DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Note: This Is a Draft of a Chapter That Should

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Note: This Is a Draft of a Chapter That Should Note: This is a draft of a chapter that should eventually appear in a collection deriving from Symposium Hellenisticum XI (2007), at which Michael Frede so tragically lost his life. The ‘proceedings’ are being edited by Keimpe Algra and Katerina Ierodiakanou and published by CUP. 2. Cause (M IX.195-330) I. Introduction Sextus Empiricus’s primary interest in philosophical arguments is in their psychological effect. As a Pyrrhonist, he regards arguments, at least those pertaining to obscure or non-evident (a)/dhla) matters, not as the means for achieving a (more) adequate philosophical understanding of the matters in question but, rather, as so much argumentative material to be weighed on one side of a balance-scale–against competing arguments on the opposite side–in achieving the psychological equipollence of pro and contra considerations pertaining to a particular issue (i)s os qe/neia). This equipollence is intended to be propaedeutic to suspension of judgment concerning the matter (e)poxh/). When such a procedure is extended to all obscure matters, the ultimate result should be tranquility (a)taraci/a), which is the Pyrrhonian summum bonum. In the first book of the Hypotyposeis or Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Sextus explicitly states that, with respect to the investigation of nature or ‘doing physics” (fus iologi/a) the Pyrrhonist aim is not to establish by reasoning and ‘with firm confidence’ any dogmas but, with respect to every matter transcending the immediate deliverance of the sense (that is, every non-evident or obscure matter), to oppose a conclusion established by argument to a contrary and “equal” conclusion 1 established by argument with an eye toward achieving tranquility (PH I.18). This approach lends itself to a rather quantitative or additive view of arguments–according to which the sum of many rather unimpressive arguments might well ‘count’ just as much as a single rather impressive argument. It can also yield what may appear to the contemporary philosopher to be a not very discriminating attitude on Sextus’s part: any port in a storm, any argument for the sake of constructing a formal antinomy (e)/legxoj). He is also quite willing to produce a jumble-sale of arguments, with such arguments and their underlying assumptions drawn from diverse “dogmatic” sources. At the heart of Pyrrhonian praxis is the assumption that suspension of judgment, rather than ascertaining the truth, is the path to tranquility. In the words of Myles Burnyeat, [t]he great recommendation of Pyrrhonism is that suspension of judgment on all questions as to what is true and false, good and bad, results in tranquility–the tranquility of detachment from striving and ordinary human concerns, of a life lived on after surrendering the hope of finding questions on which happiness depends (Burnyeat 1998, 112). It seems that the Pyrrhonian assumption was that suspension of judgments pertaining even to theoretical issues that seem most removed from mundane practical affairs (such as those involved in physics or the investigation of nature–fus iologi/a) is necessary for the attainment of ‘happiness’ (i.e., tranquility: a)taraci/a). Thus, Burnyeat’s claim about Sextus’s attitude toward suspension of judgment concerning the existence of motion also applies to suspension of judgment concerning the existence of causation: ‘Sextus’ concern is to ensure that the arguments against [causation] are no less, but also no more, effective than the arguments in favour of it’ (Burnyeat 1998, 108). It seems to me that, apart from the commitments involved in Pyrrhonian 2 praxis, Sextus’s arguments will not be seen in quite the way that he sees them. From a different historical and philosophical perspective, those arguments may strike us in a very different way: features of the arguments that perhaps would not have been thought to be of great significance by Sextus catch our attention. This, I submit, is what happens when we examine his discussions of aitia (variously translatable as ‘causes’, ‘reasons’, ‘explanations’). The thesis that I attempt to develop in what follows is a multipartite one. First: Sextus derives rhetorical