Limits of scepticism and objectivity of knowledge

The article undertakes a twofold investigation of sceptical argumentation (in its Pyrrhonical type). On the one hand, the basis for the sceptical argumentation, which gives persuasiveness to Pyrrhonism in general, is uncovered. This enables us to take a closer look on the limits to sceptical arguments. On the other hand, the author aims to shed light on the tacit ontological presupposition, borrowed from the sceptic's opponents, underlies the Pyrrhonic Dialectical Strategy and, being at the core of sceptical argumentation, undermines objectivity of knowledge. At first, the author outlines the way the strongest sceptical arguments - Modes of Suspension of Judgement - work. The Agrippa Trilemma, the core argument against rational proof, is primarily enabled by and therefore depends on problems of disagreement and relativity. These problems stress partiality, perspectivism and hence subjectivity of any epis-temic claim. P. Klein has demonstrated that problems raised by the Trilemma can be avoided by revision of normative premises we tacitly take for granted that are used by the sceptic in order to reach his suspension of judgement. Another way to weaken sceptical arguments is to uncover the problematic modes that bring the Trilemma into life. Then, by the same token, the author approaches the original problem of disagreement in order to point a promising way of reaching the objectivity of knowledge and putting limits on sceptical argumentation, trying to nail down problematic presuppositions. At the heart of disagreement, the author argues that an ontological premise is to be found, which prescribes our thinking of "nature of things" or "things in themselves". In accordance to it, things are to be taken as invariant and internally identical entities, and that condition puts strong restraints on epistemology as far as knowledge is knowledge of things. Given the things exist this way, knowledge must be objective and must tolerate no controversy over what things are; in other words, there cannot be a disagreement in order for knowledge to take place. For it is not the case (the sceptics take advantage of this) and universal agreement is probably impossible, this premise proves untenable and has to be rejected. Thus, the author comes to a conclusion that the sceptical argumentative strategy is based on shaky grounds, and revision of these presuppositions opens a way for justifying knowledge for different contexts, thus a restricted objectivity of knowledge can be attained. A possible solution can be found in ontological and epistemological theories that suggest contextual or relativistic framework that could take away the problem of disagreement.

Keywords

Authors

References