Bipolar Disorder and Scepticism: In three parts

Part I: This post will be heavy on the bipolar perspective and somewhat less on the philosophic side as Scepticism is more of a non-philosophy than anything, more of a refutation of the views of philosophers to that point though a system of doubt had been around since the first day of the first philosopher. Scepticism is an organized doctrine of the doubting perspective. Sceptics maintained that no one perspective is more or less important than another and that knowledge is impossible because our senses that perceive such knowledge could be faulty. Its the "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" ideology. The beliefs of wherever I have been are no better or worse than the beliefs of where I am now so I should respect both equally. To Sceptics, that meant performing the rituals or expected behaviors of wherever they are at the moment whether they believe in those rituals or not. Russell uses the example of genuflecting at church even if you're not a religious person. This idea of subjectivity is very much at the core of modern liberal social ideology that maintains that we should respect all world cultures as equal with none considered superior than the rest and that we should be respectful of such cultures and the people of different identities that comprise these cultures. Modern liberal thought tends to stop short of having a view that one culture is as good as another, however, and is more concerned with valuing all cultures instead of devaluing them which is the Sceptical approach. Knowledge can't be proven so there can't be an individual orthodox belief system of truth therefore nothing to compare it to or judge it on. Russell says it appeals to the everyman (and it does) because it destroys the foundation for intellect and educational achievement, namely knowledge and strips information of any value. In that way, Homer Simpson can be as smart as Albert Einstein on the logic that neither of them knows anything. I must admit that I enjoy this idea because it's an easy ideology; let's not try to learn anything because none of it is worthwhile anyway. I also dislike this idea for the same reason; it's an easy ideology; knowledge can't be gained so why bother? Let's not learn anything. Let's not apply ourselves and try to figure out the world around us or the mysteries of humanity that all humans are (or should) be driven to try to answer. In this way, it's an anti-philosophy whose subjectivity is closer to Sophistry, though the Sophists valued wisdom and knowledge like philosophers. Knowledge is a key area of study for philosophers. Sceptics didn't want anything to do with it.