ON THE MEANING OFI NAPPREHENSIBILITY IN ACADEMIC ARGUMENT
Palabras clave:
Academy, inapprehensibility, suspension of assent, Stoic epistemologyResumen
This paper maintains that the standard epistemological reconstructions of Academic argument against Stoic apprehension distort the meaning of “inapprehensibility” (ἀκαταληψία) and “the suspension of assent about all things” (ἐποχὴ περὶ πάντων). The paper therefore defends the few traces in recent scholarship of the ontological specifications of inapprehensibility and the suspension of assent. This paper’s purpose is to reinforce the view that the Academy’s attack on Stoicism extended to the latter’s ontological commitments.
Referencias
Allen, J. 1997. “Carneadean Argument in Cicero’s Academic Books”, in Assent and Argument: Studies in Cicero’s Academic Books, ed. by B. Inwood and J. Mansfeld, Leiden, Brill, pp. 217–256.
–– “Aporia and the New Academy”, in The Aporetic Tradition in Philosophy, ed. by G. Karamonilis and V. Politis, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018, pp. 172–191.
Bett, R., “Carneades’ pithanon: a Reappraisal of Its Role and Status”, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 7, 1989, pp. 59–94.
–– (tr.) 2005. Sextus Empiricus: Against the Logicians, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Bobzien, S. 1999. “Logic: The Stoics”, in The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, ed. K. Algra et al., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 92–176.
Boeri, M. and De Brasi, L. 2023. “The Ancient Sceptic Attitude and Disagreement”, Kriterion: Revista de Filosofia, v. 64, 154, pp. 27–48.
Bolzani Filho, R. 2011. “Acadêmicos versus pirrônicos”, Sképsis, v. 4, n. 7, pp. 7–55.
Brittain, C. 2001. Philo of Larissa: The Last of the Academic Sceptics, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
–– 2007. “Middle Platonists on Academic Scepticism”, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Supplement, No. 94, Greek & Roman Philosophy 100 BC–200 AD, Volume 2, pp. 297–315.
–– and Palmer, J. “The New Academy’s Appeals to the Presocratics”, Phronesis 46, pp. 38–72.
–– and Osorio, P. 2021. “Arcesilaus”, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by E. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/arcesilaus/>.
Bronowski, A. 2019. The Stoics on lekta: All There Is to Say, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Burnyeat, M. 1997. “Antipater and Self-Refutation: Elusive Arguments in Cicero’s Academica”, in Assent and Argument, ed. by B. Inwood and J. Mansfeld, Leiden, Brill, pp. 277–310.
Cappello, O. 2019. The School of Doubt: Skepticism, History and Politics in Cicero’s Academica. Leiden and Boston, Brill.
Castagnoli, L. 2019. “Dialectic in the Hellenistic Academy”, in Dialectic after Plato and Aristotle, ed. by T. Bénatouïl and K. Ierodiakonou, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 168–217.
Cicero. 2006. On Academic Scepticism, trans. by C. Brittain, Indianapolis, Hackett.
Couissin, P. 1983. “The Stoicism of the New Academy”, in The Skeptical Tradition, trans. by J. Barnes and M. Burnyeat, Berkeley, University of California Press, pp. 31–63.
des Places, É. 1973. (ed.), Numénius, Fragments, Paris.
Frede, M. 1984. “The Sceptics’ Two Kinds of Assent and the Question of the Possibility of Knowledge”, in Philosophy in History, ed. by R. Rorty, J. Schneewind, and Q. Skinner, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 255–278.
Hankinson, R. J. 1995. The Sceptics, London, Routledge.
–– 2003. “Stoic Epistemology”, in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, ed. by B. Inwood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 59–84.
Inwood, B. and Gerson, L. P. 1997. Hellenistic Philosophy: Introductory Readings, Second Edition, Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing.
Ioppolo, A. M. 1986. Opinione e scienza: il dibattito tra Stoici e Academici nel III e nel II secolo a.C., Naples, Bibliopolis.
–– 1992. “Sesto Empirico e l’Accademia scettica.” Elenchos 13, pp. 169–200.
— 2009. La testimonianza di Sesto Empirico sull’ Accademia scettica, Naples, Bibliopolis.
–– 2018. “Arcesilaus”, in Skepticism: From Antiquity to the Present, ed. by D.E. Machuca and B. Reed, London, Bloomsbury, pp. 36–50.
Long, A.A. and Sedley, D. 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 vols. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Machuca, D. E. 2019. “Scepticisme, apraxia, et rationalité”, in Les raisons du doute: études sur le scepticisme antique, ed. by D. E. Machuca and S. Marchand, Paris, Classiques Garnier, pp. 53–87.
Maconi, H. 1988. “Nova Non Philosophandi Philosophia: A review of Anna Maria Ioppolo, Opinione e Scienza”, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 6, pp. 231–253.
Mutschmann, H. (ed.). 1912. Sexti Empirici Opera, vol. 1: Pyrrhoneae Hypotyposes, Leipzig.
–– and Mau, J. (eds.) 1914. Sexti Empirici Opera, vol. 2: Adversus Mathematicos, Leipzig.
Perin, C. 2005. “Academic Arguments for Indiscernibility”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86, pp. 493–517.
–– 2013. “Making Sense of Arcesilaus”, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 45, pp. 313–340.
Reid, J.S. (ed.) 1885. M. Tulli Ciceronis, Academica. London.
Schofield, M. 1999. “Academic Epistemology”, in The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, ed. by K. Algra, J. Barnes, J. Mansfeld and M. Schofield, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 323–351.
Schwab, W. 2020. “Skeptical Defenses Against the Inaction Objection,” in The Routledge Handbook of Hellenistic Philosophy, ed. by K. Arenson, London, Routledge, pp. 184–197.
Sedley, D. 2012. “Antiochus as Historian of Philosophy”, in The Philosophy of Antiochus, ed. by D. Sedley, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 80–103.
Sharples, R. 1996. Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics: An Introduction to Hellenistic Philosophy. London, Routledge.
Snyder, C. E. 2020. “Arcesilaus and the Ontology of Stoic Cognition”, The Review of Metaphysics 73, 455–493.
Snyder, C. E. 2021. Beyond Hellenistic Epistemology: Arcesilaus and the Destruction of Stoic Metaphysics. New York, Bloomsbury.
Stojanović, P. 2019. “Zeno of Citium’s Causal Theory of Apprehensive Appearances”, Ancient Philosophy 39, 2019, pp. 151–174.
Striker, G. 1996. “Sceptical Strategies”, in Doubt and Dogmatism: Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology, ed. by J. Barnes, M. Burnyeat, and M. Schofield, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1980, pp. 54–83; Reprinted in Striker, G. 1996. Essays on Hellenistic Ethics and Epistemology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 92–116.
–– 1981. “Über den Unterschied zwischen den Pyrrhoneern und den Akademikern”, Phronesis 26, pp. 153–171. Translated in Striker, G. 1996. “On the Difference between the Pyrrhonists and the Academics”, in Essays on Hellenistic Epistemology and Ethics, pp. 135–150.
Thorsrud, H. 2018. “Arcesilaus: Socratic Skepticism in Plato’s Academy”, Lexicon Philosophicum: International Journal for the History of Texts and Ideas, Special Issue, pp. 195–220.
Vezzoli, S. (ed.) 2016. Arcesilao di Pitane: l'origine del Platonismo neoaccademico. Turnhout, Brepols.
Williams, B. 2005. Descartes: The Project of Pure Inquiry. London, Routledge.
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2024 Revista Kriterion
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
