古代的怀疑态度和分歧

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 N/A PHILOSOPHY Kriterion-Revista de Filosofia Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1590/0100-512x2023n15402mdb
Marcelo D. Boeri, Leandro de Brasi
{"title":"古代的怀疑态度和分歧","authors":"Marcelo D. Boeri, Leandro de Brasi","doi":"10.1590/0100-512x2023n15402mdb","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT It is argued that a philosophical “sceptic attitude”, found originally in the Socratic approach and arguably in the Pyrrhonist’s treatment of disagreement, should be taken to be an epistemically positive attitude in the sense that it fosters a serious philosophical examination of what is taken to be true, without entailing the radical scepticism often associated with it. We argue that if the two sides of a disagreement are equivalent (at that moment, given the evidence available), it doesn’t require one to consider the disagreement as undecidable without qualification and so to suspend judgment indefinitely. If this is so, we claim, the Pyrrhonian disagreement-based position will be significantly restricted as a form of scepticism and should instead be seen as promoting an epistemically propitious sceptic attitude.","PeriodicalId":52055,"journal":{"name":"Kriterion-Revista de Filosofia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE ANCIENT SCEPTIC ATTITUDE AND DISAGREEMENT\",\"authors\":\"Marcelo D. Boeri, Leandro de Brasi\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/0100-512x2023n15402mdb\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT It is argued that a philosophical “sceptic attitude”, found originally in the Socratic approach and arguably in the Pyrrhonist’s treatment of disagreement, should be taken to be an epistemically positive attitude in the sense that it fosters a serious philosophical examination of what is taken to be true, without entailing the radical scepticism often associated with it. We argue that if the two sides of a disagreement are equivalent (at that moment, given the evidence available), it doesn’t require one to consider the disagreement as undecidable without qualification and so to suspend judgment indefinitely. If this is so, we claim, the Pyrrhonian disagreement-based position will be significantly restricted as a form of scepticism and should instead be seen as promoting an epistemically propitious sceptic attitude.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52055,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kriterion-Revista de Filosofia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kriterion-Revista de Filosofia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-512x2023n15402mdb\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"N/A\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kriterion-Revista de Filosofia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-512x2023n15402mdb","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有人认为,哲学上的“怀疑态度”,最初是在苏格拉底的方法中发现的,可以说是在皮罗尼主义者对分歧的处理中发现的,应该被认为是一种认识论上的积极态度,因为它促进了对被认为是真实的东西的严肃哲学检查,而不需要经常与之相关的激进怀疑主义。我们认为,如果一个分歧的双方是相等的(在那一刻,鉴于现有的证据),它不需要一个人认为分歧是不可判定的,没有资格,因此无限期地暂停判断。如果是这样的话,我们主张,皮洛尼亚式的基于分歧的立场作为怀疑主义的一种形式将受到极大的限制,而应该被视为促进一种认识论上有利的怀疑态度。
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
THE ANCIENT SCEPTIC ATTITUDE AND DISAGREEMENT
ABSTRACT It is argued that a philosophical “sceptic attitude”, found originally in the Socratic approach and arguably in the Pyrrhonist’s treatment of disagreement, should be taken to be an epistemically positive attitude in the sense that it fosters a serious philosophical examination of what is taken to be true, without entailing the radical scepticism often associated with it. We argue that if the two sides of a disagreement are equivalent (at that moment, given the evidence available), it doesn’t require one to consider the disagreement as undecidable without qualification and so to suspend judgment indefinitely. If this is so, we claim, the Pyrrhonian disagreement-based position will be significantly restricted as a form of scepticism and should instead be seen as promoting an epistemically propitious sceptic attitude.
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
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊最新文献
KANT, LIBERDADE E A HERMENÊUTICA DO FRACASSO A RELAÇÃO ENTRE A ÁGUA E A LOUCURA EM HISTOIRE DE LA FOLIE REVISITANDO O EXPERIMENTO DE LIBET: CONTRIBUIÇÕES ATUAIS DA NEUROCIÊNCIA PARA O PROBLEMA DO LIVRE-ARBÍTRIO AGAMBEN E FOUCAULT: EXPLORANDO OS LIMITES DESSA APROXIMAÇÃO A PARTIR DO TEMA DO ‘DESTITUINTE’ NAVIGATING THROUGH THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE(S)
×
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