DOCSLIB.ORG

301 Summer Course Description/Syllabus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
301 Summer Course Description/Syllabus Philosophy 302 / Summer 2009 Plato and Aristotle Course Description and Syllabus TA: Carrie Swanson E-mail: [email protected] Office hours: After class or by appointment. Course description: This course will introduce the student to the perceptual theories of Plato and Aristotle. Our core texts will be Plato’s Theaetetus (142a-187a) and Timaeus, and Aristotle’s De Anima. Brief excursions into the perceptual theories of some of the pre-Socratic philosophers (chiefly Empedocles and Democritus) will take place along the way. Among the questions Plato and Aristotle raise and attempt to answer in these texts are the following: What is the nature of perception, conceived as the set of perceptual capacities we call sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell? Is perception a capacity of the soul, of the body, or of both? Perception seems to give us cognitive access to features of the material world. In what sense then does perception differ from other forms of cognition such as knowledge and imagination? Is perception simply a form of knowledge? Or is all knowledge perception? If our capacities for growth, nutrition, and bodily movement are a function of an (embodied) soul, in what sense is the soul also the cause (if it is) of our capacity to perceive? What is the relation of the five sense modalities to their objects of perception? Does perception arise when an object of perception acts on a perceiving subject? Or when a perceiving subject acts on an object of perception? Or are both perceiver and object agents and patients of perception? Why are their only five senses? Why is it that the objects of some perceptual capacities cannot be perceived by others (we cannot see sounds, or smell colours), whereas others can be (we can both see and feel shapes)? Course requirements: There will be six take-home problems (one every week). Each of these home-works will be worth 5 points for a total of 30 points. You must write one research paper, 10 pages in length, on either Plato or Aristotle. (A selection of paper topics will be distributed on the first day of class). This paper is due in class on Wednesday, August 12th (the last day of class). The paper is worth 35 points. There is a final exam, also worth 35 points. The final will be take-home, open book, open notes. It will be distributed to you on the last day of class, and must be returned to me in person by 4 p.m. on Friday, August 14th. Grading: Your grade for the course will be based on the number of total points you earn, assessed according to the following scale: A = 100-91, B+ = 90-81, B = 80-71, C+ = 70- 61, C = 60-51, D = 50-41, F = 40-31. However, if you do not turn in two of the home- works, you will automatically be given an ‘F’. (I will not read your paper, and you will not be permitted to take the final). You will also receive an ‘F’ if you do not complete either the paper or the final. 1 Other course policies: (1) Attendance is required, and roll will be taken. If you miss two sessions, your grade will be lowered by 10 points. If you miss four sessions, you will be automatically failed. If you leave class early or are significantly late to class, you will be counted absent for that session. (2) I expect you to do your best work on your paper, on your home-works, and in your daily presence in class. In particular, I expect you to show up to class on time, prepared to listen to lecture, to take notes, and to participate in class discussion. You may earn up to 10 extra credit points by participating in class. You may either bring up questions of your own, either before or during lecture, answer questions raised by me or your fellow students, or (on occasion) volunteer to do a brief presentation. (3) The home-works will usually be assigned on Mondays. They will be due the following Monday. If you fail to turn in the work on the required day, you may not make up the work. That means that under no circumstances will you be allowed to turn in late homework. There are no exceptions. (4) The paper and exam are due on the dates specified above. If the paper is turned in late it will be marked down 12 points for every 24-hour period after it is due. (That means that a paper that is two hours late will be marked down 12 points, a paper that is 25 hours late will be marked down 24 points). I will not accept late final exams. Exceptions to this policy will be made only in cases of an unforeseeable emergency of your own (e.g. extreme or prolonged illness, or family crisis), and only with your Dean’s written confirmation of the existence of the emergency. Examples of unacceptable excuses therefore include: my printer broke. I had to take my roommate to the hospital. I overslept. My car wouldn’t start. I signed up for too many courses. I had to work. I had to go to a wedding, etc. (5) All completed work must be brought to class. You may not e-mail your course work to me without my express prior approval. I will not read it