The ten modes of aenesidemus and the myth of ancient scepticism
The ten modes of aenesidemus and the myth of ancient scepticism
复制标题
埃尼西德穆斯的十种模式和古代怀疑论的神话
DOI：
10.1080/09608789508570921
复制
发表时间：
1995
影响因子：
0.6
通讯作者：
S. Gaukroger
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Gaukroger
系统怀疑在现代，即后笛卡尔时代，采取怀疑主义的形式。在这篇文章中，我想说明，在古代，它采取了更类似于相对主义的形式。我将首先考察埃涅西得摩斯的十种模式，它们构成了第一个世纪和几个世纪后皮朗主义复兴的支柱。我将把这十种模式作为一个“测试案例”，我的目的是要表明，它们中很少有自然的怀疑主义阅读，而且它们中的许多与怀疑主义根本不相容，而它们都有一个直截了当的相对主义阅读。然后，我将试图澄清究竟涉及什么样的相对主义，以及相对主义的怀疑采取什么形式。我将论证，怀疑论驱动认识论的怀疑，而相对主义驱动doxastic怀疑，而在古代的怀疑是针对信仰，而不是知识。最后，我将论证，这种阅读是由古代和现代怀疑之间的一些关键差异所支持的。关于埃涅西底母的十种模式的最详细的可用说明是亚那斯和巴恩斯在他们对模式的翻译和评论中提供的。他们试图把一个怀疑的阅读模式，这是他们的解释，我将采取的问题。他们根据一般的对立来区分怀疑主义和相对主义：
Systematic doubt in the modern, ie post-Cartesian, era takes the form of scepticism. In this paper, I want to show that in antiquity it took the form of something more akin to relativism. I shall began by looking at the ten Modes of Aenesidemus, which form the backbone of the revival of Pyrrhonism in the first century r centuries later. I shall take the ten Modes as a'test case', and my aim is to show that few of them have a natural sceptical reading and that many of them are simply incompatible with scepticism, whereas all of them have a straightforwardly relativist reading. I shall then try and clarify exactly what kind of relativism is involved and what form relativistic doubt takes. I shall argue that scepticism drives epistemological doubt, whereas relativism drives doxastic doubt, and that doubt in antiquity is directed towards beliefs rather than knowledge. Finally, I shall argue that this reading is supported by some key differences between ancient and modern doubt.The most detailed available account of the ten Modes of Aenesidemus is that provided by Annas and Barnes in their translation and commentary on the Modes. They try to place a sceptical reading on the Modes, and it is their interpretation that I shall take issue with. They distinguish between scepticism and relativism in terms of a general opposition: