evan @beingandslime.bsky.social · 26/12/2025I show it works like this--if we accept the underdetermination principle on knowledge (see below), then an argument for global skepticism gets us into a situation where p: "I don't know anything" and q: "I know p" underdetermine each other. 100 0
evan @beingandslime.bsky.social · 26/12/2025But Francisco Sanches, a 16th century global skeptic, takes a different tack. He begins his aptly titled "That Nothing is Known" with the following saucy passage: 131 0
evan @beingandslime.bsky.social · 26/12/2025another new paper!!! "The Ambiguous Inference: Sanches’ Refutation of the Self-Contradiction Objection to Global Skepticism" is forthcoming in Philosophical Quarterly! Thread below for details... 1123 0
evan @beingandslime.bsky.social · 29/10/2025NEW PAPER ALERT! "Quid Facti Between Kant and Maimon" is forthcoming in Kant-Studien! 🧵 1162 0
evan @beingandslime.bsky.social · 22/07/2025NEW PAPER ALERT: deleuze's epistemology of inquiry is now forthcoming in the southern journal of philosophy! read on for more info on what deleuze's epistemology (of inquiry) is! (link at bottom) 1337 0
evan @beingandslime.bsky.social · 04/03/2025Wow! A new paper! One of the main topics in scholarship on ancient skepticism is the "rustic vs. urbane" debate: whether skeptics were weirdo forest sages with no beliefs or normal guys with everyday beliefs. I think this debate is kind of silly and I show why in this paper! 1274 0
evan @beingandslime.bsky.social · 21/01/2025fun jules feiffer character designs from unproduced 50s pilot 071 0
evan @beingandslime.bsky.social · 20/01/2025a few that came to mind: deleuze, russell, brandom, huemer 110 0
evan @beingandslime.bsky.social · 30/09/2023anything is possible in any domain if you simply believe in yourself 000 0
![I do not know even this one thing, namely that I know nothing. I infer, however, that this is [true] both of myself and of others. Let this proposition be my battle colour—it commands my allegiance—‘Nothing is known’ If I come to know how to establish this, I shall be justified in drawing the conclusion that nothing is known; whereas if I do not know how to establish it, then all the more so—for that was what I claimed. But you will say, ‘If you know how to establish it, the opposite follows [contrariū sequetur], for you already know something.’ I, however, had already drawn the contrary conclusion before you objected [At ego cōtra prius conclusi, quam tu argueres]. Now I begin to upset the argument: it already follows from this that nothing is known [Ex hoc ipso iam sequitur, nil sciri]. Perhaps you have failed to grasp my meaning and are calling me ignorant, or a quibbler. You have told the truth; but I have a better right to say this of you, since you have failed to understand. So we are both ignorant. This being so, you have unwittingly arrived at the conclusion I was looking for. If you have understood the ambiguity of the inference [ambiguitatem consequentiae], you have clearly perceived that nothing is known; if not, then ponder, make a distinction, and untie this knot for me. Sharpen your wits; I am following you closely. (Sanches 1988, trans. Thomson. 1 with modifications)](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:djtj6erttz6bpchefy3prnit/bafkreidriafkwthr6alfvyqawydnf2k7a5n4lqd6sonskhl62m3zetwn5a)
