无限怀疑论与五种模式

Q2 Arts and Humanities Logos and Episteme Pub Date : 2019-04-05 DOI:10.5840/LOGOS-EPISTEME20191015
Allysson Vasconcelos Lima Rocha
{"title":"无限怀疑论与五种模式","authors":"Allysson Vasconcelos Lima Rocha","doi":"10.5840/LOGOS-EPISTEME20191015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":37720,"journal":{"name":"Logos and Episteme","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Boundless Skepticism and the Five Modes\",\"authors\":\"Allysson Vasconcelos Lima Rocha\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/LOGOS-EPISTEME20191015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37720,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Logos and Episteme\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Logos and Episteme\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/LOGOS-EPISTEME20191015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logos and Episteme","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/LOGOS-EPISTEME20191015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在解释塞克斯图斯·恩皮尼克斯的观点和反驳他的观点之间是有区别的。通常,后者依赖于前者的某些版本。虽然这似乎是显而易见的,但在这种努力中很容易犯错误。从这一点上,我提出了两个我们应该遵循的基本建议,以免我们对塞克斯图斯的五种模式持有不合理的立场。然而,这些建议导致我们将塞克斯图斯的皮龙主义解释为一种有限的怀疑主义。在最后一部分,我提出了一个反例来反驳这一承诺,我重新考虑了五种模式中无限(apeiron)的概念,以更好地解释对塞克斯图斯论点的解释和批评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Boundless Skepticism and the Five Modes
: 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Logos and Episteme
Logos and Episteme Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: the journal publishes articles, reviews or discussion notes focused as well on problems concerning the general theory of knowledge, as on problems specific to the philosophy, methodology and ethics of science, philosophical logic, metaphilosophy, moral epistemology, epistemology of art, epistemology of religion, social or political epistemology, epistemology of communication. Studies in the history of science and of the philosophy of knowledge, or studies in the sociology of knowledge, cognitive psychology, and cognitive science are also welcome.
期刊最新文献
Logos and Episteme: Aims and Scope Notes on the Contributors Contextual Shifts and Gradable Knowledge Uniqueness and Logical Disagreement (Revisited) Subjective Rationality and the Reasoning Argument
×
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