Is everything a gamble?

Question

Is every position in philosophy ultimately a bet or a gamble?

Given Munchhausen’s trilemma there is no way to absolutely justify anything. As stated, he thought these were the three ways to prove something:

The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition presupposes the truth of that very proposition

The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum

The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended

And none of them seems to satisfy us. And given the nature of subjective probability, there seems to be no way to even partially justify anything. The very concept of partial justification cannot be justified. Even skepticism itself, arguably, cannot be justified!

So we’re left with positions that can never be justified (including possibly the position that nothing can be justified so don’t call this self contradictory).

If so, is everything ultimately a gamble? Sure, certain gambles I feel more sure of such as the sun rising tomorrow vs. there not being a god. But how can I justify the difference in certainty among these beliefs without resorting to further axioms that must themselves have their own level of subjective assuredness that would need to be justified?

I cannot help but think that in the cases where we think things are completely justified, it is often and purely because the instinct that we feel is shared by many and just “seems” more obvious. When it is not shared by many, we consider it more debatable. It seems like nothing more than a feeling.

Answer 1

To start, the word gamble usually implies putting something at risk in the hope of an uncertain outcome, so it is a stretch to refer to any kind of uncertain belief as a gamble. If you label all of philosophy as a gamble, then by the same token so is the rest of life, and you have simply made the label less useful by stretching it out of shape.

Uncertainty pervades life. Humans have evolved to cope with it. Your primitive ancestors survived because they were able to make judgements about whether this part of the swamp was safer to cross than that part, and so on. When you refer to your assessments of certainty as 'a feeling', you are probably correct, in the sense that your unconscious mind plays a major role. In practice, unless you are an actuary, most of the assessment you make about probabilities are entirely unconscious.

Answer 2

I would disagree that there's "no way to even partially justify anything", because most philosophical arguments ultimately appeal to our experience of the world. This cannot provide certainty, as Hume and others have pointed out, but it provides convincing "partial" evidence. The prediction that the Sun will rise tomorrow has a great deal of empirical evidence in its favor, and so while one may not be able to call it "certain" it is nevertheless probable enough that one can reasonably act as though it is likely.