Skepticism in 18th Century Germany

John Christian Laursen (Riverside) recently published "Escepticismo inofensivo en la Alemania ilustrada," in Ámbitos 28 (2012): 21-28. The journal doesn't seem to have a website where papers can be downloaded.

Academics vs. Pyrrhonists

Brazilian scholars and students in particular will be interested in this new book by Roberto Bolzani Filho (São Paulo): Acadêmicos versus Pirrônicos (Alameda, 2013). More information can be found here.

The Apraxia Objection in Cicero

The latest issue of Ancient Philosophy (32/2, 2012) contains Suzanne Obdrzalek's "From Skepticism to Paralysis: The Apraxia Argument in Cicero’s Academica". It can be found here.

Issue 3/1 of IJSS

The latest issue of the International Journal for the Study of Skepticism is now out. The papers can be accessed on Brill Online.

IJSS on PhilPapers

The International Journal for the Study of Skepticism is now on PhilPapers. References to all published and forthcoming papers will be added soon.

Sextus on Daphnet

A preliminary version of the Greek text of all of Sextus's extant writings is available for free on Daphnet (Digital Archives of Philosophical Texts on the NET). Just click here. (Thanks to Emidio Spinelli for the info.)

Colloquium on Disagreement

19th International Philosophy Colloquium Evian: Disagreement - Désaccord - Uneinigkeit. Evian (Lake Geneva), France, July 7-13, 2013.

Proposals (maximum length: one page) are invited  for presentations, along with a short CV (maximum length: two pages), by March 31, 2013. These documents should be sent via e-mail to: evian@philosophie.fu-berlin.de. Complete information can be found here. I must say that this colloquium looks promising, so if you can get financial support from your institution, you should send a proposal.

Skepticism in Antiquity and the Renaissance

Michelle Zerba (Louisiana) recently published Doubt and Skepticism in Antiquity and the Renaissance (CUP, 2012). More information can be found here. It doesn't seem to be a philosophy book in the proper sense of the word. (Thanks to Roger Eichorn for reminding me of this book.)

Book on Cyrenaicism

A few days ago, I received a copy of Ugo Zilioli's The Cyrenaics (Acumen, 2012). Given the skeptical aspects of Cyrenaic epistemology, this book might be of interest to some of you.

Pyrrhonism and Belief

A very recent paper on Sextan Pyrrhonism by Katja Vogt: "Appearances and Assent: Sceptical Belief Reconsidered," The Classical Quarterly 62 (2012). It can be found here.

Spinelli's Questioni Scettiche

Emidio Spinelli's Questioni Scettiche: letture introduttive al pirronismo antico (Roma: Lithos, 2005) can be read for free here.

Elenchos Issue on Sextus

Volume 13 (1992) of the Italian journal Elenchos was devoted to the proceedings of the international conference "Sesto Empirico e la storia del pensiero antico," which took place in Rome in 1991. The good news is that this issue is now available for free here. (Thanks to Emidio Spinelli for the information.) I highly recommend that you read at least the articles by Annas, Decleva Caizzi, Ioppolo, and Sedley.

Workshop on External World Skepticism

Workshop "New Perspectives on External World Scepticism," Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy (MCMP), LMU Munich, 9-10 July 2013.

Is the external world largely as it appears to be? How can we rule out the possibility that we are constantly deceived by a vicious demon or the Matrix? In response to the global sceptic, contemporary epistemologists claim - for example - that perceptual justification is immediate in that it doesn't require independent reason for rejecting sceptical alternatives. Others contend that we are a priori entitled to trust "cornerstone" propositions that guarantee the reliability of our perceptions. Another view is that ordinary hypotheses are preferable to sceptical alternatives because they better explain our experiences. All these responses have been challenged with informal and formal objections. Bayesian methodology seems to vindicate entitlement theories but it is arguably unsuitable to model the state of radical ignorance presupposed by the sceptic. Immediate justification theories are affected by gruelling difficulties, like the bootstrapping and the cognitive penetrability problem. The thesis that explanatory force produces justification is controversial and - some contend - incompatible with formal representations of rational belief. The workshop focuses on these and other interesting responses to external world scepticism. It aims to gather together traditional and formal epistemologists to foster collaboration between researchers working from a variety of perspectives. 

In addition to six invited speakers, there is space for about two additional speakers. Anyone interested in presenting a paper, should check the workshop website here.

Conference on Disagreement

You might be interested in this Call for Papers (thanks to Emidio Spinelli for the information):

"Disagreement" - University of Alberta Philosophy Graduate Conference, May 10-12, 2013, Edmonton, Alberta

Keynote Speakers:

Thomas Christiano, University of Arizona
Adam Morton, University of British Columbia

We invite submissions of papers by graduate students and postgraduates (who were awarded their PhDs no earlier than 2007) to the graduate philosophy conference to be held on May 10-12, 2013 at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

At first, one might take ‘disagreement’ to be merely a matter of subjective opinion. Nevertheless, disagreement is a pervasive and genuine phenomenon of and in our experience which calls for philosophical reflection. This conference focuses on the notion of disagreement broadly construed. We invite papers that discuss the nature, value of, and attitudes towards disagreement. Papers from both the analytic and continental traditions, as well as from disciplines and traditions of investigation other than philosophy are welcomed. Possible questions for consideration include but are not limited to: What constitutes disagreement? What distinguishes private from public disagreement; internal from external disagreement; or intra- from inter-personal disagreement? Are all disagreements resolvable, and on what grounds? Are disagreements structured by power dynamics? Is reconciliation always desirable or is there value in perennial discord? Can there be faultless or harmless disagreements in the realms of ethics/politics/aesthetics/epistemology, etc.? If so does this entail some sort of relativism or pluralism, and if it does is this a bad thing?

Deadline for submissions: January 30, 2013 (Extended from January 10, 2013)

Submission Guidelines: Papers should not exceed 3000 words. They should be prepared for blind review and sent as a PDF file to uofaphilconference@gmail.com. In a separate PDF attachment, please include your name, academic affiliation, e-mail address, paper title, and an abstract of no more than 150 words. For more information, please contact us at uofaphilconference@gmail.com