and I will delete your attachment. Do not under any circumstances put your work in my departmental mailbox. (The only exception to bringing work to class is the take-home final, a hard copy of which I will ask you to turn in to me on the date specified above). (6) All written work, including home-works, must be typed. I will not accept handwritten work. (That means you cannot attempt to turn in a handwritten version and then ask for more time to submit a typed version of your work when I refuse to accept your handwritten version). (7) Papers that are full of typos and grammatical errors will be marked down an entire grade. (8) You may not use as source materials for your papers any secondary literature that is not on the syllabus below. In particular this means you may not ‘research’ 2 Course syllabus: Our core texts will be Plato’s Theaetetus and Timaeus, and Aristotle’s De Anima. The following translations and commentaries are required reading for the course: [1] The Theaetetus of Plato with a translation of Plato’s Theaetetus by M.J. Levett, revised by Myles Burnyeat (Indianapolis/Cambridge: 1990). This edition contains a very useful and thorough introduction to the dialogue by Burnyeat. [On sale at RU bookstore]. [2] Plato: Timaeus, translated, with an introduction by Donald Zeyl. (Indianapolis/Cambridge: 2000). [E-RESERVE]. [3] Aristotle: De Anima. Translated by J.A. Smith. From The Complete works of Aristotle, Jonathan Barnes (ed.), volume one (Princeton:1984). [E-RESERVE]. A selection of paper topics will be provided to you covering a variety of issues in the Theaetetus, Timaeus, and De Anima. Each topic question will come with a (short) list of required readings from the syllabus below. Other items from the syllabus will be suggested (i.e., not required) as background reading in connection with the paper topics. Some items on the rest of the syllabus below will be assigned from time to time for the entire class to read. Still other items are included merely as helpful general background for the course. Books on the syllabus are on regular (i.e., shelf) reserve. Journal articles are either available online, or are on our course e-reserve, as indicated below. 3 General background on the Theaetetus: [4] Barnes, Jonathan, The Presocratic philosophers, revised edition (Routledge: London and New York: 1982) [SHELF RESERVE]. [5] Bostock, David, Plato’s Theaetetus (Oxford: 1988). [SHELF RESERVE]. [6] Burnyeat, M., ‘Idealism in Greek philosophy: what Descartes saw and Berkeley missed’, Philosophical Review 91 (1982), 3-40. [ONLINE]. [7] Campbell, Lewis, The Theaetetus of Plato with a revised text and English notes, 2nd ed. (Oxford: 1883) [SHELF RESERVE]. [8] Cooper, John M., (ed.), Plato: Complete works (Hackett: Indianapolis: 1997) [SHELF RESERVE]. [9] Denyer, Nicholas, Language, thought, and falsehood in ancient Greek philosophy (Routledge: London and New York: 1991). [SHELF RESERVE]. [10] Guthrie, W.K.C., The Sophists (Cambridge: 1971). [SHELF RESERVE]. [11] Harman, Gilbert, ‘Moral relativism defended’, Philosophical Review 84 (1975), 3- 22. [ONLINE]. [12] Kerferd, G.B., The Sophistic movement (Cambridge: 1981). [SHELF RESERVE]. [13] Lorenz, Hendrik, The Brute within: appetitive desire in Plato and Aristotle (Oxford: 2006). [SHELF RESERVE]. [14] White, Nicholas, Plato on Knowledge and Reality (Hackett: Indianapolis: 1976). [SHELF RESERVE]. [15] Williams, B.A.O., ‘The truth in relativism’, reprinted from Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society N.S. 75 (1974/5), in his Moral luck: philosophical papers 1973-1980 (Cambridge: 1981), 132-43. [E-RESERVE]. 4 On Socratic method: [16] Burnyeat, M.F., ‘Examples in epistemology: Socrates, Theaetetus, and G.E. Moore’, Philosophy 52 (1977), 381-96. [E-RESERVE]. [17] ------------------, ‘Socratic Mid-wifery, Platonic inspiration’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 24 (1977), 7-16. [E-RESERVE]. On Protagorean relativism: [18] Cole, A.T., ‘The Apology of Protagoras’, Yale Classical Studies 19 (1966), 101-18. [E-RESERVE]. [19] ------------, ‘The relativism of Protagoras’, Yale Classical Studies 22 (1972) 19-45. [E-RESERVE]. [20] Plato’s Protagoras, translated by S. Lombardo and K. Bell, in [8]. [SHELF RESERVE]. [21] Vlastos, G., Introduction to: Plato’s Protagoras, B. Jowett’s translation extensively revised by Martin Ostwald; edited, with an Introduction by Gregory Vlastos (Indianapolis & New York: 1956).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rethinking Bernard Williams' Criticism of the City-Soul Analogy in Plato's Republic
