{"id":525067,"date":"2024-10-02T06:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-10-02T04:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/?p=525067"},"modified":"2024-10-04T01:52:08","modified_gmt":"2024-10-03T23:52:08","slug":"scepticism-response-to-olivier-delacretaz","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/en\/philosophy\/scepticism-response-to-olivier-delacretaz\/","title":{"rendered":"Skepticism: reply to Olivier Delacr\u00e9taz"},"content":{"rendered":"

In this month's editorial, Jonas Follonier continues his debate with editorialist Olivier Delacr\u00e9taz, who responded in La Nation<\/em> to his plea for moderate skepticism.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\u00abThis is the beginning of a controversy\u00bb, wrote Olivier Delacr\u00e9taz in an e-mail about his response to my editorial \u00abLe scepticisme, pour \u00e9chapper au dogmatisme et au relativisme\u00bb published in Le Regard Libre<\/em> last June. The editorialist of La Nation<\/em> didn't think so. His fertile response to my text, reproduced in our previous issue, inspired me to reply in my turn, after thanking him for opposing my thesis. What better proof of respect than being taken seriously?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since this magazine is intended for the debate of ideas, and since my praise of skepticism was not unrelated to the journalistic and intellectual approach in general, which I oppose to the tendencies of dogmatism and relativism, I thought that my \u00abanswer to Olivier Delacr\u00e9taz's answer\u00bb should appear in these pages. With the idea that a \u00abresponse to the response to the response\u00bb might subsequently blossom in the columns of our Vaudois friends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My adversary of the moment has faithfully transcribed my thinking, noting at the outset in his article that the variant of skepticism I defend is not the radical one of asserting that nothing exists, or that even if something did exist, we wouldn't know about it. My more moderate view is as follows: it's very difficult to reach the truth, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In short, we should seek the truth, but without certainty. This necessary doubt does not, however, apply to logic and mathematics - I should have made this clear in my original text. Logic is the instrument of thought. Without the principle of non-contradiction, for example, we wouldn't be able to think that something is true, or false - in short, we wouldn't be able to think.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Olivier Delacr\u00e9taz praises my position, \u00abwhich advocates critical thinking and humility in debate\u00bb, but wonders whether it is wise to appeal to skeptical philosophy. His first argument is that dogma does not necessarily lead to dogmatism. To think otherwise is \u00aba modern prejudice\u00bb. Dogma is situated on a religious level and consists of \u00aba truth so skilfully dissected, elaborated and purified that it becomes universal, thus escaping the particular circumstances of its birth\u00bb. I don't have to say anything about this objection, which is not really an objection at all, since I've never spoken of dogmas, only of dogmatism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n