DOCSLIB.ORG

Global Skepticism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Global Skepticism Global Skepticism We have looked at several arguments for external world skepticism—the view that we cannot know anything about the external, mind-independent world. Here, we will look at two arguments for global skepticism—the view that we cannot know ANYTHING AT ALL! [Note that some form of these actually date at least back to Sextus Empiricus (~200 AD), who attributes them to Pyrrho of Ellis (~300 BC).] 1. Infinite Regress: (Excellent video here.) Imagine that my friend tells me, “Chad, I know your future. You will die tomorrow.” I will definitely ask, how? How do you know that? What reason do you have for believing this? But, imagine that they reply, “No reason. I just started talking and that’s what came out.” I would definitely conclude that they did NOT actually know that I was going to die, right? (and probably also that they are not a very good friend) But, what if, instead, they DID supply a reason? “How do I know that you will die? Because I know that an anvil is going to fall on your head at noon.” Still, I will press: How do you know THAT? NOW what is your reason? “No reason,” they reply. “I just said that bit about the anvil on a whim.” Again, I will conclude that they did not really know that I was going to die. But, even if they DO supply a reason, if they do not have any reason for believing in THAT piece of the evidence, I will still conclude that they did not have knowledge; and so on. In short, it seems like, in order to have knowledge, there will need to be an infinite regress of reasons! But, an infinite regress of reasons is impossible. Therefore, if justification requires this sort of structure, then knowledge is impossible. Logically, there are two other possible structures that justification could have, which do NOT involve an infinite regress: Circular reasoning: For instance, imagine that my friend says: (1) “I know that you will die tomorrow at noon.” How do you know? (2) “Because an anvil will fall on you.” How do you know? (3) “Because you will be walking right underneath it at noon, right when the rope snaps.” How do you know? (1) “Because that’s when you will die tomorrow, at noon.” And so on. 1 Here, my friend is reasoning in a tight circle. But, you can surely see that they still have not supplied any real justification for their belief! Claim (1), which needs to be justified, ends up serving as its own justification! Some other examples of circular reasoning: One link: A because A … I like pizza. Why? Because I like it. … Two links: A because B because A … I need to eat. Why? Because I’m hungry. Why? Because I need to eat. … The original example above had three links: A because B because C because A … As you can probably guess, adding more links in the circle will not help. A statement can never serve as evidence for ITSELF no matter HOW many steps we add in between. In short, circular reasoning cannot give rise to knowledge. Foundationalism: Perhaps my friend could eventually arrive at some bedrock assertion which is NOT supported by a further reason, or evidence, but is somehow still justified? But, it is difficult to see how this could be—because, ultimately, our exchange will have to be something like: But, why do you believe THAT? “No reason. It’s just one of those bedrock beliefs that don’t need reasons.” And that could never be satisfying. (Right?) Self-Evident Truths: But, many philosophers believe that there ARE some truths like this. We call them ‘self-evident’ truths. They don’t NEED justification since it’s just OBVIOUS to us that they’re true. For instance, <I exist> or <Everything is identical to itself>. Problem: But, how do we know when a proposition is self-evident? When it really really SEEMS true? But, it really really SEEMS true that there are external objects—and, if we’ve learned anything in this course it is that surely this is a claim that DOES need further justification! Furthermore, lots of claims have seemed self-evident in the past, but are now rejected; e.g., ‘All events must have a cause’ (which many physicists will say is false—the Big Bang is a counter-example, for instance). In short, we need some justification for thinking that a proposition is self-evident. We will need to be able to identify some feature that it has, which other propositions lack. But, then, the identification of that feature will itself be our REASON for believing it—so, by definition, it will not be a foundational truth. In short, foundational justification (like infinite and circular) just seems impossible. In sum, since our beliefs are neither justified by an infinite chain, a finite chain, or a circle (the only three possibilities), none of our beliefs are ever justified at all! 2 2. The Problem of the Criterion: Huemer tells us to imagine that you have a magic 8- ball. You ask it questions. Does 2+2=4? “Definitely,” it says. Will the sun rise tomorrow. “It’s extremely likely,” says the 8-ball. Imagine that all of your beliefs are formed in this way. (For an even simpler version, imagine flipping a coin to answer yes or no questions.) Do you KNOW that 2+2=4? Have you formed KNOWLEDGE? Seemingly not. Why not? Because the process by which you formed these beliefs does not seem to be of the right sort. Imagine that someone raises doubts about your belief-forming process. “No, it’s totally reliable!” you say. “Look: I’ll ask the 8-ball. Are you reliable?” …“Absolutely,” it says. For obvious reasons, this is not conclusive. You cannot consult the 8-ball to see whether the 8-ball is reliable! But, now consider how YOU form beliefs. You use your faculties of reasoning to form beliefs. But, how do you know that you are justified in accepting the beliefs that are produced by this faculty? To answer that, you must consult your faculty of reasoning! This is ‘The Problem of the Criterion’: The Problem of