Abstract
Though no theory about reflection is advanced, some things are said about philosophical reflection and how one should pursue philosophical investigation. I think that the most important clash in philosophy is the conflict between skeptics and dogmatists. First, I recall some of their mutual criticisms. This sets the criterion according to which we shall decide their dispute. Then, I describe philosophical investigation as a kind of reflection which has two complementary sides: on the one hand, philosophers reflect on ordinary thinking, trying to produce a better view of the world; on the other, they reflect on the philosophical results of this first reflection. I suggest that while skeptics and dogmatists pursue truth in philosophical investigation, they do it using different sorts of abilities and under different conditions. Accordingly, there is a skeptical reflection and a dogmatic reflection both on ordinary and on philosophical beliefs. In the final section, I argue for the superiority of the skeptical stance, which may be called neo-Pyrrhonism. In my view, the neo-Pyrrhonist is more truthful to the philosophical criterion of impartiality and rationality, whereas dogmatists move away from it at some point. I also explain why skeptics can suspend judgment and investigate the truth at the same time, while they accuse dogmatists of rashness, interrupting their investigation too soon. The basic point is to realize that, in the case of the Pyrrhonian skeptic, tranquility is no longer a product of philosophical investigation, but one of its conditions.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call