Abstract
Abstract Are contemporary philosophers to follow Pyrrho of Elis in adopting his skeptic craft or at least core aspects of it as a reaction to the fact that, since immemorial times, persons have been engaged in disputes in metaphysics? Over the last 2500 years or so, most Western philosophers have not done so in being more influenced by Aristotle’s dogmatic craft than by Pyrrho’s skeptic one. Over the last fifty years or so, a few Brazilian neo-Pyrrhonist philosophers, such as Oswald Porchat, Otavio Bueno and Plinio Junqueira Smith, have done the opposite in aiming to spell out the pertinence of Ancient Pyrrhonism to contemporary philosophy. On its part, this essay makes a case for the claim that one is to react to the stated fact by adopting a conflictual craft that promotes a synthesis of Pyrrho’s skeptic craft and the dogmatic craft. This synthesis: brings to light the core features of the skeptic and of the dogmatic craft; problematizes the dogmatic craft by means of the skeptic one and vice-versa so that the shortcomings of these crafts are avoided; and aims to keep certain positive aspects both of the skeptic craft and of the dogmatic one.
Highlights
INTRODUCTIONWhile further spelling out reasons for (i), (ii) and (iii), what I aim to do in this essay is a case for the claim that one is to react to the fact that, since immemorial times, persons have been engaged in disputes by adopting what may be called a conflictual craft
Are contemporary philosophers to follow Pyrrho of Elis in adopting his skeptic craft or at least core aspects of it as a reaction to the fact that, since immemorial times, persons have been engaged in disputes in metaphysics? Over the last 2500 years or so, most Western philosophers have not done so in being more influenced by Aristotle’s dogmatic craft than by Pyrrho’s skeptic one
While further spelling out reasons for (i), (ii) and (iii), what I aim to do in this essay is a case for the claim that one is to react to the fact that, since immemorial times, persons have been engaged in disputes by adopting what may be called a conflictual craft
Summary
While further spelling out reasons for (i), (ii) and (iii), what I aim to do in this essay is a case for the claim that one is to react to the fact that, since immemorial times, persons have been engaged in disputes by adopting what may be called a conflictual craft. This craft seeks to promote a synthesis of the skeptic and of the dogmatic craft. What I aim to do is to show that the conflictual craft is a synthesis and an alternative to the skeptic and to the dogmatic craft by: in section 1, presenting the core features of the skeptic craft and of the dogmatic craft; in section 2, problematizing the dogmatic craft by means of the skeptic one and vice-versa; and, in section 3, spelling out the conflictual craft
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
