The article analyzes the work of Hanno Kesting, Reinhart Koselleck, Roman Schnur, and Nicolaus Sombart—four young followers of Carl Schmitt in postwar Germany. Their “intellectual Schmittianism” was less than a full commitment to Schmitt’s political positions, yet had more than an arbitrary similarity with them: it pertained to assumptions, categories, and modes of thought. Drawing on Pocock’s terminology, I identify a particular “language” of intellectual Schmittianism, introduce its key components, and analyze their interaction. I focus on six categories derived from (...) Schmitt’s narrative of European political modernity: discrimination, historical parallels, secularization, global civil war, open/latent civil war, and category blurs. The analysis shows that these categories were interlinked argumentative devices rather than mere rhetoric and that they systematically upheld the postwar scholars’ arguments. While the Schmittian language enabled the young scholars to express their political skepticis... (shrink)

Crispin Wright is widely known for having introduced epistemic entitlement, a species of non‐evidential warrant, as a response to certain skeptical challenges. This paper investigates a fundamental issue concerning entitlement: it appears to be quite generous, as it appears to apply indiscriminately to anti‐skepticial hypotheses as well as a range of radically different—indeed, even incompatible—propositions. It argues that the generosity of entitlement is reflective of an underlying commitment to a form of epistemic relativism. In addition, the paper presents an axiology (...) that helps entitlement theorists to address the pressing issue of how, given the absence of evidence, there can be anything epistemically good about acceptance of anti‐skeptical hypotheses and other cornerstones for inquiry. Lastly, the paper argues that the issues of generosity and epistemic relativism are rather deeply rooted: they surface at the level of value. It explains why. (shrink)

This paper outlines the key points of the debate concerning theoretical perspectives on knowledge which had unfolded in the time of the most prominent epicurean and skeptical thinkers. The research begins with a few historical indications about Epicurusʼ contribution to the establishment of the aforementioned disputes and his motivation to assign crucial importance to the problem of the criteria of knowledge. At the same time, to some extent, it will become clear how a rival, skeptical school of thought developed under (...) the influence of that teaching. The intention is not to depict these two philosophical approaches in full, nor to capture their main features, but to offer some insight into specific areas of their mutual influence that have contributed to their unexpected convergence. As a result, we will see that, although quite diverse, these two Hellenistic positions reflect certain similarities, above all when it comes to the understanding of the nature and goal of philosophical research, the illustration of a happy life, as well as the answer to the question of what criteria we should follow in order to lead such a life. (shrink)