This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Community Reviews. Showing Rating details.
All Languages. More filters. Sort order.
Helene-Jane rated it it was amazing Dec 24, Justin rated it liked it Jan 01, Janneke Bergmans marked it as to-read May 08, Crittens added it Aug 19, Alisia marked it as to-read Aug 31, Tomislav added it Jun 10, Farhad A. There are no discussion topics on this book yet.
About Leo A. Leo A. Instead he seems to have worked out a full-blown theory of so-called probable impressions probabilis was Cicero's Latin translation of the Greek pithanos , meaning persuasive. And he appealed to them to explain how life, even a life of wisdom, was possible without the perfectly secure foundation provided by cognitive impressions.
As Arcesilaus had done before him, Carneades defended the possibility of acting without assent. There is, he argued, a way of using or following probable impressions that does not amount to assent but is adequate for action and inquiry.
But he also sometimes conceded that assent was essential in order to argue that even this consession did not vindicate Stoic claims about the cognitive impression. For, he suggested, it was permissible for the wise to form opinions by assenting to noncognitive impressions, opinions held in the full consciousness that they were only opinions and might be wrong.
This line of argument is behind the view that Carneades relaxed or weakened the more militantly skeptical stance of Arcesilaus.
But perhaps the new features of Carneades's arguments are part of a broadly dialectical form of argument. The Stoics believe their views should win acceptance not because they are theirs but because they do justice to common assumptions about human nature — its needs and the resources available to it — as no others can. The challenge that Carneades accepted, then, was to show that the ready availability of equally sound or even better alternatives ought to discourage a premature embrace of the Stoic position.
This posture makes it hard to know whether Carneades actually subscribed to any of the views he defended. And his students and successors interpreted him in different ways. Clitomachus, his student and eventual successor, held that one should suspend judgment and that this had been Carneades's view.
Philo of Larissa, who succeeded Clitomachus, contended that Carneades believed that the wise were permitted to form opinions in the absence of cognitive impressions and that one of the probable views deserving assent was inapprehensibility. Philo was, then, a dogmatic skeptic, who championed one of the skeptical propositions simply because he was convinced by the arguments for it. There is an air of paradox about this position, but it must be remembered that he did not claim to know for certain that nothing can be known for certain, but rather that it was highly probable, which, if nothing can be known for certain, is the most that can be said for it.
It seems to have been Philo of Larissa's dogmatic skepticism that moved Aenesidemus to found or revive a competing school of Pyrrhonian skepticism in the first century BCE. The Pyrrhonian school he founded existed past the time of Sextus Empiricus, who is usually thought to have been active in the latter part of the second century CE. Although none of Aenesidemus's works have survived, a summary of eight books of his Pyrhhonian Arguments by Photius ninth century CE has.
From it we learn that Aenesidemus, who had been an Academcie himself, charged the Academics of his time with being little more than Stoics fighting Stoics, disagreeing only about cognitive impressions while agreeing about many other issues. Though the decision by Aenesidemus and his followers to call themselves "Pyrrhonists" does not imply a direct line of descent from Pyrrho, it is probable that they were influenced by traditions about Pyrrho. Another important influence came from the Empirical school of medicine, with which Pyrrhonism maintained close ties and shared many members including Sextus Empiricus whose name means "the Empiricist".
In view of the school's origins, it is not surprising to find many points of contact between it and Academic skepticism.
The Pyrrhonists describe the skeptical condition with the aid of terms like "inapprehensibility" and "suspension of judgment," which have their origins in the epistemological debate between the Academy and the Stoa. They view this condition as the result of a standoff or impasse between their arguments and those of their dogmatic opponents, not as the result of being convinced by their own skeptical arguments. And they explain that they are able to act and to live despite suspending judgment on all questions. This argument hinges on a distinction between two senses of "belief" Greek: dogma that is indebted to Carneades's and Clitomachus's contrast between assenting to an impression and using or following it.
