The Function of Skepticism in Part I of Don Quijote - H-Net

144 Daniel Lorca
Cervantes
barber for the bacía (46, 486), and this indicates that the priest always
knew that the object was not a yelmo. Finally, all the damage done by
Don Quijote in the venta was paid by “Don Fernando” (46, 487), which
again, indicates that his appeal to authority was not a real attempt to establish
truth, but a means to ridicule Don Quijote’s feeble mind.
But what about Sancho? He maintains that the object in question is
a baciyelmo. It should be kept in mind that Sancho accepts that the object
is a yelmo because his master says so, and therefore that part of his belief
depends on the authority provided by Don Quijote. At the same time,
Sancho think that the object is a bacía because he cannot deny what he
sees with his own eyes, and therefore he is also adopting a skeptical attitude
that relies on direct observation. The result of using both epistemic
strategies at the same time makes him unable to decide one way or the
other, and therefore he concludes that the object is a baciyelmo; therefore,
Sancho’s belief may be interpreted in two mutually supportive ways: first,
it is an indication that one cannot be a skeptic and a dogmatic at the same
time to establish truth because nothing is resolved; second, Sancho states
his position at the beginning of the episode, and therefore the baciyelmo
may be interpreted as an introduction of the theme that will be discussed
in the episode: is the object a bacía or a yelmo? The answer to this question
depends on the epistemic stance taken by the participants: if the
person speaking is a dogmatic, just like don Quijote, then he or she will
accept the ridiculous and false belief that it is a yelmo, and if the person
speaking is a skeptic, then he or she will believe the obvious truth that it
is a bacía.
The perspective I have used to analyze the episode of the baciyelmo is
very limited: it focuses on Don Quijote’s dogmatism. I acknowledge that
the episode may be interpreted in different and even mutually exclusive
ways, depending on the point of departure. For example, if we look at
the episode from the perspective of baroque disillusionment, then it may
be concluded that in the episode reality itself changes (this is Acunce-
Arrieta’s conclusion, as quoted above); if we approach the text from a
phenomenological perspective, then it may be concluded that the formation
of reality depends on observation (this is Castro’s conclusion); and
if we focus instead on the participants, then the episode may be viewed