advantage, when developing his contra case with respect to the existence of aitia, from conceiving of cause and effect in terms of the Stoic category of ‘things that are relatively disposed’ (ta\ pro/j ti/ pw j e)/xonta). As we shall soon see in more detail, this is the genus of what we might call external relations. Second: From Sextus’s perspective, this argument is simply one part of an additive whole the ultimate point of which is to develop a contra case with respect to the existence of causes and effects that is sufficiently strong to match the psychological effect of pro arguments–and, perhaps more importantly, our natural propensity to believe in the existence of causes and effects–and thus to produce equipollence of pro and contra considerations and suspension of judgment with respect to the existence of causes and effects. The ultimate goal, of course, in the case of the application of skeptical praxis to causation—as it is with respect to its application to any other issue–is the summum bonum of tranquility (a)taraci/a). Third: From a different philosophical perspective, e.g., the contemporary one, the core of Sextus’s contra argumentation concerning causation may seem to be not so much a convincing refutation of the existence of the causal relation but, rather, an anticipation of the empiricist reconceptualization of the causal relation that was a part of the anti- metaphysical, Way of Ideas program of classical British empiricists such as John Locke and 3 David Hume. II. The Structure of Sextus’s Discussion of Causation in Hypotyposeis III and Adversus Mathematicos IX Sextus concludes the preceding section of Adversus mathematicos IX, which has dealt with the gods and ‘the divine’ by claiming (M IX.194) that he has reached the point of suspension of judgment ‘with respect to active principles’ (peri\ tw =n dras thri/w n a)rxw =n). It is clear that he thinks of divinities as preeminent instances of active principles causes; and he here announces that he will proceed to show in a ‘more skeptical’ (s keptikw /teron) discussion that the account of both an ‘active cause’ and ‘the passive’ matter are both open to doubt. While it is far from clear to me what he means by ‘more skeptical’ discussion, one possibility is that he intends to emphasize that the following discussion will have wider and deeper skeptical implications concerning causation, in general–not just the sort of active causal principle represented by god or the deities. He begins this discussion at IX.195. However, it is worth noting that parallel to this discussion of aitia in M IX is a much shorter discussion at Hypotyposeis III.17-29. In both places the pro arguments, in favor of the existence of causation, are given much less space than the contra arguments. The obvious explanation for this fact is Sextus’s assumption that we have a much greater propensity to believe (in some sense of ‘believe’) in the existence of aitia (in some sense of ‘aitia’) than we do to deny the existence of ‘causes’ tout court. So less argumentative material is needed on the pro side to achieve the balance of equipollence or i)s os qe/neia with respect to the pro and contra positions concerning the existence of causation. 4 Both the Hypotyposeis and Adversus mathematicos contain an argument that is presented as the final, capstone argument of the relatively brief pro sections in the discussions of causation of the respective works . The argument is dialectical in the sense that it assumes an opponent who denies the existence of aitia and then attempts to refute this opponent’s negative claim by reductio. Crucially, the argument equivocates on two substantive terms often translated as ‘cause’ (or ‘reason’, or ‘explanation’). It employs both the feminine abstract noun ‘ai)ti/a’ and the neuter adjective ‘ai)/tion’ (plural, ‘ai)/tia’) used substantively. Exactly what this linguistic distinction amounts to–indeed, whether it has any semantic force at all–seems to depend on the particular Greek writer and is, in many contexts, not clear.1 In what follows, it seems most natural to translate forms of the noun ‘ai)ti/a’ as ‘reason’ and to translate the substantive neuter ‘(to\) ai)/tion’ as ‘cause’. The argument as it appears at PH III.19 goes as follows: ‘Someone who says that there is no cause (ai)/tion) will be refuted. For if he says this “categorically” 1I am