the Criterion: How do we determine when we have knowledge (or justification), and when we do not? What are the criteria for determining this? In order to for a belief to be justified, you must have good evidence that the faculty by which this belief was formed is reliable. As Huemer puts it, “I am justified in accepting a belief by method M only if I first know that M is reliable.” But, in order to do that, you would need to already know INDEPENDENTLY which beliefs are true and which beliefs are false; i.e., you would need to COMPARE the verdicts produced by your cognitive faculty with the TRUTH. If our comparison shows that the faculty produces ALL (or nearly all) true beliefs, then we will be justified in deeming it reliable, and trusting its verdicts. But, to do this, we would have to use exactly the same faculty! Contrast this with the 8-ball method, where you easily judge it to be a bad method, because you have used a DIFFERENT faculty—namely, your faculty of reasoning—to see that the 8-ball will very frequently give the wrong answers. But, you can’t step outside of your faculty of reasoning to see whether or not your faculty of reasoning frequently gives the wrong answers. (Or, if you DO have some other, independent faculty, we could only be justified in that IT is reliable if there were still some THIRD, independent faculty to judge it… And so on. We’re off on an infinite regress.) In short, none of our beliefs can ever be justified because I have no way to determine whether the process or mechanism which produces them is reliable. 3 3. Skepticism is Self-Defeating: Both of the above arguments claim to support the conclusion that NO belief is EVER justified—not a single one of them! But, then, the skeptic is committed to the conclusion that no one can ever be justified in believing: Skepticism is true. If NO beliefs are EVER justified, then this includes belief in the premises or reasons which the skeptic presents on behalf of her position, as well as the belief in skepticism itself. In other words, skepticism is self-defeating! Reply: Socrates is famous for saying, “The only thing I know is that I know nothing.” (In fact, the closest he comes to saying this is this: “I do not think I know what I do not know.” Apology, 21d) That would be a dumb thing to say. “I know that I know nothing” is a logically contradictory statement. But, that’s not what the skeptic is claiming. We’re just saying something closer to what Socrates ACTUALLY said. Something like: “I do not know a single thing.” Rebuttal: The charge that skepticism is self-defeating is not the claim that it asserts a logical contradiction. Rather, the charge is that belief in it could never be JUSTIFIED! Reply: But, the skeptic can play the game of reasoning—after all, YOU the reader understand all of the skeptic’s premises. We can force YOU toward the conclusion of skepticism and then, having climbed the ladder, “kick the ladder away” so to speak. Rebuttal: You can’t appeal to the READER’S understanding of the premises or their justification, or your own PAST SELF’s understanding.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hegel's Critique of Ancient Skepticism
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Philosophy Theses Department of Philosophy Summer 8-1-2012 Hegel's Critique of Ancient Skepticism John Wood Georgia State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses Recommended Citation Wood, John, "Hegel's Critique of Ancient Skepticism." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2012. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses/113 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Philosophy at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HEGEL’S CRITIQUE OF ANCIENT SKEPTICISM by JAY WOOD Under the Direction of Dr. Sebastian Rand ABSTRACT Recent work on the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel has emphasized his interest in skeptical concerns. These contemporary scholars argue that, despite common opinions to the contrary, Hegel actually had a very keen interest in skepticism, one that informed and motivated much of his overall project. While I welcome this recent literature, I argue here that contemporary scholars have overemphasized the importance of skepticism for Hegel. By looking closely at Hegel’s arguments against skepticism in the Phenomenology of Spirit, I argue that Hegel’s anti-skeptical arguments are in fact major failures. Hegel’s failure is at odds with the emphasis that contemporary literature places on Hegel’s interests in skepticism. For a philosopher who was supposedly centrally concerned with skeptical issues, Hegel sure does not act like it. I conclude that the tension here is the result of contemporary scholars’ overemphasis of the role that skepticism plays in Hegel’s project.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of the Criterion
    Chapter 5 The Problem of the Criterion i "The problem of the criterion" seems to me to be one of the most important and one of the most difficult of all the problems of phi- losophy. I am tempted to say that one has not begun to philosophize until one has faced this problem and has recognized how unappealing, in the end, each of the possible solutions is. I have chosen this problem as my topic for the Aquinas Lecture because what first set me to thinking about it (and I remain obsessed by it) were two treatises of twentieth century scholastic philosophy. I refer first to P. Coffey's two-volume work, Epistemology or the Theory of Knowledge, pub- lished in 1917.1 This led me in turn to the treatises of Coffey's great teacher, Cardinal D. J. Merrier: Criteriologie generale ou theorie gen- erate de la certitude.2 Mercier and, following him, Coffey set the problem correctly, I think, and have seen what is necessary for its solution. But I shall not discuss their views in detail. I shall formulate the problem; then note what, according to Mercier, is necessary if we are to solve the prob- lem; then sketch my own solution; and, finally, note the limitations of my approach to the problem. What is the problem, then? It is the ancient problem of "the dial- lelus"—the problem of "the wheel" or "the vicious circle." It was 61 62 • PROBLEM OF THE CRITERION put very neatly by Montaigne in his Essays. So let us being by para- paraphrasing his formulation of the puzzle.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy. Volume 31, Winter 2006