    The 3rd BESETO Conference of Philosophy Session 14 Rethinking Bernard Williams’ Criticism of the City-Soul Analogy in Plato’s Republic (draft) WU Tianyue Peking University Abstract This essay takes a close look at Bernard Williams’ criticism of the city-soul analogy in Plato’s Republic, which “has dominated the discussion of its subject ever since.” (Myles Burnyeat). I start with reviving Williams’ arguments to elucidate the genuine challenge to Plato’s theory of justice by introducing city-soul analogy. The second part of this essay aims to show that Williams’ critics, such as Jonathan Lear, G.R.F. Ferrari, and Nobert Blössner have not successfully solved the problems Williams brought forth in his article. Finally, I call attention to a neglected aspect of the city-soul analogy, i.e. the predominance of reason in Plato’s theory of justice. By carefully analyzing Plato’s account of justice and briefly addressing the discussion about philosopher-kings in Book V–VII, I argue that Plato actually defines justice as the rule of the reasoning part. With this new definition of justice, the city-soul analogy will be shown philo- sophically accountable within the whole argumentative structure of Republic. It is well known that Republic is not an accurate translation of the ancient Greek word πολιτεία, whose meanings range from “condition and rights of a citizen” to “constitution of a state”1. The Chinese translation Li Xiang Guo, which literally means the ideal state, even goes further to iden- tify Plato’s magnum opus as a utopian writing. However, Plato’s or Socrates’ mythical narrative2 of the ideal city (καλλιπόλις) and its constitution starts rather late in the middle of Book II of Republic.
    [Show full text]
  • MICHAEL FREDE Michael Johannes Frede 1940–2007
    MICHAEL FREDE Michael Johannes Frede 1940–2007 WHEN MICHAEL JOHANNES FREDE died (11 August 2007), by drowning in the Corinthian Gulf at a beach near Itea below Delphi, Greece, the world of ancient philosophy lost the most accomplished philosopher and scholar, and one of the most distinguished and influential teachers, of the generation of specialists in this field internationally who began their careers in the 1960s and 1970s. He was born 31 May 1940, in Kreuzberg, a working-class district of Berlin, the first child of Roman Catholic parents (a second, Stefanie, was born several years later). He was brought up in Germany and educated there through the Ph.D. and beyond, emigrating later, first to the United States in 1971, then to the United Kingdom, where he was Professor of the History of Philosophy at Oxford University and Fellow of Keble College from 1991 until he chose to retire two years before required, in 2005. In 1943, at the age of two, the apartment building where his family lived was reduced to rubble in an Allied bombing attack while his mother had taken him out for a walk in his carriage, so the family had to move, first to Lippstadt in Westphalia and then in the early 1950s to Hamburg, where Frede attended the Sankt Ansgar-Gymnasium, a Jesuit school, studying classics and the classical languages (Abitur 1959). At university, he studied first in Munich (1959–60) then back in Hamburg (1960–2), where he became a student of Günther Patzig; he rejoined Patzig at Göttingen in 1963 to complete his Ph.D., after a momentous year (1962–3) at Oxford, on Patzig’s suggestion and with his assistance, as a visiting research student, working on his dissertation on Plato’s Sophist, in consul- tation with G.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice, and Other Essays in Political Philosophy
    On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice, and Other Essays in Political Philosophy This page intentionally left blank On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice, and Other Essays in Political Philosophy g. a. cohen Edited by Michael Otsuka princeton university press princeton and oxford Copyright © 2011 by Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 6 Oxford Street, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1TW press.princeton.edu All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Cohen, G. A. (Gerald Allan), 1941–2009. On the currency of egalitarian justice, and other essays in political philosophy / G. A. Cohen ; edited by Michael Otsuka. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-691-14870-0 (hardcover : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-691-14871-7 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Equality. 2. Capitalism. 3. Distributive justice. 4. Social justice. 5. Communism. 6. Political science —Philosophy. I. Otsuka, Michael. II. Title. HM821.C645 2011 306.3Ј42—dc22 2010020742 British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available This book has been composed in Sabon Printed on acid-free paper. ' Printed in the United States of America 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 CONTENTS Editor’s Preface vii Acknowledgments xiii Part One: Luck Egalitarianism Chapter One On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice 3 Chapter Two Equality of What? On Welfare, Goods, and Capabilities 44 Afterword to Chapters One and Two 61 Chapter Three Sen on Capability,
    [Show full text]
  • BOUNDLESS SKEPTICISM and the FIVE MODES Allysson Vasconcelos Lima ROCHA
