David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Coping with everyday life limits the extent of one’s scepticism. It is practically impossible to doubt the existence of the things with which one is immediately engaged and interacting. To doubt that, say, a door exists, is to step back from merely using the door (opening it) and to reflect on it in a detached, theoretical way. It is impossible to simultaneously act and live immersed in situation S while doubting that one is in S. Sceptical doubts—such as ‘Is this really a door?’, ‘Am I really walking?’ — require a reflective withdrawal in thought from the situation at hand. Maintaining sceptical doubt while coping with everyday life requires a split consciousness, a bad faith, with one part of consciousness doubting the existing of things that the other part takes forgranted. For this reason, a sustained lived sceptical doubt is sometimes thought to be impossible. In this article, I examine Wittgenstein's response to scepticism in "On Certainty". I argue that one of his responses is "the response based on action", which is (as other Wittgenstein interpreters have noted) a characteristically pragmatist response. I then evaluate the quality of this pragmatist response to scepticism, noting that actions just as much as representations are susceptible to mis-interpretation. It is argued that despite the insights contained in it, Wittgenstein's contextualism about meaning is inadequate to rescue the Wittgensteinian response to scepticism.
|Keywords||Wittgenstein scepticism pragmatism saying versus showing contextualism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
John Greco (1993). How to Beat a Sceptic Without Begging the Question. Ratio 6 (1):1-15.
Anfinn Stigen (1961). Descriptive Analysis and the Sceptic. Inquiry 4 (1-4):228-269.
Anfinn Stigen (1961). Descriptive Analysis and the Sceptic. Inquiry 4 (1-4):228 – 269.
Fred Wilson (1984). Is Hume a Sceptic with Regard to Reason? Philosophy Research Archives 10:275-319.
Alastair Hannay (1975). Giving the Sceptic a Good Name. Inquiry 18 (4):409 – 436.
Anthony Rudd (2008). Natural Doubts. Metaphilosophy 39 (3):305–324.
John Humphrey, With Factualist Friends, Kripke's Wittgenstein Needs No Enemies: On Byrne's Case for Kripke's Wittgenstein Being a Factualist About Meaning Attributions.
Dominic O'Meara (2000). Scepticism and Ineffability in Plotinus. Phronesis 45 (3):240-251.
Dominic J. O'Meara (2000). Scepticism and Ineffability in Plotinus. Phronesis 45 (3):240 - 251.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads179 ( #19,244 of 1,902,209 )
Recent downloads (6 months)21 ( #34,791 of 1,902,209 )
How can I increase my downloads?