The standard “gladiatorial” interpretation of the Modes of Agrippa has
undergone several recent attacks. Scholars have criticized it because it seems to
portray the skeptic as a dogmatist about logical support and because it does not
treat all five Modes as part of the system. Although some have attempted to
patch up the standard interpretation to address these issues, I raise a further
problem: The gladiatorial interpretation cannot make sense of the skeptic using
the Modes on herself, to suspe…
Read moreThe standard “gladiatorial” interpretation of the Modes of Agrippa has
undergone several recent attacks. Scholars have criticized it because it seems to
portray the skeptic as a dogmatist about logical support and because it does not
treat all five Modes as part of the system. Although some have attempted to
patch up the standard interpretation to address these issues, I raise a further
problem: The gladiatorial interpretation cannot make sense of the skeptic using
the Modes on herself, to suspend her own judgment. In light of these problems, I
propose a fresh interpretation: The Agrippan Modes should be understood, not
as arguments (or argument forms), but as types of dialectical challenge that the
skeptic can use in an endless inquiry into any dogmatic position.
