Journal of Philosophical Research 40:23-39 (2015)
AbstractThis paper argues for the following three claims. First, the Agrippan mode from disagreement does not play a secondary role in inducing suspension of judgment. Second, the Pyrrhonist is not committed to the criteria of justification underlying the Five Modes of Agrippa, which nonetheless does not prevent him from non-doxastically assenting to them. And third, some recent objections to Agrippan Pyrrhonism raised by analytic epistemologists and experimental philosophers fail to appreciate the Pyrrhonist's ad hominem style of argumentation and the real challenge posed by the mode from disagreement.
Similar books and articles
Hegelian vs. Kantian interpretations of pyrrhonism: Revolution or reaction?Michael N. Forster - manuscript
Pyrrhonism and the Law of Non-Contradiction.Diego E. Machuca - 2011 - In D. E. Machuca (ed.), Pyrrhonism in Ancient, Modern, and Contemporary Philosophy. Springer.
A Neo-Pyrrhonian Approach to the Epistemology of Disagreement.Diego E. Machuca - 2013 - In D. E. Machuca (ed.), Disagreement and Skepticism. Routledge. pp. 66-89.
Casey Perin’s The Demands of Reason.Tad Brennan - 2013 - International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 3 (4):283-293.
Pyrrhonism, Inquiry, and Rationality.Diego E. Machuca - 2013 - Elenchos: Rivista di Studi Sul Pensiero Antico 34 (1):201-228.
Pyrrhonian Relativism.Diego Machuca - 2015 - Elenchos: Rivista di Studi Sul Pensiero Antico 36 (1):89-114.
Review of Charles Brittain, Cicero: On Academic Scepticism (Hackett, 2006). [REVIEW]Diego E. Machuca - 2006 - Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2006.
Sextus Empiricus: His Outlook, Works, and Legacy.Diego E. Machuca - 2008 - Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie Und Theologie 55 (1/2):28-63.
Theoretical Disagreement and the Semantic Sting.Dale Smith - 2010 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (4):635-661.
Introduction.E. Machuca Diego - 2011 - In D. E. Machuca (ed.), New Essays on Ancient Pyrrhonism. Brill.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
A Neo-Pyrrhonian Response to the Disagreeing about Disagreement Argument.Diego E. Machuca - 2017 - Synthese 194 (5):1663-1680.
Buddhism and Scepticism: Historical, Philosophical, and Comparative Perspectives.Oren Hanner (ed.) - 2020 - Freiburg/Bochum: ProjektVerlag.
Does Pyrrhonism Have Practical or Epistemic Value?Diego E. Machuca - 2019 - In Giuseppe Veltri, Racheli Haliva, Stephan Franz Schmid & Emidio Spinelli (eds.), Sceptical Paths: Enquiry and Doubt from Antiquity to the Present. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 43-66.
References found in this work
Epistemology of disagreement: The good news.David Christensen - 2007 - Philosophical Review 116 (2):187-217.
Peer disagreement and higher order evidence.Thomas Kelly - 2010 - In Alvin I. Goldman & Dennis Whitcomb (eds.), Social Epistemology: Essential Readings. Oxford University Press. pp. 183--217.
The epistemic significance of disagreement.Thomas Kelly - 2005 - In Tamar Szabó Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Volume 1. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 167-196.
Reasonable religious disagreements.Richard Feldman - 2006 - In Louise Antony (ed.), Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life. Oxford University Press. pp. 194-214.