indebted to Malcolm Schofield for urging me to pay close attention to this linguistic distinction. In (Frede 1980), Michael Frede points out that the Stoic Chrysippus is reported by Stobaeus to distinguish the two terms: an ai)/tion is an entity ‘in the world’ (a ‘cause’ in one common modern sense), whereas an ai)ti/a is a logos or account of an ai)/tion. As Frede says, Aristotle does not observe such a distinction in the meaning of the two terms, and Galen explicitly says that he uses the terms interchangeably (223-3). In both the PH 3, 19 and the M 9, 204-205 passages, Sextus seems to be conforming, more or less, to the reported Chrysippean usage. 5 (a(plw =j) and without any reason (a)/neu tino\j ai)ti/aj) , he will not be credible (a)/pis toj e)/s tai). But if [he makes his assertion] for some reason (dia/ tina ai)ti/an), he posits a cause (ai)/tion) while wishing to do away with it, since he has given a reason (ai)ti/an) on account of which there is not any cause (ai)/tion).’ Sextus’s argument is a destructive dilemma, which depends on its proponent’s finding an opponent who is willing ‘dogmatically’ to deny the existence of any aition.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Form Without Matter, Was an Essay in the Philosophy of Perception Written in the Medium of Historiography
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PhilPapers Sympathy in Perception Mark Eli Kalderon i I focused at intervals as the great dome loomed up through the smoke. Glares of many fires and sweeping clouds of smoke kept hiding the shape. Then a wind sprang up. Suddenly, the shining cross, dome and towers stood out like a symbol in the inferno. The scene was unbelievable. In that moment or two I released my shutter. Herbert Mason Contents Preface iii Acknowledgements ix 1 Grasping 1 1.1 The Dawn of Understanding ...................... 1 1.2 Haptic Perception ............................ 4 1.3 The Protagorean Model ......................... 10 1.4 Assimilation ............................... 13 1.5 Shaping .................................. 21 1.6 Active Wax ................................ 27 1.7 A Puzzle ................................. 30 2 Sympathy 37 2.1 Haptic Metaphysics ........................... 37 2.2 The Dependence upon Bodily Awareness ............... 39 2.3 Against Haptic Indirect Realism .................... 44 2.4 Sympathy ................................. 46 2.5 Sensing Limits .............................. 52 2.6 TheStoics ................................ 58 2.7 Plotinus .................................. 61 2.8 The Principle of Haptic Presentation ................. 69 3 Sound 79 3.1 Moving Forward ............................. 79 3.2 The Berkeley–Heidegger Continuum ................. 82 3.3 The Bearers of Audible Qualities .................... 87 3.4 The Extent of the Audible ....................... 91 3.5 TheWaveTheory ............................ 95 3.6 Auditory Perspective .......................... 101 3.7 Phenomenological Objections ..................... 104 i ii CONTENTS 4 Sources 117 4.1 The Heideggerian Alternative ..................... 117 4.2 The Function of Audition ........................ 118 4.3 Sources and the Discrimination of Sound ............... 121 4.4 Sympathy and Auditory Presentation ................. 125 4.5 Listening ................................
    [Show full text]
  • Demystifying the Saint
    DEMYSTIFYING THE SAINT: JAY L. GARFIELDʼS RATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION OF NĀGĀRJUNAʼS MĀDHYAMAKA AS THE EPITOME OF CONTEMPORARY CROSS-CULTURAL PHILOSOPHY TIINA ROSENQVIST Tampereen yliopisto Yhteiskunta- ja kulttuuritieteiden yksikkö Filosofian pro gradu -tutkielma Tammikuu 2011 ABSTRACT Cross-cultural philosophy approaches philosophical problems by setting into dialogue systems and perspectives from across cultures. I use the term more specifically to refer to the current stage in the history of comparative philosophy marked by the ethos of scholarly self-reflection and the production of rational reconstructions of foreign philosophies. These reconstructions lend a new kind of relevance to cross-cultural perspectives in mainstream philosophical discourses. I view Jay L. Garfieldʼs work as an example of this. I examine Garfieldʼs approach in the context of Nāgārjuna scholarship and cross-cultural hermeneutics. By situating it historically