Knowledge was born a long time ago. It can be traced back to the first civilized people who had a sense of wonder in the world. They began to ask questions that they also worked hard to answer. Some had gone unanswered, so subsequent generations took control and held themselves accountable. Some had raised more questions and so the cycle continued. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Over the years, knowledge has evolved, changed, and is more developed than before. Alongside the development of knowledge, questions about itself grow. In DW Hamlyn's book, The Theory of Knowledge, some fundamental questions about knowledge are asked; first, the nature of knowledge in general and the conditions that must be satisfied by any genuine claim to knowledge; second, the scope of knowledge; and third, the epistemological issues that develop in particular fields and disciplines of knowledge. However, adding fuel to the fact that they have not yet been resolved, an unexpected thought has come to light and presents itself as what we might call philosophical skepticism. This article will approach philosophical skepticism from a different point of view that is not as terrible as we feared it would be. I want to pave the way for recognizing the side of skepticism that is somehow positive. Mainly, I also want to show the ethical aspect involved in practicing skepticism, how to do it in a less complicated way without risking anything. Philosophical skepticism, as defined in the book, raises fundamental doubts about the possibility of knowing anything. I think the way the word “skepticism” has been defined here is a bit excessive, insofar as it hasn't been given the chance to be seen as something good in the first place. The definition stripped the word of its very meaning – to be questioned – as it was firmly and certain that this is the meaning of this word when paired with “philosophical”. Nothing else will matter. This is precisely where an ethical aspect comes into play. Philosophy is about infinite inquiry. For a question to come out of our mind is to gain knowledge about it, to answer the question that we ourselves formulated when we were first unfamiliar with a particular thing. However, if the hold of skepticism is so strong, what is the point of all these questions? How exactly are we supposed to live if we can't be sure of anything? What's the point of living a life? How might we continue to search for answers to the three main questions about knowledge? This philosophical skepticism will make its way every time we give it priority. Instead of knowing more, we will stop because we choose to doubt more. I believe that skepticism is a state of mind that allows the right kind of doubt to flourish and can also be applied to the pursuit of knowledge. There comes a time when this kind of skepticism has done its job, and that's when we should have arrived at the common-sense ideal of "good enough." As far as I'm concerned, it's okay to question things not to the point of doubting if you're really doubting. In this case, if you know something. This is because I am certain it will continue at a much worse level of doubt, which is no longer highly recommended. You may get to the point of targeting the essence of what you are doing all your life, and achieving nothing. Before you even reach that point, you need to have balanced skepticism. Skepticism may be intimately linked to the idea of.