    LIVING IN DOUBT: CARNEADES’ PITHANON RECONSIDERED SUZANNE OBDRZALEK I though the interpretation of ancient texts is inevitably di¶cult, Carneades presents what one might call a worst-case scenario. In the first place, he wrote nothing. To complicate matters, Carneades’ views were so obscure that his faithful disciple Clitomachus con- fessed that he could never figure out what Carneades actually be- lieved (Cic. Acad. 2. 139). Showing remarkable fortitude in the face of such an obstacle, Clitomachus, attempting to play Plato to Carneades’ Socrates, reportedly recorded Carneades’ teachings in 400 books (D.L. 4. 67). Not one remains. None the less, Clito- machus’ attempt to make a philosophy of Carneades’ anti-theoreti- cal stance was not a complete failure; Carneades had a tremendous influence on the later Academy as well as the Stoa, and his views (or lack thereof) have been handed down to us by both Sextus Em- piricus and Cicero. These sources are, however, problematic. As a Pyrrhonist, Sextus was critical of the Academy and may have ex- aggerated what he took to be Carneades’ dogmatism. Cicero, on the other hand, a student of Philo, was undoubtedly influenced in his interpretation of Carneades by his teacher’s dogmatic scepti- cism. Carneades is perhaps best known for proposing the pithan»e phantasia (probable impression) as a criterion for life. However, the status of his theory of the pithanon (probable) is completely unclear.1 Was it merely a dialectical move against the Stoic charge of apraxia (inaction)? Was it a theory that Carneades himself en- ã Suzanne Obdrzalek 2006 I would like to thank Alan Code, Tony Long, Julius Moravcsik, and David Sedley for their comments on this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Against the Logicians Edited by Richard Bett Frontmatter More Information
    Cambridge University Press 0521531950 - Sextus Empiricus: Against the Logicians Edited by Richard Bett Frontmatter More information CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY SEXTUS EMPIRICUS Against the Logicians © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521531950 - Sextus Empiricus: Against the Logicians Edited by Richard Bett Frontmatter More information CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Series editors KARL AMERIKS Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame DESMOND M. CLARKE Professor of Philosophy at University College Cork The main objective of Cambridge Textsin the History of Philosophy is to expand the range, variety and quality of texts in the history of philosophy which are available in English. The series includes texts by familiar names (such as Descartes and Kant) and also by less well-known authors. Wherever possible, texts are published in complete and unabridged form, and translations are specially commissioned for the series. Each volume contains a critical introduction together with a guide to further reading and any necessary glossaries and textual apparatus. The volumes are designed for student use at undergraduate and postgraduate level and will be of interest not only to students of philosophy, but also to a wider audience of readers in the history of science, the history of theology and the history of ideas. For a list of titles published in the series, please see end of book. © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521531950
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemic Relativism, Scepticism, Pluralism
    Synthese (2017) 194:4687–4703 DOI 10.1007/s11229-016-1041-0 S.I.: OBJECTIVITY IN SCIENCE Epistemic relativism, scepticism, pluralism Martin Kusch1 Received: 5 September 2015 / Accepted: 6 February 2016 / Published online: 23 February 2016 © The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract There are a number of debates that are relevant to questions concerning objectivity in science. One of the eldest, and still one of the most intensely fought, is the debate over epistemic relativism. —All forms of epistemic relativism commit themselves to the view that it is impossible to show in a neutral, non-question-begging, way that one “epistemic system”, that is, one interconnected set of epistemic standards, is epistemically superior to (all) others. I shall call this view “No-metajustification”. No-metajustification is commonly taken to deny the objectivity of standards. In this paper I shall discuss two currently popular attempts to attack “No-metajustification”. The first attempt attacks no-metajustification by challenging a particular strategy of arguing in its defence: this strategy involves the ancient Pyrrhonian “Problem of the Criterion”. The second attempt to refute No-metajustification targets its metaphysi- cal underpinning: to wit, the claim that there are, or could be, several fundamentally different and irreconcilable epistemic systems. I shall call this assumption “Plural- ism”. I shall address three questions with respect to these attempts to refute epistemic relativism by attacking no-metajustification: (i) Can the epistemic relativist rely on the Problem of the Criterion in support of No-metajustification? (ii) Is a combination of Chisholmian “particularism” (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Relativism.Indb
