On Pyrrhonism, Stances, and Believing What You Want

In: International Journal for the Study of Skepticism
View More View Less
  • 1 Johns Hopkins University

The paper considers the relations between the Pyrrhonism of Sextus Empiricus and epistemological voluntarism, as applied both to epistemic stances and to individual beliefs. In the first part, the main question is whether ancient skepticism is congenial to the idea of alternative epistemic stances (and hence, potentially, to voluntarism about them). The answer proposed is that skepticism does not in fact recognize this possibility. However, this is not due to any essential features of skepticism itself; rather, it is because, like ancient Greek philosophy in general, the stance skepticism in fact unquestioningly assumes is that of realism. In the second part, the focus is more directly on voluntarism and its compatibility with skepticism. The difficulty with bringing these two together, it is argued, is that, while voluntarism gives one license to hold either of two opposing beliefs, skepticism is in the business of subverting beliefs; in this respect their orientations are in opposite directions. A closing suggestion is that if there is any place where ancient skepticism and voluntarism might meet, it is not in the Pyrrhonist tradition, but in the mitigated skepticism of the late Academy, which allowed the holding of (albeit tentative) beliefs.

  • Allen J. (2010). “ Pyrrhonism and Medicine,” 232248 in Bett (2010).

    • Export Citation
  • Bett R. (1989). “ The Sophists and Relativism,” Phronesis 34: 139169.

  • ——. (2002). Review of Brittain (2001), Bryn Mawr Classical Review, http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2002/2002-07-08.html.

  • ——. (2005). “ Le signe dans la tradition pyrrhonienne,” 2948 in Kany-Turpin J. (ed.), Signe et prédiction dans l’antiquité. Saint-Étienne: Publications de L’Université de Saint-Étienne.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ——. (ed.). (2010). The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Skepticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • ——. (2013). “ Language, Gods, and Virtue: A Discussion of Robert Mayhew, Prodicus the Sophist: Texts, Translations, and Commentary,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 44: 279311.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brennan T. (1994). “ Criterion and Appearance in Sextus Empiricus: The Scope of Skeptical Doubt, the Status of Skeptical Belief,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 39: 151169.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brittain C. (2001). Philo of Larissa: The Last of the Academic Skeptics. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

  • ——. (2006). Cicero: On Academic Skepticism. Indianapolis: Hackett.

  • ——. (forthcoming). “Cicero as a Character in Cicero’s Philosophical Dialogues,” to appear in the Proceedings of the 2010 Symposium Hellenisticum.

  • Burnyeat M. (1982). “ Idealism and Greek Philosophy: What Descartes Saw and Berkeley Missed,” Philosophical Review 91: 340.

  • Burnyeat M., & Frede M. (eds.). (1997). The Original Skeptics: A Controversy. Indianapolis: Hackett.

  • Chakravartty A. (2004). “ Stance Relativism: Empiricism versus Metaphysics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 35: 173184.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ——. (2011a). “ A Puzzle about Voluntarism about Rational Epistemic Stances,” Synthese 178: 3748.

  • ——. (2011b). “ Scientific Realism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/.

  • Fogelin R. (1994). Pyrrhonian Reflections on Knowledge and Justification. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Frede M., (1983). “ The Method of the So-Called Methodical School of Medicine,” 123 in Barnes J., , Brunschwig J., , Burnyeat M., , & Schofield M. (eds.), Science and Speculation: Studies in Hellenistic Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ——. (1985). Galen: Three Treatises on the Nature of Science, translated by R. Walzer and M. Frede with an Introduction by Michael Frede. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ——. (1997). “ The Skeptic’s Beliefs,” 1–24 in Burnyeat & Frede (1997).

    • Export Citation
  • ——. (2011). “ An Anti-Aristotelian Point of Method in Three Rationalist Doctors,” 115137 in Morison B., & Ierodiakonou K. (eds.), Episteme, etc.: Essays, in Honour of Jonathan Barnes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Giovacchini J. (2008). “ Le ‘dogmatisme négatif’ des médecins empiriques: Sextus et Galien à la recherche d’une médecine sceptique,” Cahiers Philosophiques 115: 6380.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Perin C. (2010). “ Skepticism and Belief,” 145164 in Bett (2010).

    • Export Citation
  • Pritchard D., (2011). “ Wittgensteinian Pyrrhonism,” 193202 in Machuca D. (ed.), Pyrrhonism in Ancient, Modern, and Contemporary Philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schneewind J.B. (1996). “ Voluntarism and the Foundations of Ethics,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 70: 2541.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Steinberg E. (1993). David Hume: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. 2nd edition. Indianapolis: Hackett.

  • Van Fraassen B. (2002). The Empirical Stance. London & New Haven: Yale University Press.

  • 2

     See especially Van Fraassen (2002); the first of the essays cited in the previous sentence is a review article on this book.

  • 22

     See especially Frede (1997) and Brennan (1994).

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 166 62 9
Full Text Views 158 6 1
PDF Downloads 18 5 2