In the former sense, the Pyrrhonists had no beliefs, but in the latter sense they did have beliefs, which were able to serve as a basis for action. The two works of Sextus that have come down to us, the Outlines of Pyrrhonism in three books and Against the Mathematicians in nine, are packed with arguments against dogmatic positions, many of which are of Academic origin. There are, however, equally notable differences between the two schools, some of which may reflect other influences on Aenesidemus and his followers.
The most striking and important of these is the positive value the Pyrrhonists seem to attach to the skeptical suspension of judgment about all matters. According to Sextus, Pyrrhonism has a telos, a supreme aim or goal in life: tranquility and, where that is unattainable, moderation in one's emotions. Suspension of judgment is recommended because it gives rise to tranquility. This recommendation is not based on a theory of human nature that would explain why it finds fulfillment in tranquility.
Rather the argument seems to presupposed that tranquility is humans' goal. This assumption commands greater credibility if viewed not as a claim about the essential nature of the best life for human beings, which would elicit vehement disagreement from some ancient philosophical schools, but as a weaker claim that such a life will somehow involve tranquility. And the Pyrrhonists do not pretend to be able to explain why suspension of judgment should give rise to tranquility; they claim to have made this discovery only by accident.
Tranquility is supposed to arise in a manner exemplified by the famous story of Apelles the painter, who, despairing of being able paint the foam on the neck of a racing horse, gave up and threw his sponge at the painting, thereby producing by chance what he had been unable to achieve deliberately. The idea of a correlation between freedom from opinion and tranquility may have been the Pyrrhonian school's truest debt to Pyrrho. This idea sets it clearly apart from the Academy. The Academy attached the highest value to knowledge and regarded the skeptical condition as a stop-gap, albeit a surprisingly congenial one.
Asa we have seen, the Pyrrhonists were officially committed to the quest for knowledge. But the accounts of Pyrrhonism in Sextus and Diogenes Laertius give evidence of a positive attachment to suspending judgment as a means to tranquility. Arguments and argumentative strategies are recommended for their efficacy in bringing about equipollence, the condition in which arguments on either side of a question are of apparently equal force; and equipollence is cultivated not as a means to cognitive certainty but to the suspension of judgment that leads to tranquility.
Thus there is a sense in which Academics like Arcesilaus and Carneades exemplified true "skepticism," in the sense of open-minded inquiry, more than the Pyrrhonists did. There is also a difference in the kinds of arguments the two schools used. Sextus and our other sources give pride of place to the so-called modes or tropes of argument that bring about suspension of judgment. There is a set of ten such tropes, which seem to go back to Aenesidemus, and a later set of five ascribed to Agrippa, who may, however, be a fictional character in a Pyrrhonian work. There is also a set of two tropes, and a further set of eight tropes concerning causal explanation, which is likewise credited to Aenesidemus.
The ten tropes appear to be the oldest, and they draw on arguments and examples with a long history. Book Gamma of Aristotle's Metaphysics is already familiar, with arguments resembling those in the ten tropes. Most of the ten aim to demonstrate that there are undecidable conflicts between the appearances perceived by different species or different human beings or the different senses or by the same human being in different conditions or between the appearances presented by objects in different circumstances.
The existence of such conflicts is illustrated by a wealth of examples, some of them fanciful. Left unclear are the exact arguments envisaged and how they relate to the official program, which calls for the production of equipollence by the balancing of arguments. The tropes seemingly aim to elicit from these conflicting appearances a thesis of undecidability thatrequires suspension of judgment.
That is, it appears as though undecidability arises from an argument whose premises would command the assent of the skeptic. But perhaps the arguments for the undecidability of conflicts are meant to oppose arguments that they are decidable, and it is the equipollence between these arguments that is supposed to lead to suspension of judgment. Even so, by comparison with Academic arguments, and with the arguments found elsewhere in Sextus, the trope-based arguments appear somewhat naive.
Substantial assumptions about species, perceptual faculties, and the requisite conditions for the acceptance of an impression as true enter the argument without being marked as dialectical concessions or without comment of any kind about their status. Perhaps the material collected in the ten tropes arose from traditions of dogmatic skeptical thinking outside the Academy and maybe even from Pyrrho himself. There is a problem with the trope of relativity, which may suggest a similar conclusion about origins. According to this trope, since all things are relative, we must suspend judgment about their real natures.
