Pyrrhonian criticism of the notion of “nature of things”: epistemology and metaphysics

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY Filosofskii Zhurnal Pub Date : 2022-11-29 DOI:10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-165-180
D. Maslov
{"title":"Pyrrhonian criticism of the notion of “nature of things”: epistemology and metaphysics","authors":"D. Maslov","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-165-180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper analyzes the criticism of the notion “nature of things” within the pyrrhonian sceptical tradition. I begin with a brief exposition of two contemporary epistemological approaches that sets up the boundaries of the discussion: normative and descriptive ones. However, this dichotomy is not strict. The notion of “nature of things” implicitly under­lies the discussion, as I argue, as a normative view about the true reality and its formal characteristics. These metaphysical requirements have to be fulfilled in knowledge. This alone demonstrates a tight connection between these disciplines. Pyrrho’s rejection of the nature of things can be interpreted in terms of underdetermination of the world, which allows various interpretations according to the rule “no more” (ou mallon). This principle states that there is no ultimate ground for the individuation of things. This principle had been used before Pyrrho and justifies his denial of the existence of the nature of things, for to every single thing can be ascribed contradictory predicates. They show themselves in a contradictory way. Then, we point out to the breakdown in the Pyrrhonian tradition and the fact that the notion of nature of things was borrowed and used as a pillar of the revived Pyrrhonism (esp. in Sextus Empiricus). He used this term referring to the unchangeable, invariable and eternal constitution of things. Sextus differs from Pyrrho on by his suspension of judgement about the existence of the nature of things. Al­though Sextus developed an epistemological critique of ancient theories of knowledge and did not investigate this notion, it was pivotal for him to reach the suspension of judgement. It allowed him not to assert any statement as corresponding to or revealing the properties of things by nature. As a result, Pyrrhonian usage of the notion nature of things provided a persuasive and influential criticism against the normative stance and led to its moderation and pragmatization.","PeriodicalId":41795,"journal":{"name":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-165-180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The paper analyzes the criticism of the notion “nature of things” within the pyrrhonian sceptical tradition. I begin with a brief exposition of two contemporary epistemological approaches that sets up the boundaries of the discussion: normative and descriptive ones. However, this dichotomy is not strict. The notion of “nature of things” implicitly under­lies the discussion, as I argue, as a normative view about the true reality and its formal characteristics. These metaphysical requirements have to be fulfilled in knowledge. This alone demonstrates a tight connection between these disciplines. Pyrrho’s rejection of the nature of things can be interpreted in terms of underdetermination of the world, which allows various interpretations according to the rule “no more” (ou mallon). This principle states that there is no ultimate ground for the individuation of things. This principle had been used before Pyrrho and justifies his denial of the existence of the nature of things, for to every single thing can be ascribed contradictory predicates. They show themselves in a contradictory way. Then, we point out to the breakdown in the Pyrrhonian tradition and the fact that the notion of nature of things was borrowed and used as a pillar of the revived Pyrrhonism (esp. in Sextus Empiricus). He used this term referring to the unchangeable, invariable and eternal constitution of things. Sextus differs from Pyrrho on by his suspension of judgement about the existence of the nature of things. Al­though Sextus developed an epistemological critique of ancient theories of knowledge and did not investigate this notion, it was pivotal for him to reach the suspension of judgement. It allowed him not to assert any statement as corresponding to or revealing the properties of things by nature. As a result, Pyrrhonian usage of the notion nature of things provided a persuasive and influential criticism against the normative stance and led to its moderation and pragmatization.
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
皮罗尼对“事物本质”概念的批判:认识论与形而上学
本文分析了皮罗尼亚怀疑主义传统中对“事物本质”概念的批判。我首先简要介绍了两种当代认识论方法,它们建立了讨论的界限:规范性和描述性方法。然而,这种二分法并不严格。正如我所论证的,“事物的本质”的概念隐含地构成了讨论的基础,作为一种关于真实现实及其形式特征的规范性观点。这些形而上学的要求必须在知识中得到满足。仅这一点就证明了这些学科之间的紧密联系。皮洛对事物本质的拒绝可以用世界的不确定性来解释,它允许根据“没有更多”(ou mallon)的规则进行各种解释。这一原则指出,事物的个体化没有最终依据。这个原理在皮洛以前就被使用了,并且证明了他否认事物本性的存在,因为每一事物都可以被赋予矛盾的谓词。它们以一种相互矛盾的方式表现出来。然后,我们指出皮罗学派传统的瓦解,以及事物本性的概念被借用,并被用作复兴的皮罗学派(特别是塞克斯图斯·恩披理克斯)的支柱。他用这个词指的是事物不变、不变和永恒的构成。塞克斯图斯与皮洛的不同之处在于,他暂停了对事物本质存在的判断。尽管塞克斯图斯对古代的知识理论进行了认识论批判,并没有研究这一概念,但对他来说,达到暂停判断是至关重要的。它允许他不断言任何陈述对应或揭示自然事物的属性。因此,皮罗学派对事物本质概念的运用对规范性立场进行了具有说服力和影响力的批判,并导致规范性立场的中庸化和实用化。
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
Filosofskii Zhurnal
Filosofskii Zhurnal PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
50.00%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
The problem of autocracy in the late Renaissance (La Boétie and Charron) The justification of morality and the justification of utilitarianism in Jeremy Bentham’s ethics Stratified reality in Francis Bradley’s idealism, its critics and a personalistic alternative Attention as a condition for moral responsibility A time to be silent and a time to speak: S. Kierkegaard’s “The Point of View for My Work as an Author”
×
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