The history of Pyrrhonism is fragmented and complex, as reflected in the various names applied to its practitioners.
Román Alcalá has examined this issue in «The Names of Ancient Skepticism: aporētikoí, ephektikoí, pyrrhōneioi, skeptikoí,
and zētētikoí», concluding that the proper and established designation is ‘Skeptic.’ In this note, I offer historiographical,
historical, and conceptual considerations that qualify this conclusion. I further argue for the generic use of ‘Skeptic’to refer to
bot…
Read moreThe history of Pyrrhonism is fragmented and complex, as reflected in the various names applied to its practitioners.
Román Alcalá has examined this issue in «The Names of Ancient Skepticism: aporētikoí, ephektikoí, pyrrhōneioi, skeptikoí,
and zētētikoí», concluding that the proper and established designation is ‘Skeptic.’ In this note, I offer historiographical,
historical, and conceptual considerations that qualify this conclusion. I further argue for the generic use of ‘Skeptic’to refer to
both Academic and Pyrrhonian thinkers, and for the specific use of ‘Pyrrhonist’ to denote the latter. On this basis, I sketch an
account of the history of Pyrrhonism that highlights its polynomic character
