The objective of the paper is to seek clarification on the relationship between epistemic relativism and scepticism. It is not infrequent to come across contemporary discussions of epistemic relativism that rely upon aspects of scepticism and, vice versa, discussions of scepticism drawing upon aspects of relativism. Our goal is to highlight the difference(s) between them by illustrating (1) that some arguments thought to be against relativism are actually against scepticism, (2) that there are different ways of understanding the relationship between relativism and scepticism, and (3) that a commitment to either relativism or scepticism does not entail commitment to the other. The paper focuses upon the works of Peter Unger and Paul Boghossian to show how this terrain can be variously conceived and to illustrate that Boghossian's conception of the landscape is incorrect.
Thomism which traditionally backed Papal Infallibility creates a special Catholic locus theologicus proprius out of this dogma which depends on a positive straight line between God and men. But in looking into the inevitable spatial aspect of the doctrine, the necessity of Papal Infallibility to teach ex cathedra, the straight line turns into a relative flat locus which depends on processes independent of it. By this topology provided by Whitehead’s Process Philosophy Papal Infallibility turns into a locus theologicus alienus coherent with the philosophical backing of the doctrine.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.