Though Sextus makes an attempt to correct for this, the conclusion of this argument is not, properly speaking, skeptical. The five Agrippan modes are i disagreement, ii regress to infinity, iii relativity, iv hypothesis, and v circularity.
Except for relativity, they form a system by means of which dogmatic attempts to justify a disputed claim can be counteracted. Any claim put forward invites disagreement. Further claims enlisted in support of it will lead to an infinite regress, by requiring justification themselves, unless the process is brought to an arbitrary halt with a hypothesis or the justification depends on the originally disputed claim.
To judge from the enormous mass of arguments preserved by Sextus, neither set of tropes consistently guided the Pyrrhonists as they collected and composed arguments to further their skeptical purposes. The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge, U. Allen, James. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Annas, Julia. Bailey, Alan. Sextus Empiricus and Pyrrhonean Skepticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, In particular, the rebuttal of logic, seen both as a theory of knowledge and as the necessary prolegomena to metaphysics proper, follows in Ibn Taymiyyah three different paths: the rejection of the idea of universals, the confutation of the distinction between Existence and Quiddity, the reduction of the Syllogism to Analogy.
This articulation combines both the elements of continuity and discontinuity with the ancient strands of skepticism, and of inspiration and rejection with future modern empiricism. Let us tread these three paths in succession.
VTLS Chameleon iPortal Browse Results
Gauging the Universal The first direction of his critique essays to question the inductive ability of the Mind confronted with the manifold of reality: as the whole is more than the sum of its parts, never will it be able to infer a universally valid truth from a multitude of experiences.
Journal of Philosophical Research 28 : If no universal claim can be derived from experience, the norms of formal logic lose validity, and the discipline itself becomes useless, a mere rhetorical reinforcement of the reality of revelation. That of the insufficiency of evidence was not a new type of accusation against positive knowledge, and there is no reason to assume that Ibn Taymiyyah had not encountered this argument already within Arabic-Islamic circles5.
What does instead stand out as radically innovative in this critique of logical inference, is the different status accorded to mathematical knowledge. This is a particularly complicated issue, for Ibn Taymiyyah often modified his views on the topic, and it is hard throughout his large corpus to pinpoint a set of consistent attitude towards the certainty of mathematical knowledge. What seems to be the case6 is that Ibn Taymiyyah gradually abandoned the original position of a superiority of mathematical knowledge over sense-perception: we ourself produce the principles of mathematics after we witness these happening in reality: we know that two times two gives four only as a consequence of us having concretely counted with our hands and we therefore have no more direct access to universal knowledge than through other sensorial experiences.
This assumption runs parallel to most of Modern Philosophy, up to Kant, who is the first to maintain that mathematics is a synthetic production of knowledge, for it is an undoubtable truth generated from an ideal initial experience. Descartes meditations conclude that not even mathematics can provide grounded universal logical, a conclusion to which first after antiquity, and with arguments totally different from it, Ibn Taymiyyah had arrived.
- Download options!
- Master Dentistry, volume 2.
- Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals and Experiences: Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference, 12–14 September 2007, Geneva, Switzerland?
- Travel as a Political Act.
The role accorded to mathematics and geometry evolved through time, and we can see how increasingly important the role of mathematical language and in particular its formalization had become during the Arabic renaissance. Arabic scientists refused to take geometrical figures as mere tools to predict astronomical phenomena, trying to overcome the limitations of epicycle and of the eccentricity of the revolution of spheres, exactly because of their physical, that is empirical, impossibility. First of all, that of the difference between quiddity and accidentality, of essence and existence, was a topic already widely discussed in the intellectual circles of the time.
Inherited by Aristotle and developed upon by the most important figures of Arabic culture, this distinction had become a fundamental component of any theory of knowledge and of formal logic, with fundamental bearings in theology and in the studies of the Quranic Revelation. The distinction between substance and accident could provide the reasons necessary to establish the right connections among entities by pinpointing the correct definition of actual objects. Ibn Taymiyyah maintains that no clearcut distinction can be effected between these two categorizations, claiming that what appears as essential, might as well become completely tangential and secondary if the framework of analysis were to be altered.
