Michael Otto was one of the most influential philosophers in the history of philosophy. He was a leading figure in the movement known as Skepticism, and is best known for his work on the subject of epistemology and epistemic justification. He is also known for writing the first detailed account of the nature of the human intellect, which is often referred to as “epistemic humility” and is the subject of our first blog post of this summer.
He is also the author of the infamous Ockham’s Razor of skepticism, which has also been a central part of my philosophy training. Even though much of my skepticism goes against the grain of most people’s beliefs, it’s not the kind of skepticism I’m trying to avoid in the first place. The idea that we should always doubt everything is a rather naive and often-misunderstood idea, so we shouldn’t be too worried by it.
We can debate whether or not there is a “right way” to think about skepticism and epistemic humility. The truth is that we have no right to think about skepticism or epistemic humility with the same certainty we do about the existence of God. We can have the same opinions about God as we do about skepticism and epistemic humility, and we should still be able to agree on what those opinions are. We shouldnt be able to say they are one and the same.
In this context, epistemic humility is just an expression of skepticism and not skepticism itself. There is a difference between skepticism and epistemic humility.
We have no right to think that skepticism and epistemic humility are the same. We do in fact have such a right, but we have to do more than just agree that they are the same. We have to accept that skepticism is the same as epistemic humility. We shouldnt even be doing this if we want to really be able to call ourselves epistemic humble.
So there is a big difference between epistemic humility and skepticism. Skepticism is the view that there is an objective reality, or that the truth is self-evident. Epistemic humility is the view that there is no objective reality, or that there is no objective truth. This is why we have to accept that skepticism is the same as epistemic humility.
What’s really cool is that michael Otto seems to have come out of nowhere with his idea of a time loop. He seems to be the one guy who can actually get the hang of time looping in a way that is not just boring. It might be the beginning of something. Time looping is an idea that has existed for ages but has never been used in a practical context until now.
The Time Loop concept, which can be applied to any kind of time travel, is a somewhat contentious idea. Some of its proponents claim that it shows the possibility of “spontaneous time travel”. The idea is that if you had a computer program running which could send time-travelling messages to your brain, then you could make a time loop.
Time travel is a bit like a time-travelling robot, except you can send messages across time. In this case though, you’re sending messages via the internet. Time looping, as the idea, is the act of sending messages to the future. The problem is that while the idea is fun and has been used commercially, it’s also been used with horrible results.
The problem, as someone who has had a computer program send me messages, is that it has never actually been used, though you can see that happening. A friend of mine who used it to send messages to him for a while says that he sent his message to him, and then went back in time and sent his message to him again, with no idea what he was talking about.