Diss.--Bern--Universität, 1990.

Texte remanié de: Dissertation--Philosophische Fakultät I--Erlangen-Nürnberg--Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, 2003. / Bibliogr. p. 183-192.

Scepticism, as depicted by Sextus Empiricus, presents itself as a philosophy whose ultimate justification rests on the conviction that truth is unattainable and that consequently the only chance left to man is that of suspending judgement (epoche). From epoche derives that state of mental quietitude (ataraxia) which alone allows man to lead a happy life. Thus, Scepticism is inevitably a polemic against all those philosophers who assert truth to be apprehensible and to whom Sextus refers by the term "Dogmatists". This study of Book VII of Against Mathematicians seeks to analyze the epistemological premises of Sextus' Scepticism as well as the Sextian arguments directed against the Dogmatists, and particularly those against the Stoics. Truth is unattainable because no such a thing as a criterion of truth exists. This is Sextus' conclusion to his criticism of the Dogmatists' doctrines. Although Sextus' Scepticism is shaped against the background of the doctrines he intends to combat, I intend to isolate his methodology as well as the the theoretical aspects of his philosophy from the polemical ones. Chapter II outlines Sextus' philosophical background as well as his skeptical terminology. Chapter III examines Sextus' methodology and explains why the criticism of the criterion of truth provides him with the necessary theoretical justification for his Scepticism. Sextus1 attack against the Dogmatists is preceded by a lengthy and fairly accurate account of his opponents' views. These views and particularly the Stoic doctrine of phantasia kataleptike are examined in Chapters IV and V. In Chapters VI to VIII, I examine Sextus' response to the Dogmatists. In Chapter VI I argue that Sextus1 criticism of man as criterion, and of the definition of man, are biased by his failure to understand some Dogmatic terms such as "universal concept" and "essence". Chapter VII investigates Sextus' criticism of senses and intellect as criteria of truth, and it is maintained that the arguments used by Sextus to deny the possibility of self-apprehension establish an epistemological principle whose value is dogmatically confined by Sextus to the particular instance he criticizes. Had Sextus been consistent in his use of such a principle, he ought to have declared himself a nihilist rather than a Sceptic. Chapter VIII deals with Sextus' criticism of the notion of phantasia and particularly with his attack against the Stoic doctrine of phantasia kataleptike as criterion of truth. Special attention is paid to the accusation of circular reasoning made by Sextus against the Stoic criterion and in the discussion in Chapter IX. There I argue that Sextus and with him most students of ancient philosophy, misrepresent the meaning of the Stoic doctrine because they identify the term to hyparchon (a key element in the Stoic definition of phantasia kataleptike) with the real (external) object. I oppose this view and offer a tentative re-interpretation of the Stoic criterion, which, if correct, may both free the Stoics from the Sextian accusation of circular reasoning and, at the same time, avoid some of the philological and philosophical difficulties involved in the Sextian and standard interpretation of the Stoic definition of phantasia kataleptike. / Arts, Faculty of / Classical, Near Eastern and Religious Studies, Department of / Graduate

This thesis has as its focus five argumentative modes that lie at the heart of Sextus Empiricus’ Outlines of Pyrrhonism. They are the modes of disagreement, hypothesis, infinite regression, reciprocity and relativity. They are analysed, individually, in the first five chapters of the thesis (one mode per chapter) and, collectively, in the sixth. The first four chapters deal, respectively, with the modes of disagreement, hypothesis, infinite regression and reciprocity. They distinguish between two versions of these modes: “dogmatic versions”, on the basis of which a dogmatic philosopher, who holds some theoretical beliefs, might reach a sceptical conclusion; and “sceptical versions”, on the basis of which a sceptical philosopher, who lacks all theoretical beliefs, might do so. It is argued that scholars such as Jonathan Barnes have offered reconstructions of these modes which are dogmatic in the sense just described, and alternative sceptical versions of the modes are presented. A stand-alone fifth chapter offers an analysis of a stand-alone mode - the mode of relativity. It argues that there are in fact three different modes of relativity at play in the Outlines, that only one of them is non-trivial, and that the non-trivial version is incompatible with the mode of disagreement. The sixth and final chapter offers an analysis of how the modes (excluding relativity) are meant to work in combination with one another. Four different combinations are presented and it is argued that all of them are underscored by a variety of theoretical assumptions, which a sceptic, who lacks all theoretical beliefs, cannot make. The ultimate conclusion of the thesis is that, though the sceptic can deploy the various modes individually (by means of exercising his particular sceptical ability), he is not able to systematise them into a net by means of which he might trap his dogmatic opponent. Unless specified otherwise, translations are based on Annas, J., and Barnes, J., Sextus Empiricus: Outlines of Scepticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

Diss.--München--Hochschule für Philosophie, 1998. / Bibliogr. p. 197-202. Index.