and discussing its background and implications, I wish to highlight its distinctive features. Even though Garfield has worked with Buddhist philosophy, I believe he has a lot to offer to the meta-level discussion of cross-cultural philosophy in general. I argue that the clarity of Garfieldʼs vision of the nature and function of cross-cultural philosophy can help alleviate the identity crisis that has plagued the enterprise: Garfield brings it closer to (mainstream) philosophy and helps it stand apart from Indology, Buddhology, area studies philosophy (etc). I side with Garfield in arguing that cross- cultural philosophy not only brings us better understanding of other philosophical traditions, but may enhance our self-understanding as well. I furthermore hold that his employment of Western conceptual frameworks (post-Wittgensteinian language philosophy, skepticism) and theoretical tools (paraconsistent logic, Wittgensteinian epistemology) together with the influence of Buddhist interpretative lineages creates a coherent, cogent, holistic and analytically precise reading of Nāgārjunaʼs Mādhyamaka philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Aenesidemus Upon Fichte and Schopenhauer
    Richard Fincham 97 Pli 10 (2000), 96-126. subject from both object and subject and is referred to both".4 Fichte shows that although this may suffice as the first principle of theoretical knowledge, it cannot be the first principle of all philosophy.s Therefore, for Fichte, principles of theoretical knowledge can only be satisfactorily grounded upon the self qua reflective consciousness of Kantian and Reinholdian transcendental idealism once the existence of such reflective The Impact of Aenesidemus upon Fichte and consciousness is itself grounded upon an absolute foundation. It is of Schopenhauer course in response to this perceived requirement that Fichte constructs a system of transcendental idealism which asserts that the self itself ­ conceived of as primordially an absolute self-reverting activity - should RICHARD FINCHAM be the absolute foundation of all philosophy. This article will show why it is that for Fichte, 'reflective consciousness', which for Kant was the ground of all explanation, becomes conceived of as itself requiring explanation. It will be argued Fichte's reconfiguration of Kantian transcendental idealism is motivated that this is due to an engagement with a sceptical attack upon the by an engagement with two specific 'commentaries' upon it. Firstly, transcendental idealism of Kant and Reinhold named after (and Fichte was clearly convinced by Reinhold's complaint that the Critique's supposedly expounded by) the neo-Pyrrhonean sceptic Aenesidemus, principles can only "become universally binding"l by being grounded [I which was published anonymously in 1792, but was later revealed to be upon a universally valid and indubitable "self-explanatory,,2 foundation, the work of G.
    [Show full text]
  • Kantian Psychologism
    Kantian Psychologism Kantiaans Psychologisme (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de door Peter Sperber Promotor: Prof.dr. P.G. Ziche Copromotor: Dr. D.K.W. van Miert Copyright © 2017 by Peter Sperber All rights reserved Cover art: Rabih Mroué Leap Year´s Diary, 2006-2016 Collage on paper 23 x 16,5 cm, framed Courtesy the artist & Sfeir-Semler Gallery, Hamburg / Beirut ISBN 978-94-028-0665-6 Printed by Ipskamp Printing To my parents, for everything Acknowledgments During the four years in which I wrote the present dissertation, I was very fortunate to have many people in my life who, directly or indirectly, contributed to my research in important ways. To begin, I am incredibly grateful to my supervisor, Paul Ziche. Not only did he hire me four years ago, without which there would not have been a dissertation in the first place, but during these years, Paul also turned out to be the most entrusting and supportive supervisor a doctoral candidate could wish for. Though I probably took the research project in a very different direction than he envisioned when he first wrote the funding proposal, he always made me feel like I had complete freedom in following my own research interests, which was incredibly motivating. Perhaps even more importantly, Paul was never narrowly focused on the research alone, but also encouraged me to develop myself more broadly, both as a scholar and as a person, and provided all the support that I could possibly have hoped for. Finally, it has been a pleasure to work with him academically.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Pyrrhonism As a Sect of Buddhism? a Case Study in the Methodology of Comparative Philosophy