    Richard Schantz, Markus Seidel The Problem of Relativism in the Sociology of (Scientific) Knowledge P h i l o s o p h i s c h e A n a l y s e P h i l o s o p h i c a l A n a l y s i s Herausgegeben von / Edited by Herbert Hochberg • Rafael Hüntelmann • Christian Kanzian Richard Schantz • Erwin Tegtmeier Band 43 / Volume 43 Richard Schantz, Markus Seidel The Problem of Relativism in the Sociology of (Scientific) Knowledge Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. North and South America by Transaction Books Rutgers University Piscataway, NJ 08854-8042 [email protected] United Kingdom, Ireland, Iceland, Turkey, Malta, Portugal by Gazelle Books Services Limited White Cross Mills Hightown LANCASTER, LA1 4XS [email protected] Livraison pour la France et la Belgique: Librairie Philosophique J.Vrin 6, place de la Sorbonne; F-75005 PARIS Tel. +33 (0)1 43 54 03 47; Fax +33 (0)1 43 54 48 18 www.vrin.fr 2011 ontos verlag P.O. Box 15 41, D-63133 Heusenstamm www.ontosverlag.com ISBN 978-3-86838-126-9 2011 No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in retrieval systems or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed
    [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]
  • Sceptical Paths Studies and Texts in Scepticism
    Sceptical Paths Studies and Texts in Scepticism Edited on behalf of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies by Giuseppe Veltri Managing Editor: Yoav Meyrav Editorial Board Heidrun Eichner, Talya Fishman, Racheli Haliva, Henrik Lagerlund, Reimund Leicht, Stephan Schmid, Carsten Wilke, Irene Zwiep Volume 6 Sceptical Paths Enquiry and Doubt from Antiquity to the Present Edited by Giuseppe Veltri, Racheli Haliva, Stephan Schmid, and Emidio Spinelli The series Studies and Texts in Scepticism is published on behalf of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies ISBN 978-3-11-058960-3 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-059104-0 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-059111-8 ISSN 2568-9614 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 Licence. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Control Number: 2019947115 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019 Giuseppe Veltri, Racheli Haliva, Stephan Schmid, Emidio Spinelli, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg, Ms Cod. Levy 115, fol. 158r: Maimonides, More Nevukhim, Beginn von Teil III. Printing & binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com Contents Introduction 1 Carlos Lévy Philo of Alexandria vs. Descartes: An Ignored Jewish
    [Show full text]
  • Spotlight Wordtrade.Com|1202 Raleigh Road 115|Chapel Hill NC 27517| USA|Ph9195425719|Fx9198691643|
    Spotlight Wordtrade.com|1202 Raleigh Road 115|Chapel Hill NC 27517| USA|ph9195425719|fx9198691643|www.wordtrade.com Intercultural Religions Contents Chinese and Buddhist Philosophy in early Twentieth-Century German Thought by Eric S. Nelson [Bloomsbury Academic, Essay: Toward an Intercultural Philosophy: 9781350002555] Concerning a critical intercultural hermeneutics Chinese and Buddhist Philosophy in early Twentieth-Century German Thought by Eric S. Presenting a comprehensive portrayal of the reading of Nelson [Bloomsbury Academic, Chinese and Buddhist philosophy in early twentieth- 9781350002555] century German thought, Chinese and Buddhist Philosophy in early Twentieth-Century German Thought The Suttanipata: An Ancient Collection of the examines the implications of these readings for Buddha’s Discourses Together with Its contemporary issues in comparative and intercultural Commentaries edited and translated by Bhikkhu philosophy. Bodhi [The Teachings of the Buddha, Wisdom Publications, 9781614294290] Through a series of case studies from the late 19th- Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early century and early 20th-century, Eric Nelson focuses on Buddhism in Central Asia by Christopher I. the reception and uses of Confucianism, Daoism, and Beckwith [Princeton University Press, Buddhism in German philosophy, covering figures as 9780691166445] diverse as Buber, Heidegger, and Misch. He argues that the growing intertextuality between traditions cannot be Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks appropriately interpreted through notions of
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of the Criterion1
    The Problem of the Criterion1 Introduction: The problem of the criterion in epistemology raises certain fundamental questions concerning the methods a philosopher ought to use in arriving at both analyses of epistemic concepts and conclusions concerning legitimate principles of reasoning and justification. The answers one gives to these questions are thought to bear directly on the challenge of skepticism. The outcome of battles is often determined by the ground occupied by opposing forces. Interest in the problem of the criterion is often a function of the desire to occupy favorable ground in the battle with the skeptic. Despite the title of this paper, there are, I believe, at least two different problems one might associate with “the criterion.” One is, perhaps, best known through the work of Roderick Chisholm, whose various editions of Theory of Knowledge all devote a chapter to it. As Chisholm develops the problem, it concerns methodological questions concerning how to identify sources of knowledge or justified belief. But there is a closely related question concerning how to identify necessary and sufficient conditions for the application of epistemic concepts like knowledge and justified belief. In the following discussion I’ll distinguish these two methodological issues, and I’ll begin by looking at the question of how one should go about discovering the correct analysis of epistemic concepts. Metaepistemology and the Problem of the Criterion: Metaepistemological questions seek to uncover through philosophical analysis the nature of fundamental epistemic concepts or properties. In metaepistemology, we are interested in getting an account of what knowledge, evidence, justified belief, and so on are.
