account for what a dogmatic
made use of the word "adelon"
and called "adela"
the subsisting entities, concealed to everyday experience
and language eyes, a dogmatic discourse claims there
exist, pretending they are what it says they are. Their
most known way to reveal the dogmatic side of a discourse
(and free the mind of what weakens its powers to keep in
touch with the world around) was, therefor, to
investigate its ontological commitments and show they
were untenable. But it is a matter of historical fact
that Greek Skeptics didn't restrict themselves to this
kind of investigation. Can a discourse turn out to be
dogmatic also apart from its ontological commitments ? To
face the question, Greek Skeptics provided themselves
with a more powerful conceptual tool (the notion of
which allowed them to range over a wider territory and
improve their hunting for "dogmas".
They called "mathemata"
the objective contents of an established knowledge (what
can be taught and learned), when they are taken up by
without being critically surveyed, and systematically
organized according to methods and rules which are
thought to be fixed and given once for ever ("mathesis").
Whatever a mathesis
is about - the "reality", the "truth"
per se or the
same ways ("odoi")
by which ("meta")
it has attained all that - it is, however, the output of
a wrong conception, which mistakes what we do when we
have to explain or expound what we have found out as a
result of our research - and are so forced to define and
give our concepts an accurate order - with the research
itself, which, constrained within the curbs of a rigid
system, can't but lose its capability to communicate with
this "communicating with the experience" as
"communicating with everyday language", this
page will mainly endeavor to show some examples to
illustrate the problems Skeptics highlighted, following
the ways and the forms in which these problems have been
expressed and formulated in the modern and contemporary