    Comparative Philosophy Volume 9, No. 2 (2018): 1-40 Open Access / ISSN 2151-6014 / www.comparativephilosophy.org https://doi.org/10.31979/2151-6014(2018).090204 EARLY PYRRHONISM AS A SECT OF BUDDHISM? A CASE STUDY IN THE METHODOLOGY OF COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY MONTE RANSOME JOHNSON & BRETT SHULTS ABSTRACT: We offer a sceptical examination of a thesis recently advanced in a monograph published by Princeton University Press entitled Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. In this dense and probing work, Christopher I. Beckwith, a professor of Central Eurasian studies at Indiana University, Bloomington, argues that Pyrrho of Elis adopted a form of early Buddhism during his years in Bactria and Gandhāra, and that early Pyrrhonism must be understood as a sect of early Buddhism. In making his case Beckwith claims that virtually all scholars of Greek, Indian, and Chinese philosophy have been operating under flawed assumptions and with flawed methodologies, and so have failed to notice obvious and undeniable correspondences between the philosophical views of the Buddha and of Pyrrho. In this study we take Beckwith’s proposal and challenge seriously, and we examine his textual basis and techniques of translation, his methods of examining passages, his construal of problems and his reconstruction of arguments. We find that his presuppositions are contentious and doubtful, his own methods are extremely flawed, and that he draws unreasonable conclusions. Although the result of our study is almost entirely negative, we think it illustrates some important general points about the methodology of comparative philosophy. Keywords: adiaphora, anātman, anattā, ataraxia, Buddha, Buddhism, Democritus, Pāli, Pyrrho, Pyrrhonism, Scepticism, trilakṣaṇa 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Pyrrho of Elis and the Pyrrhonian Praxis of Aporetic
    The Influence of Pyrrho of Elis and the Pyrrhonian Praxis of Aporetic Language by © Christopher Craig Dupuis A Thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy Memorial University of Newfoundland May, 2014 St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador 2 Table of Contents Abstract 4 Introduction and Overview 5 Chapter One 1 Pyrrho’s Aporetic Linguistic Praxis 12 1.1 Ataraxia in Epictetus and Epicurus 21 1.2 The Role of Epoche and Ataraxia in Pyrrho 23 1.3 Plato’s Socrates as Pyrrho’s Sage 43 1.4 Pyrrho and Plato’s Phaedo 45 1.5 Pyrrho, the Meno, and The Soul of The Hellenes 48 1.6 Appearances, Customs, and The Soul of the Sceptic 51 1.7 Pyrrho and Plato’s Theaetetus 55 1.8 Chapter One Conclusion 62 Chapter Two 2.1 Introduction: Academic Scepticism 64 2.2 Scepticism up to this Point 65 2.3 Arcesilaus And the Early Academic Sceptics 68 2.4 Carneades And the ‘New’ Academic Sceptics 81 2.5 Connecting with Pyrrho 91 Chapter Three 3.1 Introduction: Later Pyrrhonian Scepticism 95 3.2 Aenesidemus and the Revival of Pyrrhonism 97 3.3 Aenesidemus, Relativity, and Language Practice 107 3.4 Later Pyrrhonism: Sextus Empiricus 112 3.5 Outline of Sextus 118 3.6 Phantasiai 119 3.7 Apprehension 122 3.8 What the Sceptics Do 125 3.9 Ataraxia and Epoche 128 3.10 The Five Ways to Epoche 133 3 3.10.1 The First Trope: Diaphonia 136 3.10.2 The Second Trope: Infinite Regression 138 3.10.3 The Third Trope: Relativity 139 3.10.4 The Fourth
    [Show full text]
  • Agrippan Pyrrhonism and the Challenge of Disagreement
