The insignificance of philosophical skepticism

The Cartesian arguments for external world skepticism are usually considered to be significant for at least two reasons: they seem to present genuine paradoxes and that providing an adequate response to these arguments would reveal something epistemically important about knowledge, justification, and/or our epistemic position to the world. Using only premises and reasoning the skeptic accepts, I will show that the most common Cartesian argument for external world skepticism (i.e. the closure-based skeptical argument) leads to a previously unrecognized self-undermining dilemma: it either leads to a reductio ad absurdum, or to avoid this reductio the skeptic must accept that this argument is epistemically idle-it does not provide any support for external world skepticism. Either way, this Cartesian argument cannot legitimately threaten or even call into question our beliefs about the external world. And thus, either way, this Cartesian argument for external world skepticism is not epistemically significant-it is not a genuine paradox and adequately responding to it need not reveal anything epistemically important.