    [Show full text]
  • A Reliabilist Strategy for Solving the Problem of Induction by Fergus
    A Reliabilist Strategy for Solving the Problem of Induction By Fergus Dale Prien ORCID: 0000-0002-0940-9676 Dissertation Submitted in Total Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Research in Philosophy In the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies At the University of Melbourne Melbourne November 2019 Student Name: Fergus Prien Student Number: 588353 Acknowledgements There are a number of people and institutions that must be thanked for having made it possible for me to undertake this research project, and now complete it. I thank the Australian Government for supporting my research training at the University of Melbourne through the Research Training Program (RTP). I also thank the University of Melbourne and the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies in general for the opportunity to study at a great institution with learned academics who care about both the intellectual formation and general wellbeing of their students. More specifically, I would like to thank my primary supervisor, Howard Sankey, for the great multitude of hours that he has put in to both reviewing the various iterations of this dissertation (many far different from this one) and patiently helping me to think and write more critically. I have certainly grown in my scholarly ability and passion for philosophy under his supervision. I want to thank Brennan McDavid for her contribution to the supervision of my dissertation during her time at the University of Melbourne, as well as Greg Restall for agreeing to be my secondary supervisor quite late in this project. I also want to thank Brian Ellis, James Franklin, Callan Ledsham, Andrew Mullins, Xavier Symons, Brother Reginald Mary Chua, Fernando Jativa, and my fellow graduate philosophy students at the University of Melbourne who attended both or either of my seminar presentations – the feedback that I received from these people at specific points in my research certainly contributed to how I have formulated the thesis that I defend in this dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Hegel's Solution to the Pyrrhonian Dilemma of the Criterion
    CHAPTER 10 Hegel’s Solution to the Pyrrhonian Dilemma of the Criterion 60 INTRODUCTION. Rather recently, problems about epistemic circularity, and more recently, Sextus Empiricus’ ‘Dilemma of the Criterion’ have been receiving thoughtful attention from contemporary epistemologists. Epistemic circularity is in- volved in using a source of belief in the process of assessing or justifying that source of belief; the Dilemma of the Criterion (quoted below, §61) concerns establishing basic criteria of justification in highly disputed domains. Because there are diverse and controversial views on this issue, how can basic criteria of justification be established without infinite regress, vicious circularity, or petitio principii? These problems deserve careful attention; I don’t believe contemporary epistemologists have fully realised how sophisticated a re- sponse Pyrrhonian skepticism requires.1 Roderick Chisholm (1982, 65–6) contends that there are three kinds of response to what he calls the ‘Problem’ of the Criterion’: Particularists believe they have various particular instances of knowledge, on the basis of which they can construct a general account of the nature and criteria of knowledge. Methodists believe they know the nature and criteria of knowledge, and on that basis can distinguish genuine from illegitimate particular instances of knowledge. Skeptics believe that no particular cases of knowledge can be identified without knowing the nature or criteria of knowledge, and that the nature or criteria of knowledge cannot be known without identifying particu- lar cases of genuine knowledge. Chisholm (1982, 75, cf. 67) favours particular- ism, but thinks that any attempt to solve the problem must beg the question.2 1 The main points of Pyrrhonian scepticism are summarised in HER, 11–6.
    [Show full text]