    BOUNDLESS SKEPTICISM AND THE FIVE MODES Allysson Vasconcelos Lima ROCHA ABSTRACT: There is a difference between the tasks of interpreting Sextus Empiricus and contesting his arguments. Usually, one does the latter relying on some version of the former. Though this seems obvious, it is easy to make mistakes in this endeavor. From this point, I draw two basic recommendations which we should follow, lest we take Sextus to hold implausible positions regarding his Five Modes. However, these recommendations lead us to interpret Sextus’ Pyrrhonism as a limited skepticism. In the final section, as I suggest a counter-example to this commitment, I reconsider the notion of infinite (apeiron) in the Five Modes to better explain interpretation and criticism of Sextus’ arguments. KEYWORDS: skepticism, Pyrrhonism, five modes, infinity, apeiron There are two basic ways of approaching Sextus Empiricus’ works. The first features the effort of interpreting Sextus and mining his work for insights. What takes precedence is offering a coherent picture of Sextus’ writings. The second manner of approaching these works is to assume an interpretation of the writings and to either assess the cogency of Sextus’ arguments, or to contest them. One, in short, engages with Sextus for the sake of making an anti-skeptical argument. Sometimes an interchange between these two approaches can take place. Here, I wish to explore this mixed program. My aim is to offer something relevant for both realms of investigation by discussing a possible interchange between interpreting and contesting Sextus’ argumentation. Thus, in the first section, I discuss examples of these two manners of dealing with Sextus’ skeptical arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • An Existentialist Reconstruction of Pyrrhonism
    Journal of Ancient Philosophy Vol. VI 2012 Issue 1 Doubt and Anxiety: An Existentialist Reconstruction of Pyrrhonism Örsan K. Öymen (Bahcesehir University) The aim of this paper is to develop a potential relation between Pyrrhonism and existentialism. This is possible by establishing either an existentialist reconstruction of Pyrrhonism or a Pyrrhonian reconstruction of existentialism. The necessity of unveiling such a relation derives from: (1) the lack of an epistemological sceptical perspective and a normative ethical position within existentialism; (2) the lack of an accurate analysis of the human being within Pyrrhonism. However, the compatibility of the strong aspects inherent in both schools, the sceptical subjectivist arguments and the normative approach to morality inherent in Pyrrhonism and the analysis of the human being in relation to anxiety, potentiality, becoming, alienation, inauthenticity, authenticity and freedom inherent in existentialism, may show us a new way of looking into the universe and human life. The aim of this paper is to present a rather odd and unusual but hopefully original analysis on a potential relation between Pyrrhonism and existentialism. The way to do this is my proposal to establish either an existentialist reconstruction of Pyrrhonism or a Pyrrhonian reconstruction of existentialism. The necessity of unveiling such a relation derives from the lack of an epistemological sceptical perspective and a normative ethical position within existentialism as well as from the lack of an accurate analysis of the human being within Pyrrhonism; and the hope that the compatibility of the strong aspects inherent in both schools may show us a new way of looking into the universe and human life.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Reviews
    International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 3 (2013) 295–307 brill.com/skep Book Reviews New Essays on Ancient Pyrrhonism. Edited by Diego E. Machuca. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2011. Pp. xi + 207. ISBN: 978-90-04-20776-9. The self-proclaimed aim of this volume is to bring together “eight essays on ancient Pyrrhonism which discuss issues not previously examined or reconsider old ones from a different perspective, thus proposing new interpretations and advancing the scholarly study of the Pyrrhonian philosophy” (p. 2). That is a broad ambit. Perhaps too broad. In a footnote in his introduction to the essays (p. 3, n. 7), Diego Machuca distinguishes the present volume from Myles Burnyeat’s and Michael Frede’s 1997 edited collection1 on the grounds that the latter, but not the former, restricts its focus to a specific controversy. It is not clear whether this is to the present volume’s advantage. As things stand we have: one essay which adopts a historico-philological approach; one which is predominantly concerned with literary matters; and six which are uncontroversially exercises in the history of philosophy—three concern epistemological themes, two examine the connection between scepticism and action, and one deals with meta-ethics. Diversity of argu- ment, opinion, and approach are of course virtues for any anthology, but in this instance the reader was left with the impression that the volume would have achieved greater focus and coherence if the essays had been woven around a more clearly defined question or set of questions. Of course that is not to say that there are not interesting and thought-provoking offerings within the volume, as the fol- lowing précis should indicate.
