東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Unmitigated Skepticism: The Nature a...

Wong, Andrew David.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Unmitigated Skepticism: The Nature and Scope of Pyrrhonism.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Unmitigated Skepticism: The Nature and Scope of Pyrrhonism./
作者:	Wong, Andrew David.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2017,
面頁冊數:	177 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 78-08(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International78-08A(E).
標題:	Philosophy. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10257958
ISBN:	9781369685602

Unmitigated Skepticism: The Nature and Scope of Pyrrhonism.
Wong, Andrew David.

Unmitigated Skepticism: The Nature and Scope of Pyrrhonism. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2017 - 177 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 78-08(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2017.

The "scope" of Pyrrhonian Skepticism refers to the extent to which Skeptics bear epistemic commitments. There are two respects in which the debate between unmitigated and mitigated interpretations of Skepticism is significant. First, there is the philosophical question of which version of Pyrrhonism is more coherent and compelling when considered on its own merits. Second, there is the historical question of which sort of interpretation accurately characterizes Pyrrhonism itself, as it is presented in the works of Sextus Empiricus.

ISBN: 9781369685602Subjects--Topical Terms:

516511
Philosophy.

Unmitigated Skepticism: The Nature and Scope of Pyrrhonism.
LDR:03173nmm a2200337 4500 001 2164100
005 20181030085011.5
008 190424s2017 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781369685602
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10257958
035 $a (MiAaPQ)ucsd:16274
035 $a AAI10257958
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Wong, Andrew David. $3 3352133
245 1 0 $a Unmitigated Skepticism: The Nature and Scope of Pyrrhonism.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2017
300 $a 177 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 78-08(E), Section: A.
500 $a Advisers: Monte R. Johnson; Casey Perin.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2017.
520 $a The "scope" of Pyrrhonian Skepticism refers to the extent to which Skeptics bear epistemic commitments. There are two respects in which the debate between unmitigated and mitigated interpretations of Skepticism is significant. First, there is the philosophical question of which version of Pyrrhonism is more coherent and compelling when considered on its own merits. Second, there is the historical question of which sort of interpretation accurately characterizes Pyrrhonism itself, as it is presented in the works of Sextus Empiricus.
520 $a My own arguments proceed accordingly. On the philosophical front, I argue (primarily in Chapters 2 and 3) that when the force of the Skeptical modes is fully understood, they are unmitigated in scope. On the historical side, I argue (primarily in Chapters 1 and 4) that an unmitigated interpretation of Pyrrhonism is consistent with the Sextan corpus. Throughout, my ultimate aim is to present a vision of unmitigated skepticism that is, if not an expression of the historical reality of Pyrrhonism, at least a direct descendant of it.
520 $a The central argument concerns the Five Modes of Agrippa, which are widely regarded as comprising the most powerful argument of Pyrrhonian Skepticism: the "Pyrrhonian Problematic." The intuitive force of the Problematic lies in its generality. It threatens to cast into doubt every claim that can be advanced on every subject. According to the standard interpretation, the Problematic achieves this by constituting a declarative argument that consists of appealing premises and the conclusion that epistemic justification is impossible.
520 $a I argue that this interpretation fails to capture the intuitive force of the Problematic in two ways: First, it is a mistake to interpret the scope of the Problematic as being narrowly restricted to the concept of epistemic justification. Second, and more importantly, it is a mistake to assume that the Problematic is an argument in the first place. Understanding its full potential requires that we instead interpret the Problematic procedurally, as a set of instructions that the Skeptic implements in engaging dialectically with an interlocutor's claims.
590 $a School code: 0033.
650 4 $a Philosophy. $3 516511
650 4 $a Epistemology. $3 896969
690 $a 0422
690 $a 0393
710 2 $a University of California, San Diego. $b Philosophy. $3 1670992
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 78-08A(E).
790 $a 0033
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2017
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10257958