    Journal of Philosophical Research Volume 40 2015 pp. 23–39 AGRIPPAN PYRRHONISM AND THE CHALLENGE OF DISAGREEMENT DIEGO E. MACHUCA CONICET ABSTRACT: This paper argues for the following three claims. First, the Agrippan mode from disagreement does not play a secondary role in inducing suspension of judgment. Second, the Pyrrhonist is not committed to the criteria of justification underlying the Five Modes of Agrippa, which nonetheless does not prevent him from non-doxastically assenting to them. And third, some recent objec- tions to Agrippan Pyrrhonism raised by analytic epistemologists and experimental philosophers fail to appreciate the Pyrrhonist’s ad hominem style of argumentation and the real challenge posed by the mode from disagreement. I. INTRODUCTION The subject of this essay is the set of arguments known as the Five Modes of Agrippa, which are the most powerful weapons of the Pyrrhonian argumentative arsenal found in Sextus Empiricus’s extant works. My purpose is to offer an interpretation both of certain aspects of the challenge posed by these modes and of the Pyrrhonist’s attitude towards them. More precisely, I propose to show: (i) that the mode from disagreement does not play a secondary role in inducing suspension of judgment; (ii) that the Pyrrhonist is not committed to the criteria of justification underlying the Agrippan modes, which nonethe- less does not prevent him from assenting to them in a weak, non-doxastic way; and (iii) that some recent objections to Agrippan Pyrrhonism raised by analytic epistemologists and experimental philosophers fail to appreciate the Pyrrhonist’s ad hominem style of argumentation and the real challenge posed by the mode from disagreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Pyrrhonian Skepticism in Diogenes Laertius
    SAPERE Scripta Antiquitatis Posterioris ad Ethicam REligionemque pertinentia Schriften der späteren Antike zu ethischen und religiösen Fragen Herausgegeben von Rainer Hirsch-Luipold, Reinhard Feldmeier und Heinz-Günther Nesselrath unter der Mitarbeit von Natalia Pedrique und Andrea Villani Band XXV Pyrrhonian Skepticism in Diogenes Laertius Introduction, Text, Translation, Commentary and Interpretative Essays by Katja Maria Vogt, Richard Bett, Lorenzo Corti, Tiziano Dorandi, Christiana M. M. Olfert, Elisabeth Scharffenberger, David Sedley, and James Warren edited by Katja Maria Vogt Mohr Siebeck SAPERE is a Project of the Göttingen Academy of Sciences and Humanities within the programme of the Union of the German Academies funded by the Federal Republic of Germany and the State of Lower Saxony. e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-156430-7 ISBN 978-3-16-153336-5 The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Natio nal- bibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http:// dnb.dnb.de. © 2015 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This ap- plies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and pro- cessing in electronic systems. This book was supervised by Heinz-Günther Nesselrath (representing the SAPERE Editors) and typeset by Magdalena Albrecht, Janjenka Szillat and Andrea Villani at the SAPERE Research Institute, Göttingen. Printed by Gulde Druck in Tübin- gen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany. SAPERE Greek and Latin texts of Later Antiquity (1st–4th centuries AD) have for a long time been overshadowed by those dating back to so-called ‘classi- cal’ times.
    [Show full text]
  • Waiting for Hume PETER LIPTON
    03-KAIL-Chap02.qxd 31/12/04 6:32 PM Page 59 Waiting for Hume PETER LIPTON It was David Hume’s great sceptical argument about non-demonstrative reasoning—the problem of induction—that hooked me on philosophy. I am still wriggling, but in the present essay I will not consider how the Humean challenge to justify our inductive practices might be met; rather, I ask why we had to wait until Hume for the challenge to be raised. The question is a natural one to ask, given the intense interest in scepticism before Hume for as far back as we can see in the history of philosophy, and given that Hume’s sceptical argument is so simple and so fundamental. It is not so easy to answer. I am no historian of philosophy, and given the pull that the problem of induction exerts on my own philosophical thinking, I know there is a considerable risk that the historical speculations I consider here will turn out to be worthlessly anachronistic. But I hope not. Hume’s discussion is deeply attractive for a number of reasons. In part it is the scope of Hume’s scepticism. Our reliance on induction is ubiquitous, and Hume’s argument seems to impugn all of it. But this does not explain why Hume impressed me even more than Descartes, who in his First Meditation questions far more. (I was, however, pretty excited by Descartes too.) The contrast is explained in part by the fact that Hume’s argument is in at least two senses more radical than the sceptical arguments that Descartes offers.
