Switch to: References

Citations of:

A Small Tincture of Pyrrhonism

In Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (ed.), Pyrrhonian skepticism. New York: Oxford University Press (2004)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Hume is the Enemy of Pyrrho.Dominic K. Dimech - 2021 - Philosophy 96 (4):651-674.
    I offer reasons against reading Hume as a Pyrrhonian sceptic. I argue that Hume's scepticism is motivated differently, that his sceptical strategies are not analogous to Pyrrhonism's, and that it is profitable to read Hume as a critic of Pyrrhonism. I hold that the most informative point of comparison between Hume and Sextus Empiricus is a point of difference, namely, their stands on the connection between suspension of judgement (epochê) and tranquillity (ataraxia). For Sextus, tranquillity flows naturally from suspending judgement (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • (1 other version)“Till at last there remain nothing”: Hume’s Treatise 1.4.1 in contemporary perspective.Jeanne Peijnenburg & David Atkinson - 2020 - Synthese 197 (8):3305-3323.
    In A Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume presents an argument according to which all knowledge reduces to probability, and all probability reduces to nothing. Many have criticized this argument, while others find nothing wrong with it. In this paper we explain that the argument is invalid as it stands, but for different reasons than have been hitherto acknowledged. Once the argument is repaired, it becomes clear that there is indeed something that reduces to nothing, but it is something other (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Hume's Scepticism and Realism.Jani Hakkarainen - 2012 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (2):283-309.
    In this article, a novel interpretation of one of the problems of Hume scholarship is defended: his view of Metaphysical Realism or the belief in an external world (that there are ontologically and causally perception-independent, absolutely external and continued, i.e. Real entities). According to this interpretation, Hume's attitude in the domain of philosophy should be distinguished from his view in the domain of everyday life: Hume the philosopher suspends his judgement on Realism, whereas Hume the common man firmly believes in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Fiction and Content in Hume’s Labyrinth.Bridger Ehli - 2024 - Philosophical Quarterly 74 (1):187-207.
    In the “Appendix” to the Treatise, Hume claims that he has discovered a “very considerable” mistake in his earlier discussion of the self. Hume's expression of the problem is notoriously opaque, leading to a vast scholarly debate as to exactly what problem he identified in his earlier account of the self. I propose a new solution to this interpretive puzzle. I argue that a tension generated by Hume's conceptual skepticism about real “principles of union” and his account of fictions of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • ‘Naturalism’ and ‘Skepticism’ in Hume'sTreatise of Human Nature.Sean Greenberg - 2008 - Philosophy Compass 3 (4):721-733.
    Hume begins the Treatise of Human Nature by announcing the goal of developing a science of man; by the end of Book 1 of the Treatise, the science of man seems to founder in doubt. Underlying the tension between Hume's constructive ambition – his 'naturalism'– and his doubts about that ambition – his 'skepticism'– is the question of whether Hume is justified in continuing his philosophical project. In this paper, I explain how this question emerges in the final section of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • (1 other version)“Till at last there remain nothing”: Hume’s Treatise 1.4.1 in contemporary perspective.David Atkinson & Jeanne Peijnenburg - 2020 - Synthese 197 (8):3305-3323.
    In A Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume presents an argument according to which all knowledge reduces to probability, and all probability reduces to nothing. Many have criticized this argument, while others find nothing wrong with it. In this paper we explain that the argument is invalid as it stands, but for different reasons than have been hitherto acknowledged. Once the argument is repaired, it becomes clear that there is indeed something that reduces to nothing, but it is something other (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark