This volume draws connections between Wittgenstein's philosophy and the work of Saul Kripke, especially his Naming and Necessity. Saul Kripke is regarded as one of the foremost representatives of contemporary analytic philosophy. His most important contributions include the strict distinction between metaphysical and epistemological questions, the introduction of the notions of contingent a priori truth and necessary a posteriori truth and original accounts of names, descriptions, identity, necessity and realism. The chapters in this book elucidate the relevant connections between Kripke's (...) work and Wittgenstein, specifically concerning the standard meter, contingent apriori and rule-following. The contributions shed light on how Kripke's philosophical outlook was influenced by Wittgenstein, and how mainstream analytic philosophy and Wittgensteinian philosophy can fruitfully engage with one another. Kripke and Wittgenstein will be of interest to philosophers working on Wittgenstein, Kripke, and the history of analytic philosophy. (shrink)

Cet article s’intéresse en premier lieu à quelques passages des Esquisses pyrrhoniennes de Sextus (I 1-3 ; 8-10 ; III 119-122). Ces « études de cas » permettent d’examiner la relation dialectique entre Sextus et Aristote. Le Stagirite y est représenté à la fois comme une sorte de primus inter dogmaticos pares, et par conséquent comme une cible privilégiée des attaques pyrrhoniennes contre les dogmatismes, et, de façon indirecte, comme une sorte d’« ombre » se profilant derrière l’attitude critique de (...) Sextus. Parallèlement, la stratégie de Sextus consiste à utiliser le matériel aristotélicien à l’appui soit de l’attitude propre à l’ἀγωγή sceptique, soit de la construction d’une διαφωνία spécifique. En second lieu, la section finale de l’article examine en outre un passage difficile du Contre les moralistes (XI 77‑78), proposant une correction qui permettrait, en éliminant le nom d’Aristote, d’y voir une citation d’Ariston. (shrink)

This article deals with two questions: why would the way in which the neopyrronicle conducts his philosophical activity be more virtuous than his dogmatic, non-pyrrhic colleague does? And why would the result he achieves be more valuable? That said, my answer to the first question is that the way the neo-Pyrrhonian investigates is more virtuous because it seeks to deliberately avoid the vices of precipitation, arrogance and mental closure. Regarding the second question, I suggest that the outcome of the neopyronic (...) investigation, whatever it may be (even if it is not the truth) is more valuable because of the way he conducts his investigation. (shrink)

I maintain that among the main views concerning the central questions of epistemology (in particular, the question of justified belief) are evidentialism, (Pyrrhonian) scepticism and fideism. In this paper, I first present the arguments in favour of a form of evidentialism, according to which no false belief can be epistemically justified on the basis of evidence. Second, I consider the historical emergence of evidentialism during the period of the early Enlightenment. In particular, I explore the disagreement between Pierre Bayle and (...) Jean-Pierre de Crousaz, which demonstrates the emergence of the modern opposition between evidentialism and fideism. (shrink)

This paper presents and argues for a contemporary version of skepticism: neo-Pyrrhonism. Interest in the history of skepticism engendered a new, more complex and attractive conception of skepticism. Accordingly, many philosophers now claim they are skeptics. In line with what they say, I develop neo-Pyrrhonism as I see it. It has a negative part, in which dogmas are criticized, and a positive one: first, the neo-Pyrrhonist lives his life according to his skeptical principles and following everyday life, and, second, he (...) is able to describe philosophically his skeptical view of the world, thereby offering possible solutions to philosophical problems empirically conceived. (shrink)

Comment concilier réfutation du critère par les sceptiques et adoption d’un critère par les sceptiques? La première partie de l’article revient sur les formulations de la réfutation du critère dans les différentes sources sur le scepticisme et expose la manière dont Sextus Empiricus présente le scepticisme moins comme une négation de l’existence du critère que comme une mise en suspens sur la nature et l’existence du critère dogmatique. La deuxième partie de l’article rappelle les passages, de Cicéron à Galien, en (...) passant par le Commentateur anonyme du Théétète et Diogène Laërce, qui attribuent plus ou moins explicitement quelque chose comme un critère aux sceptiques. Plus précisément, ce critère, comme l’énoncera de la manière la plus claire Sextus Empiricus, est un critère d’action distinct d’un critère de vérité, cette distinction valant comme un moyen de faire la part entre scepticisme et dogmatisme mais aussi comme un argument décisif pour répondre aux objections dogmatiques contre le scepticisme. La troisième partie de l’article est consacrée à un approfondissement de la compréhension du critère sceptique comme critère pratique. Les textes de Sextus Empiricus permettent de montrer en quoi cette conception ne doit pas être confondue avec la restriction du critère au strict domaine de la conduite de la vie, ni avec une manière d’user de la vie ordinaire comme critère de vérité. (shrink)

Atheism is skeptical towards gods, and atheology advances philosophical positions defending the reasonableness of that rejection. The history of philosophy encompasses many unorthodox and irreligious movements of thought, and these varieties of unbelief deserve more exegesis and analysis than presently available. Going back to philosophy’s origins, two primary types of atheology have dominated the advancement of atheism, yet they have not cooperated very well. Materialist philosophies assemble cosmologies that leave nothing for gods to do, while skeptical philosophies find conceptions of (...) god to be too unintelligible or unsupported by evidence to warrant credibility. The origins and genealogies of these two atheologies are sketched and compared over many centuries down to present-day atheism, which still displays signs of this internecine divide between confident naturalists and agnostic skeptics. (shrink)

Review of Smith, P. (2022). Sextus Empiricus’ Neo-Pyrrhonism: Skepticism as a Rationally Ordered Experience. Cham: Springer.

Scepticism and negative theology are best understood not as theoretical positions, but rather as forms of philosophical practice that performatively undermine our knowledge claims or our seeming understanding of God. In particular, I am arguing that both scepticism and negative theology invoke the failure of the attempt to understand the absolute, be it God or the notion of absolute objectivity. However, with reference to L. A. Paul’s notion of epistemically transformative experience, I am arguing that we still understand something about (...) the absolute through the experience of failing to think it. This, of course, is a non-propositional form of understanding, and I am arguing that there is something about the finitude of the human condition that can only be understood through a transformative philosophical experience with respect to the absolute. (shrink)