Problematic Reflection on Awareness of Scepsis` Nature: Sextus Empiricus and Kant

Q3 Arts and Humanities Sententiae Pub Date : 2023-12-30 DOI:10.31649/sent03.01.058
Sergii Kiriienko
{"title":"Problematic Reflection on Awareness of Scepsis` Nature: Sextus Empiricus and Kant","authors":"Sergii Kiriienko","doi":"10.31649/sent03.01.058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The author`s aim is to prove, that scepsis in aspects of scepticism can be compared in wider perspective with other philosophical movements. Because Sextus Empiricus says about sceptical abiloty in general, then he says about its transcendental dimension. Hence we can speak about scepsis as such. Fundamentality of sceptical ability allows it to stay the same in thinking of Sextus Empiricus, Kant, Descartes, Plato. Scepsis differs from scepticism as general from local. Scepsis arguments, in contrast with scepticism arguments, are universal, hence actual for philosophers of any movement or time. Therefore sceptics lack prioritized acces to scepsis. Sceptics can be called victims of scepsis, because scepsis has to be considered regardless of scepticism. Sceptical way of thinking is included in Kant`s thought adequately, in its prior form, nonetheless it does not lead to scepticism. Hence, Sextus Empiricus is not writing everything real about himself: his words do represent essence of scepsis. Kant has won.","PeriodicalId":37673,"journal":{"name":"Sententiae","volume":" 29","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sententiae","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31649/sent03.01.058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The author`s aim is to prove, that scepsis in aspects of scepticism can be compared in wider perspective with other philosophical movements. Because Sextus Empiricus says about sceptical abiloty in general, then he says about its transcendental dimension. Hence we can speak about scepsis as such. Fundamentality of sceptical ability allows it to stay the same in thinking of Sextus Empiricus, Kant, Descartes, Plato. Scepsis differs from scepticism as general from local. Scepsis arguments, in contrast with scepticism arguments, are universal, hence actual for philosophers of any movement or time. Therefore sceptics lack prioritized acces to scepsis. Sceptics can be called victims of scepsis, because scepsis has to be considered regardless of scepticism. Sceptical way of thinking is included in Kant`s thought adequately, in its prior form, nonetheless it does not lead to scepticism. Hence, Sextus Empiricus is not writing everything real about himself: his words do represent essence of scepsis. Kant has won.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对 Scepsis 本质认识的问题反思:塞克斯图斯-恩比里克斯与康德
作者的目的是要证明,怀疑论的某些方面可以从更广阔的视角与其他哲学运动进行比较。因为塞克斯图斯-恩比里克斯在谈到一般的怀疑论时,也谈到了它的超越性。因此,我们可以这样谈论怀疑论。怀疑能力的基本性使它在塞克斯图斯-恩比里克斯、康德、笛卡尔、柏拉图的思维中保持不变。Scepsis 不同于怀疑论,就像一般的怀疑论不同于局部的怀疑论一样。与怀疑论的论据相比,斯凯普西斯的论据具有普遍性,因此对任何时代、任何运动的哲学家来说都是实实在在的。因此,怀疑论者无法优先获得 Scepsis。怀疑论者可以被称为 "怀疑论的受害者",因为无论怀疑论与否,都必须考虑 "怀疑论"。康德的思想中充分包含了怀疑论的思维方式,但它并不导致怀疑论。因此,塞克斯图斯-恩比里克斯并没有写出关于他自己的一切真实情况:他的话确实代表了怀疑论的本质。康德赢了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Sententiae
Sententiae Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Sententiae is historico-philosophical open access journal. Journal created by Modern philosophy''s research group (Pascalian society). Founded in 2000. Published twice a year, in June and December. Our purpose is to foster the development of a wide gamut of contemporary approaches, active implementation of them into research practice, and establishment of high standards of teaching philosophy basing on the achievements of contemporary history of philosophy. Our key priority is to ensure the empirical substantiation of historico-philosophical conceptions, basing on the criteria of literality, exhaustivity, contextuality and taking into account the existing speculative interpretations. Jean-Luc Marion was the first to formulate this set of criteria in 1998 as the main features of contemporary researches of Descartes''s philosophy. We regard these principles as the methodological background of any substantiated research method in the history of philosophy. Publishing materials on all historico-philosophical topics, we pay special attention to researches in terminology, issues of philosophical translation and untranslatability, manuscript researches (including handwritten heritage of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy professors of ХVІІ–ХVІІІ century), and cover the development of large-scale projects in this area. We also publish new bilingual and commented Ukrainian translations of classical foreign philosophical texts. Among our priorities there is also a coverage of the history of philosophical thought in Ukraine and other Eastern European countries and its relations to the wider cultural context (theology, literature, natural sciences, political ideology etc). The content of each issue is distributed according to Genre Sections and Thematic Headings. Currently there are 10 Genre Sections.
期刊最新文献
The substantiation of a new French translation of Descartes’s “Meditationes... ”: Ukrainian parallels About the harm of science to life. Science and education as key philosophical issues in the works of Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Jaspers Benjamin and Goldman as the readers of Pascal. Benjamin's theory of sorrow and Goldman's theory of tragic vision Giacomo Zabarella’s treatise “De natura logicae”. To the problem of the creation of the methodological principles of the modern philosophy Pascal on passions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1