    [Show full text]
  • Descartes' Cogito
    24.01: Classics of Western Philosophy Descartes’ Cogito (Meditation II) 1. The “Archimedean point” “[G]reat things are also to be hoped for if I succeed in finding just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshaken” (63). The meditator’s candidate: “This pronouncement ‘I am, I exist’ [ego sum, ego existo] is necessarily true every time I utter it or conceive it in my mind” (64). Descartes articulated a similar point in his earlier work Discourse on the Method: And observing that this truth ‘ I am thinking, therefore I exist’ [je pense, donc je suis] was so firm and sure that all the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics were incapable of shaking it, I decided that I could accept it without scruple as the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking.1 The most famous formulation of this point comes from Descartes’ Principles of Philosophy: For it is a contradiction to suppose that what thinks does not, at the very time when it is thinking, exist. Accordingly, this piece of knowledge— I am thinking, therefore I exist [cogito, ergo sum]—is the first and most certain of all to occur to anyone who philosophizes in an orderly way.2 2. The special status of cogito-type beliefs or claims Some epistemological concepts:3 i. Indubitable: A person S’s belief that p is indubitable if and only if S cannot doubt p. ii. Self-verifying: If S asserts p, then p is true. Note also self-refuting: If S asserts p, then p is false. Also pragmatic contradiction: presupposing p while also denying p.
    [Show full text]
  • Skepticism As Epistemic Naturalization Dylan Vallance Western University, [email protected]
    Western University Scholarship@Western 2016 Undergraduate Awards The ndeU rgraduate Awards 2016 Skepticism as Epistemic Naturalization Dylan Vallance Western University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/ungradawards_2016 Part of the Epistemology Commons Recommended Citation Vallance, Dylan, "Skepticism as Epistemic Naturalization" (2016). 2016 Undergraduate Awards. 11. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/ungradawards_2016/11 1 Skepticism as Epistemic Naturalization Dylan Vallance "If a road is leading us to a precipice, we do not drive ourselves over the precipice because there is a road leading to it; rather, we leave the road because of the precipice" – Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism In this paper I will argue that the skeptical projects of Pyrrhonism and David Hume share a common target, which they attack using a shared method. That target is a broad theoretical structure that is comprised of three central metaphysical and epistemological points. These are the existence of an external world, the existence of a set of epistemic norms that determine a proposition’s logical relationship to that world, and a definition of truth as the state of a proposition that meets those epistemic norms, points which I will herein refer to collectively as “realism”. These points together form a picture of human knowledge which relies on a “strong” notion of truth in which the veridicality of a proposition is guaranteed or made probable by its meeting a set of epistemic norms in a process which constitutes “justification”. Both Sextus Empiricus and David Hume aim to dispose of all three of these points, and do so by explicitly questioning the conceptual coherence and empirical adequacy of each of them.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Skepticism: Pyrrhonism Diego E
    Philosophy Compass 6/4 (2011): 246–258, 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00391.x Ancient Skepticism: Pyrrhonism Diego E. Machuca* Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientı´ficas y Te´cnicas Abstract Pyrrhonism was one of the two main ancient skeptical traditions. In this second paper of the three-part series devoted to ancient skepticism, I present and discuss some of the issues on Pyrrho- nian skepticism which have been the focus of much attention in the recent literature. The topics to be addressed concern the outlooks of Pyrrho, Aenesidemus, and Sextus Empiricus. In the first paper of this three-part series on ancient skepticism, I offered a general pre- sentation of the ancient skeptical traditions as well as an overview of recent translations and general studies. With this framework in place, the present paper deals with some vexed questions concerning the stances of Pyrrho, Aenesidemus, and Sextus Empiricus. For reasons of space, the discussion will be selective and it will not always be possible to go into detail about the issues tackled. 1. Pyrrho Most recent scholarship on Pyrrho of Elis (360–270 BC) continues to divide between two main interpretations of his outlook, which may be called ‘practical’ and ‘theoretical’. The first interpretation affirms that Pyrrho’s motivation was exclusively or mainly ethi- cal.1 This view finds support in some passages in Diogenes Laertius and particularly in Cicero, who does not refer to Pyrrho as a skeptic, but invariably portrays him as a moral- ist – as someone who considered virtue as the only good and who was admired for his lifestyle (Academica II 130; On Moral Ends III 11–2, IV 43, 49, 60; On Duties I 6).
    [Show full text]