جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "سکستوس" در نشریات گروه "فلسفه و کلام"

This article discusses about one of the most difficult and the most challenging problems in the theory of knowledge. It should be noticed that this problem is not about whether knowledge has criterion or not, but it concerns with this puzzle that if knowledge should have a criterion, then what is the criterion of the criterion? or by what criterion, a criterion should be chosen? In fact, the position of challenge would be the problem of the criterion of the criterion. Really, it can be said that this problem is the main challenge between sceptics and anti-sceptics. Hence, it has been known as a metaepistemological problem in the contemporary epistemology, because it differs substantially from other epistemological problems in the epistemology. This problem has two versions: classic version and modern version. The classic version of this problem has been related to Sextus Empiricus (Empiricist, belonged to the Empirical School of Medicine), the author of Outlines of Scepticism. He was a pyrrhonist philosopher, a physician and a pyrrhonian skeptic living probably in the second or third century. Many of whose works survive, including the Outlines of Pyrrhonism, the best and the fullest account of Pyrrhonian skepticism (a kind of skepticism named for Pyrrho). Pyrrhonian skepticism involves having no beliefs about philosophical, scientific, or theoretical matters.

Method of Study: 

The method of discovery in this issue is library method and the method of evaluation is rational analytic.

Whereas modern skepticism questions the possibility of knowledge, Pyrrhonian skepticism questions the rationality of belief. Now, the classic version of the problem will be discussed by analytic and comparative method in this essay. Finally, we come to this conclusion that this problem is really a fallacy, that is a dilemma fallacy, and it can be solved by analysing the self-evident foundations of knowing.

" Dilemma fallacy" is some kind of fallacy which shows decisively that there are only two ways for getting something and all of the ways are unacceptable. sceptics use this kind of fallacy and claim that we can have knowledge, if we have reason but the process of reasoning finally comes to circle or vicious regress. So, we cannot have knowledge at all. But this is a fallacy, because the process of knowing is not limited to the process of reasoning. Actually, having knowledge comes from two ways: the way of self-evidence and the way of reasoning. Hence, we can pass from two horns of this dilemma fallacy and come to knowledge without circular and vicious regress. A well-known example for this dilemma fallacy is that a Greek mother said to his child " Do not be a politician, because you will tell truth in politics or lie. Now, if you tell truth as a politician, certainly God will be satisfied of you. But people would hate you. Otherwise, if you lie as a politician, God will become angry of you, but people would be satisfied of you. Therefore, you should escape from politics as much as possible. It worth mentioning that sceptics use this kind of fallacy and say: you have knowledge if you give reason, but giving reason leads to circle or vicious regress. So, you cannot know anything; the main claim of scepticism. But it is clear without saying that this claim is really a dilemma fallacy, because taking knowledge is not limited in the way of reasoning, but knowledge, as a true justified belief, comes from self-evidence and reason(argument). So, from this way, we can pass from two horns of this fallacy and come to knowledge without circular and vicious regress.