boston crab, and got a submission hold and ten count in less than a minute - YEAHHH!!!
Seriously though, to me, this paragraph is basically saying that without some completely objective viewpoint - which by definition would have to come from someone, or something, that is beyond human - it is impossible to state that we really "know" anything, given the fact that we are separated from true reality by both our senses, and our perceptions of those senses. It is a rephrasing of Plato's famous "cave" argument. That's my 2 cents : )

Answer 2

This paragraph is a commentary that is related to the notion that we as individuals are unable to establish with any certainty that existence outside of our consciousness is 'real'. And furthermore, our belief in our own existence is merely a construct of our perceptions. That we inevitably choose to believe in our existence and the reality of the world is primarily a product of our own ego regardless of any outside verification.

[edit] Ah, I understand what you need now. It would be helpful if you would list the particular phrases of which you need clarification in the context.

Answer 3

i agree with quan's and gee's statements of what it is trying to say, though i disagree with the concept
it is saying that to justify a belief, one must have an outside independent account, yet it is also saying its worthless to feel that we are awake, or to believe there are other minds,
who exactly would then be the outside independent source? we would have to believe in other minds in order to accept their views, and even if other minds are real, who is to say they have a better grasp of what is true then we do?

Answer 4

I have it in a headlock and I am going for a suplex. wish me luck!!