Advertisement

Epistemic Justification and the Limits of Pyrrhonism

  • Peter D. Klein
Chapter
Part of the The New Synthese Historical Library book series (SYNL, volume 70)

Abstract

The argument in “chapter XV” of Book I of the Outlines of Pyrrhonism presenting Agrippa’s five modes leading to suspension of judgment is puzzling. First, it seems to use premises that only a dogmatist should use because they are far from evident, and, second, it relies heavily on the Aristotelian account of epistemic justification. I argue that the two puzzles can be solved by recognizing that the skeptic is dialectically entitled to premises and views that the dogmatist would accept. In particular, the dogmatist that Sextus (or Agrippa) has in mind is Aristotle, and, thus, the Pyrrhonian is entitled to and did, in fact, employ some important features of the Aristotelian account of what, today, we call epistemic justification. But this solution to the puzzle brings with it a price, namely that the generality of the epistemic regress argument is compromised. At best, it is effective only against accounts of epistemic justification that employ the relevant features of the Aristotelian account of epistemic justification. In particular, Aristotle holds that demonstration cannot produce epistemic warrant, it can only transmit it from first principles. If one holds that epistemic justification or at least some aspects of epistemic justification arise or emerge through reasoning, then foundational propositions are not necessary to provide the basis for the origin of warrant (or at least some aspects of it). Thus, infinitism (and contemporary forms of coherentism) can avoid the problems posed by the regress argument.

Keywords

Justify Belief Epistemic Justification Posterior Analytics Basic Proposition Circular Reasoning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I want to thank Anne Ashbaugh and Diego Machuca for their useful comments and important suggestions for improving this paper.

References

  1. BonJour, L. 1985. The structure of empirical knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bury, R.G. 1933–1949. Sextus Empiricus. 4 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, S. 2002. Basic knowledge and the problem of easy knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65: 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Firth, R. 1978. Are epistemic concepts reducible to ethical concepts? In Values and morals, eds. A. Goldman and J. Kim, 215–229. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  5. Klein, P.D. 1999. Human knowledge and the infinite regress of reasons. Philosophical Perspectives 13: 297–325.Google Scholar
  6. Klein, P.D. 2000. Why not infinitism? In Epistemology: Proceedings of the twentieth world congress in philosophy, ed. R. Cobb-Stevens, 199–208. Bowling Green, OH: Philosophy Documentation Center.Google Scholar
  7. Klein, P.D. 2004. Closure matters: Skepticism and easy knowledge. Philosophical Issues 14: 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Klein, P.D. 2005a. Infinitism is the solution to the epistemic regress problem. In Contemporary debates in philosophy, eds. M. Steup and E. Sosa, 131–140. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Klein, P.D. 2005b. Reply to ginet. In Contemporary debates in epistemology, eds. M. Steup and E. Sosa, 149–152. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Klein, P.D. 2007a. Human knowledge and the infinite progress of reasoning. Philosophical Studies 134: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Klein, P.D. 2007b. How to be an infinitist about doxastic justification. Philosophical Studies 134: 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McKeon, R. 1941. The basic works of Aristotle. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  13. Sorensen, R. 2003. A brief history of the paradox: Philosophy and the labyrinths of the mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Van Cleve, J. 2011. Can coherence generate warrant ex nihilo?: Probability and the logic of concurring witnesses. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82: 337–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Vogel, J. 2000. Reliabilism leveled. Journal of Philosophy 97: 602–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Williams, M. 1996. Unnatural doubts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations