Verlag.Buchhandel.Service. - Österreichische Gesellschaft für ...

Guido Melchior ◆ Skepticism as a Problem of Reevaluation
Usually, the problem of Cartesian skepticism occurs as the following argument: If S has knowledge
of the external world, then S knows that she is not a brain in a vat. S does not know that she is not a
brain in a vat. Therefore, S does not have knowledge of the external world. The skeptical argument
is valid. Therefore, it confronts us with a kind of paradox or dilemma: Each of its premises seems
plausible but its conclusion seems unacceptable. The aim of this paper is to solve the problem of
Cartesian skepticism and to explain its apparent plausibility. The proposed solution to the skeptical
problem is Mooreanism, which is already at hand: We have knowledge about the external world
and, therefore, we know that the skeptical hypothesis is false. What remains to be done is to explain
the plausibility of the skeptical argument and the intuitive implausibility of Moorean solutions. For
achieving this goal, I will distinguish two cognitive processes, firstly ordinary knowledge acquisition
and secondly higher-order knowledge by doubting and reevaluating one’s own beliefs. I will argue that
our intuitions about the plausibility of skepticism and the implausibility of Mooreanism only concern
knowledge of the second type. Hence, we can know that the skeptical hypothesis is false, but we cannot
successfully reevaluate this belief, if we put it into doubt. I conclude that the skeptical problem is only
one of reevaluation, but not one of ordinary knowledge acquisition. ◆
Matthew Meyer ◆ At the Border of Philosophy and Poetry:
Republic V-VII as a Comic Parabasis of Self-Definition
This paper is part of a larger project of reading Plato’s Republic as a comic response to
Aristophanic comedy and therefore as a contribution to what Plato calls the ancient quarrel between
philosophy and poetry. The focus of the paper is the central books of the Republic, where Plato
seeks to delineate a clear boundary between the philosopher and the non-philosopher. On the one
hand, it is argued that this distinction is an important facet of Plato’s quarrel with the poets, such
that the poets and the lovers of poetry turn out to be the non-philosophers par excellence. On the
other hand, it is argued that the central books of the Republic bear striking similarities to the comic
parabasis, a formal element of Old Comedy in which the comic poet would often define himself
and his standing over against his artistic and political rivals. Thus, it is argued that although Plato
is concerned to draw a sharp distinction between philosophy and poetry, he nevertheless borrows
structural elements and employs stylistic techniques found in the very poetry he presents himself
as a attacking. As a result, Plato is very much willing to cross the boundaries that he has established
between philosophy and poetry, and this fact calls for a more nuanced understanding of Plato’s
attitude toward poetry in general and comedy in particular. ◆
77
M