The production of equipollence is the most important part of the Pyrrhonian skeptic’s method for bringing about the suspension of judgment. The skeptic produces equipollence methodically, by opposing arguments, propositions, or appearances, in anyway whatsoever, until he produces an equality of “weightiness” on both sides of the conflicting views. Having no appropriate criterion to break the deadlock of equipollence, the skeptic (or his interlocutor) is left with no reason to accept either view. I have two main aims in this paper. My first aim is to distinguish between two different types of equipollence; that produced in the Pyrrhonist, called Psychological Equipollence, and that demonstrated to the dogmatist by the Pyrrhonist, called Normative Equipollence. My second aim in this paper is to argue that equipollence cannot be produced when the skeptic uses only epistemic possibility of error to oppose some compelling p.

Recent work on the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel has emphasized his interest in skeptical concerns. These contemporary scholars argue that, despite common opinions to the contrary, Hegel actually had a very keen interest in skepticism, one that informed and motivated much of his overall project. While I welcome this recent literature, I argue here that contemporary scholars have overemphasized the importance of skepticism for Hegel. By looking closely at Hegel’s arguments against skepticism in the Phenomenology of Spirit, I argue that Hegel’s anti-skeptical arguments are in fact major failures. Hegel’s failure is at odds with the emphasis that contemporary literature places on Hegel’s interests in skepticism. For a philosopher who was supposedly centrally concerned with skeptical issues, Hegel sure does not act like it. I conclude that the tension here is the result of contemporary scholars’ overemphasis of the role that skepticism plays in Hegel’s project.

In this thesis I try to answer the question of what attitude the ancient sceptics had towards the notion of belief. I concern myself exclusively with Pyrrhonic scepticism, as it was described by Sextus Empiricus in his book Pyrrhoniai hypotyposeis. Pyrrhonic scepticism was an epistemological system with ethical ramifications, that questioned most of the conventional wisdom of the time, I begin by evaluating two infleuntial readings, by Michael Frede and Casey Perin. I then go on to make my own assessment. Ultimately, I show why Frede's view is the more plausible; the sceptics allowed themselves to hold beliefs about reality, not just appearance.

In his Outlines of Skepticism, Sextus Empiricus claims that the Pyrrhonian Skeptic can live without holding beliefs. According to the 'Rustic' interpretation of this claim, Sextus holds that the Skeptic lives without beliefs of any kind. According to the 'Urbane' interpretation, Sextus' claim concerns only a restricted category of beliefs. I discuss each interpretation in the context of Sextus' broader philosophical stance, and argue for an Urbane interpretation. On this view, Pyrrhonism represents a practicable stance towards the world. / Master of Arts

A tese defende a ideia de que uma compreensão adequada da suspensão cética de juízo (epokhé) pressupõe o estudo dos textos de Sexto Empírico que, direta ou indiretamente, abordam o problema da concepção pirrônica da linguagem ou discurso (lógos), e também daqueles que fornecem elementos para a compreensão da posição sextiana acerca da linguagem cotidiana das pessoas comuns. Os primeiros capítulos lidam com a conhecida distinção entre as assim chamadas interpretações rústica e urbana da filosofia pirrônica. A seguir, o texto discute o problema do lógos quando considerado a partir de uma perspectiva pirrônica, onde uma nova argumentação em favor da interpretação rústica é desenvolvida, baseada na ideia de um percurso cético. No quarto capítulo, é examinada a noção de phainómenon e sua relação com o lógos cético, através da formulação de uma interpretação mais geral do ceticismo antigo e do seu discurso fenomênico. O quinto e último capítulo procede então a uma avaliação da força filosófica tanto da filosofia pirrônica como da neopirrônica / The dissertation defends the idea that an adequate understanding of the sceptical suspension of judgement (epoché) presupposes the study of the Sextus Empiricus texts which, either directly or indirectly, address the problem of the pyrrhonian conception of language or discourse (lógos), and also the study of those texts that provide elements for the understanding of the Sextian position about the everyday language of common people. The first chapters deal with the well-known distinction between the so-called rustic and urbane interpretations of the pyrrhonian philosophy. In the sequence, the dissertation discusses the problem of the lógos, as viewed from a pyrrhonian perspective, also by developing a new argument in favor of the rustic interpretation, based upon the idea of a sceptic path. Subsequently, the notion of phainómenon and its relation to the sceptic lógos are analyzed through a general approach to ancient scepticism. The fith and last chapter proceeds to an avaluation of the philosophical strength of both the pyrrhonian and neopyrrhonian philosophies