The academic responses to the apraxia objection
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
In this paper, I reconstruct and analyze the Academic skeptics’ responses to the apraxia objection. This objection claims that the scepticism is a doctrine impossible to be put into practice because its theses lead to apraxia, that is, a state of lack or impossibility of action. The responses to the objection are divided into two kinds. The first one proves that assent is not a necessary condition to perform actions, so the skeptical advice to globally and wholly suspend assent does not lead to apraxia. The second one proves that it is possible to deliberate and rationally lead our actions without apprehensive impressions, so the skeptical thesis that apprehensive impressions do not exist does not lead to apraxia either. After some general considerations, in the first section of this paper I discuss Arcesilaus’ responses and in the second section Carneades’ responses.
- Academic skepticism
- Arcesilaus
- Carneades
- Stoicism
- Hellenistic philosophy
Allen, J. (1994): “Academic Probabilism and Stoic Epistemology”, The Classical Quarterly, 44.1, pp. 85-113.
Bett, R. (1989): “Carneades’ Pithanon: A Reappraisal of its Role and Status”, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 7, pp. 59-94.
Bett, R. (1990): “Carneades’ Distinction Between Assent and Approval”, The Monist, 73.1, pp. 3-20.
Boeri, M. & Salles, R. [BS] (2014). Los filósofos estoicos: Ontología, Lógica, Física y Ética, Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag.
Bolzani Filho, R. (2008, 2016): “Académicos versus pirrónicos: escepticismo antiguo y filosofía moderna (trad. C. F. Pineda-Pérez)”, Praxis Filosófica 43, pp. 245-89.
Bolzani Filho, R. (2012). Acadêmicos versus Pirrônicos, São Paulo: Alameda.
Brennan, T. (1996): “Reasonable Impressions in Stoicism”, Phronesis, 41.3, pp. 318-34.
Chiesara, M. L. (2004, 2007). Historia del escepticismo griego (trad. P. Bádenas), Madrid: Siruela.
Cicerón [Ac.] (1922). Academicorum reliquiae cum Lucullo. M. Tulli Ciceronis scripta quae manserunt omnia, Fasc. 42 (ed. O. Plasberg), Leipzig: Teubner.
Couissin, P. (1929): “Le Stoïcisme de la Nouvelle Académie”, Revue d’histoire de la philosophie, 3, pp. 241-76.
Diógenes Laercio [DL] (1964). Diogenis Laertii vitae philosophorum, 2 vols. (ed. H. S. Long), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Frede, M. (1983): “Skeptics on Clear and Distinct Impressions”, en M. Burnyeat (ed.), The Skeptical Tradition, Berkeley & Los Angeles, University of California Press, pp. 65-94.
Frede, M. (1984): “The sceptic’s two kinds of assent and the question of the possibility of knowledge”, en R. Rorty, J. B. Schneewind, Q. Skinner (eds.), Philosophy in History. Essays on the historiography of philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 255-78.
Inwood, B. (1985). Ethics and Human Action in Early Stoicism, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ioppolo, A. M. (1986). Opinione e scienza. Il dibattito tra Stoici e Accademici nel terzo e secondo secolo a. C.,Napoli: Bibliopolis.
Obdrzalek, S. (2012).“From Skepticism to Paralysis: The ApraxiaArgument in Cicero’s Academica”, Ancient Philosophy, 32.2, pp. 369-92.
Perin, C. (2005): “Stoic Epistemology and the Limits of Externalism”, Ancient Philosophy,25, pp. 383-401.
Plutarco [SR] (1958). Stoicorum Repugnatis. Plutarchi moralia, vol. 6.2, (ed. R. Westman & M. Pohlenz), Leipzig: Teubner
Plutarco [Col.] (1959). Adversus Colotem. Plutarchi moralia, vol. 6.2, (ed. R. Westman & M. Pohlenz), Leipzig: Teubner.
Salles, R. (2000): “Compatibilism: Stoic and Modern”, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie,83, pp. 1-23.
Sexto Empírico [PH](1912). Pyrrhoniae hypotyposes. Sexti Empirici opera, vol. 1 (ed. H. Mutschmann), Leipzig: Teubner.
Sexto Empírico [M] (1914). Adversus Dogmaticos. Sexti Empirici opera, vols. 2 (ed. H. Mutschmann), Leipzig: Teubner.
Stojanovic, P. (2014): “Epictetus and Moral Apprehensive Impressions in Stoicism”, en D. R. Gordon & D. B. Suits (eds.), Epictetus: His Continuing Influence and Contemporary Relevance, Rochester, RIT Press, pp. 165-195.
Striker, G. (1980): “Sceptical Strategies”, en M. Schofield, M. Burnyeat & J. Barnes (eds.), Doubt and Dogmatism. Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology, Oxford, Clarendon Press, pp. 54-83.
Vogt, K. M. (2010): “Scepticism and Action”, en R. Bett (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Scepticism, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 165-80.
Von Arnim, H. [SVF] (1964). Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, 4 vols, Stuttgart: Teubner.
Downloads
Accepted 2018-02-05
Published 2018-01-15
De acuerdo con nuestra política (Licencia Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) los artículos presentados y sometidos al proceso editorial en la revista Praxis Filosófica no tienen costo alguno para sus autores ni retribuciones económicas para la revista. El artículo de carácter inédito, producto de investigación o de algún proyecto que se presente a Praxis Filosófica, no podrá estar sometido a otro proceso de publicación durante el proceso que se lleve en nuestra revista.