    [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]
  • Against Pyrrhonism
    68 Against Pyrrhonism. AGAINST PYRRHONISM. ROBERTO HORÁCIO DE SÁ PEREIRA. (Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro) E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: This paper has two critical aims. The first is a historical claim. My idea here is to deepen Fine’s recent criticism to what he calls the “standard modern verdict” (200a, 200b; 2003a; 2003b;), that is, the established conviction that ancient skepticism was quite different from the modern one. In this regard, I aim to show that all forms of skepticism (despite their provenance) presuppose (without always assuming explicitly, as in case of Pyrrhonism) an absolute opposition between the way things appear to us ( tò phainómenon ) and the way things really are. That’s what I here call the problem of cognitive access. Rather than questioning the very classical and stoic absolute opposition, Pyrrhonists tacitly assume or presuppose it to suspend his judgment about the real nature of things. The second claim is of systematic nature. My aim is to criticize Frede’s urban Pyrrhonism as a doctrine of its own rather than as plausible reading of Sextus. Frede incurs in Quine’s second dogma, namely, reductionism. If we let outer objects count as things in themselves, then it is absolutely impossible to comprehend how we are to acquire cognition of their reality outside us, since we base this merely on the representation, which is in us. (…) Skeptical idealism thus requires us to take only refuge remaining to us, namely to grasp the ideality of appearances (Kant, 1956, A378 ) 1 – Introduction. According to the “standard modern verdict” (Fine, (2000a, 2000b; 20003a, 20003b) the ancient Pyrrhonean skeptic should not be confused with the different kinds of skepticism of the modern period: Descartes, Berkeley, and Hume, among others (Barnes & Annas, 1985).
    [Show full text]
  • Plato's Charmides As a Political
    Plato’s Charmides as a Political Act: Apologetics and the Promotion of Ideology Gabriel Danzig LATO’S CHARMIDES devotes most of its time to a conver- sation between Socrates and Critias, the infamous leader P of the Thirty. It is named after a subordinate interlocu- tor, Charmides, who also served in a subordinate role in that infamous government. For these reasons alone, it is natural to attribute to Plato some apologetic purpose, even if the dialogue does not, on the surface at least, lend itself easily to such analysis.1 Many scholars simply mention the presence of Critias and Charmides as having some political significance without relating it in any way to the philosophical contents of the dialogue.2 Indeed, it is hard to imagine how the difficulties of conceiving knowledge of knowledge are related to the tyranny 1 Throughout this paper, I use the term apologetic in the Greek rather than the English sense: it refers to efforts to refute and dispel charges of wrong-doing, not to humble requests for forgiveness. 2 C. Kahn, for example, mentions the apologetic element, but does not make more out of the presence of Critias and Charmides than an indication of Plato’s unusual personal interest in the dialogue: “Charmides and the Search for Beneficial Knowledge,” ch.7 of Plato and the Socratic Dialogue (Cambridge 1996) 186–187. See also M. M. McCabe, “Looking inside Charmides’ Cloak: Seeing Oneself and Others in Plato’s Charmides,” in D. Scott (ed.), Maieusis, Essays on Ancient Philosophy in Honour of Myles Burnyeat (Oxford 2007) 1–19, at 1 n.1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Argument from Relatives’
    Created on 19 February 2012 at 14.59 hours page 151 THEARGUMENTFROMRELATIVES TIMOTHYCLARKE . Introduction I Metaphysics Α Aristotle explains why none of the arguments for Platonic Forms is successful: ἔτι δὲ καθ᾿ οὓς τρόπους δείκνυμεν ὅτι ἔστι τὰ εἴδη, κατ᾿ οὐθένα φαίνεται τούτων· ἐξ ἐνίων μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἀνάγκη γίγνεσθαι συλλογισμόν, ἐξ ἐνίων δὲ καὶ οὐχ ὧν οἰόμεθα τούτων εἴδη γίγνεται. κατά τε γὰρ τοὺς λόγους τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ἐπιστημῶν εἴδη ἔσται πάντων ὅσων ἐπιστῆμαι εἰσί, καὶ κατὰ τὸ ἓν ἐπὶ πολλῶν καὶ τῶν ἀπο- φάσεων, κατὰ δὲ τὸ νοεῖν τι φθαρέντος τῶν φθαρτῶν· φάντασμα γάρ τι τούτων ἔστιν. ἔτι δὲ οἱ ἀκριβέστεροι τῶν λόγων οἱ μὲν τῶν πρός τι ποιοῦσιν ἰδέας, ὧν οὔ φαμεν εἶναι καθ᾿ αὑτὸ γένος, οἱ δὲ τὸν τρίτον ἄνθρωπον λέγουσιν. (b–) Further, of the ways in which we prove that the Forms exist, none