This claim does not seem to have constituted a major element of the traditional skeptic take on logic and epistemology. Such vehemence arises, once again, from dynamics internal to the Arabic context. Parallel, for lack of a better word that could avoid entering the querelle itself by bending 7 In fact, Sartre himself had drawn from a Scholastic distinction.
- Core Concepts in Hypertension in Kidney Disease.
- Fler böcker av Leo Groarke.
- ANCIENT SKEPTICISM;
- Article Metrics?
- Is skepticism an epistemological predicament? Skeptisizm epistemolojik bir çıkmaz mıdır??
- THE CHASM AHEAD!
- Browse Search.
Opposed to this defining there stood the question of Being: is it? It is of the utmost importance to notice how these two categories came to be defined, using the term loosely, by two very specific questions: Is it? In particular, he contends that distinctions between the essence, what makes an entity that entity are found in language and in imagination, but do not belong to the external reality of the object. It is in this sense that the more logically inclined his arguments against logic were, the more he could be optimistic about the success of his attack: Ibn Taymiyyah contended that the belief of the immanence of Being could be discredited by recurring to its naive faith in formal logic and in a gnoseology too readily turned into an onto-theology.
He therefore believed that in order to block the latter it suffices to show the limit of the former, to question the validity of Logic per se in order to bar the path to un-mediated monism.
Journal of the History of Philosophy
Once again, the milieu in which this battle is fought is language: apparent distinctions of essence merely follow linguistic habits that, contingent to the vernacular employed, answer no fixed and discernible law. What we are left with are simply names, and the entity, its essence, evaporates within a miasma of words, categorizations, expressions that know no universal validity.
Yet, his arguments in his Refutation of the Logician do not rely on the interpretation of the revelation: instead these are grounded in completely rationalistic arguments that aim at proving the impossibility of intellectual intuition of the immanent Absolute. In a different context, and with the due counterweights, Ibn Taymiyyah could be taken as similar to the British philosopher David Hume, who denied that the mind possesses the faculty of intuitive intellection which granted us access to Reality, to the being of what we perceive. Language is the sole repository of the difference between essence and accident, and conventions and nothing else can therefore be deduced from it.
In many of his works, Ibn Taymiyyah argues that there is no qualitative distinction in the level of validity between arguments developed syllogistically and analogically, for the latter can always be reduced to the first figure of the former. This is a very important step towards the overcoming of Aristotelian logic, and has a twofold significance: it shows both a radical discontinuity with Ancient Skepticism and a fundamental distinction with respect to, an otherwise completely sympathetic, modern Western empiricism.
The role and the credit given to Analogy, and its relationship to syllogism will perhaps show more than anything else what how philosophical skepticism in the Arabic-Islamic culture fares in comparison to Antiquity and Modernity. Ibn Taymiyyah advances his argument in several of this works, but the general argumentation has a constant framework.
The importance of this point cannot be underestimated. Secondary literature has often noticed on lack of the argument of petitio principii in Ibn Taymiyyah's works. The argument of circularity is never incisively advanced in his Refutation of Logicians, whereas both classic tradition, with Sextus Empiricus, and subsequent philosophers, Mill above all, emphasized the inutility of syllogism: if the conclusion is included in the premise, it is also the case that the validity of the latter requires a priori the actuality of the former.
Instead of arguing along these lines, Ibn Taymiyyah rather circumscribes the issue to a comparison with Analogy, aiming to show that, since both methods are equivalents, formal logic does not grant a higher stake of truth than analogy. Michel Foucault in his The Order of Things discusses at length the role of Analogy in the mediation of knowledge in pre-modern Europe.
In fact, the lack of a study of the modes of knowledge of the Arabic culture in the same period is one of the biggest shortcomings of Foucault's work, which betrays the same Europe-centric attitude that he essay to fight be relativization. The French scholar traces the evolution of the discursive shapes of consciousness that informed knowledge before and after the advent of Modernity, pinpointing Analogy as the fundamental mode of culture of the period that goes from the eight century up to and including the European Renaissance.