brings them to light; for from some the conclusion does not necessarily follow, while from others it follows that there are also Forms of things of which we do not think there are Forms. For according to the arguments from the sciences there will be Forms of all things of which there are sciences; and according to the one over many there will also be Forms of negations; and according to the argument from thinking of something when it has per- ished there will be Forms of perishable things, since there is an appearance of these. Further, of the more accurate arguments, some make Forms of relatives, of which we say there is no by-itself kind, while others speak of the third man.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant-Reply-To-Scepticism-Proofs.Pdf
    36388_u12_UNCORR_PRF.3d_265_05-09-08 chapter 12 ................................................................................................................... KANT’S RESPONSE TO SKEPTICISM ................................................................................................................... robert stern Within much contemporary epistemology, Kant’s response to skepticism has come to be epitomized by an appeal to transcendental arguments. This form of argument is said to provide a distinctively Kantian way of dealing with the skeptic, by showing that what the skeptic questions is in fact a condition for her being able to raise that question in the first place, if she is to have language, thoughts, or experiences at all. In this way, it is hoped, the game played by the skeptic can be turned against herself.1 At the same time, however, this appeal to transcendental arguments is also widely felt to show what is wrong with Kant’s response to skepticism: for, it is suggested, such arguments can only be made to work against the background of his transcendental idealism. As we shall see, what this doctrine amounts to is much disputed; but as with any form of idealism, the worry is that it means compromising the very realism and objectivity we want to defend against skepticism in the first place, so that the price for adopting this Kantian strategy appears too high—the cure of using transcendental arguments in conjunction with transcendental idealism is almost as bad as the disease.2 Faced with this difficulty, two kinds of response have been canvassed. On the first, it is accepted that transcendental arguments do require a commitment to the wider philosophical framework of transcendental idealism, but it is claimed that this framework can and should be defended against the suggestion that it is itself ‘‘quasi-skeptical.’’ On the second, transcendental idealism is indeed abandoned as wrongheaded, but it is held that Kant’s transcendental arguments can be made to work without it and so can be isolated from the rest of his philosophical system.
    [Show full text]
  • ANCIENT SCEPTICISM Richard Bett, Johns Hopkins University I the Term
    ANCIENT SCEPTICISM Richard Bett, Johns Hopkins University I The term “scepticism” has meant a number of different things in the history of Western philosophy. In recent times J.L. Mackie referred to the thesis that there are no objective values as a species of moral scepticism1. For this he was taken to task by, among others, Bernard Williams, who maintained that “Scepticism is basically concerned with doubt, and not necessarily with (the denial of) knowledge”2. But this seems to go wrong in two ways. First, Mackie’s use of the term did not appear to have as its focus an issue about knowledge or its absence; his moral scepticism was, as he said, an ontological thesis, and the reason for calling it a form of scepticism appeared to be, roughly, that it was (as he saw it) a rejection of an important and widely shared everyday belief about the status of ethics. (The arguments for the thesis were in part epistemological in character, but the thesis itself was not.) And second, given the variety of usage in the term historically, it is hard to see that there is anything wrong with this3. Still, it is true that, in modern philosophy, the term “scepticism” has more commonly been used in epistemology than in ethics, referring to positions according to which the possibility of knowledge – concerning the existence of the external world, for example, or of other minds – is denied 1 Mackie 1977, chapter 1. 2 Williams 1985, at 204. 3 The OED gives as one (albeit loose) sense of “sceptic” “an unbeliever in Christianity, an infidel”.
    [Show full text]