0:16

Hi. I'm Peter Adams, and you're listening to

0:18

the History of Velocity podcast brought to you with

0:20

the support of the philosophy department at King's College

0:22

London and the LMU in Munich online

0:24

at history of velocity dot net.

0:26

Today's episode will be an interview about skepticism

0:29

in the sixteenth century with Henrik Lagerland

0:32

who is Professor of History of Velocity at

0:34

Stockholm

0:34

University. Hello, Henrik. Hi.

0:36

Hi. I'm really happy to have you on the

0:39

podcast because you're --

0:39

Oh, it's very nice. -- you've really done a lot to draw

0:42

attention to the interest of philosophy in the sixteenth

0:44

century, which is not something everyone has

0:46

tried to

0:46

do. No. I think that

0:49

it is an important period in Mr. Pelosi

0:51

is much more important than

0:53

than I think many any way

0:55

less. Well, hopefully, people have already

0:57

been convinced of that by the series

0:59

so far. But if not, maybe they'll be convinced by

1:01

the next half an hour or so. We're going

1:03

to talk about skepticism. Let's

1:06

start with a conceptual overview rather

1:08

than diving right into the history. What

1:10

do you understand by the term skepticism?

1:13

And what distinctions should

1:15

we make between different kinds of skepticism that

1:18

might help us be ready for the discussion

1:20

to

1:20

follow. Traditionally, almost

1:22

the only thing that people have met with skepticism

1:25

in the sixteen in this period

1:27

is is the ancient past

1:29

skepticism. So it's Sixtus

1:32

who was translated at this

1:34

time and also the

1:37

academics. Yep. This is some that's foremost

1:39

at this time. Available through

1:41

Cicero's academic. So those

1:43

are the two that people have usually meant

1:45

when they talk about skepticism in this

1:48

time. I think that that's limited unfortunately,

1:51

that there is a back history

1:54

to skepticism, which when you see when

1:56

you get to Decor to see that he is aware

1:58

of a much wider kind of skepticism than

2:01

just this ancient. So this the

2:03

problem of writing the history of skepticism before

2:05

has been that you've limited yourself to skepticism

2:08

is idealism or its

2:10

academic skepticism. But there is

2:12

a medieval tradition which has to be taken

2:14

into account where you have this very

2:17

strong skepticism kind

2:19

of global skepticism where would be

2:21

today with cool and external world and

2:23

skepticism that we traditionally see.

2:25

Takeout introduced, but which is strongly

2:27

available in the fourteenth century

2:30

and onwards. There are other Morlow

2:33

discussions of skepticism in this

2:35

Scholastic tradition or can

2:37

we know substances? Can

2:39

we know through representations and

2:41

and so forth. And these are available

2:44

and discussed throughout the medieval

2:46

tradition. You can consider nominalism as

2:48

a kind of skepticism where you're skeptical

2:51

towards sort of entities like

2:53

universals, the existence of these

2:55

ones. And you could see that ideas

2:58

you can see. I think in contemporary

3:01

discussions, you often see religious

3:03

skepticism, some skepticism towards the existence

3:05

of God as as that kind of

3:08

characteristic. That was obviously

3:10

less present in this period. But

3:12

there's also skeptical arguments

3:15

against logic, against

3:17

inference. Things like that. So

3:19

there's a whole variety of discussions

3:21

that I think won today would post

3:23

skeptical. But foremost

3:25

than having to do with the doubts, we

3:28

can doubt all kinds of

3:29

things, doubt the existence of,

3:31

doubt, doubt the existence of the universes

3:33

and so forth. So I

3:35

think Once one opens up

3:37

this sort of the the definition of

3:39

skepticism to other things that just

3:42

wants extra set or just

3:44

what the academic said. Augustine

3:47

said that the academic said.

3:49

You see a much wider discussion in

3:51

this

3:51

time, which sets the context

3:54

I think of of sixteenth century in

3:56

a much more interesting way than it has

3:58

been before. I think that's a really important

4:00

point that you can be skeptical in a

4:02

very local domain where you can be skeptical

4:05

in a very wide sense,

4:08

like, even a global skeptic. Like, you know,

4:10

you can say, I don't think that I know anything

4:12

at all on any subject. That would

4:14

be the most global form of skepticism, perhaps.

4:17

But you can also say, you know, I'm skeptical about

4:20

your claim that dinner will be ready on time.

4:22

Right? So that's not a philosophical skepticism.

4:24

No. Exactly. You could be skeptical, like, only about

4:26

religious claims or, you know, only about

4:28

metaphysics or

4:29

something. Some

4:30

of it, like what Mittelstand said, you

4:32

can be skeptical in ordinary discourse

4:34

like that, but the kind of global skepticism

4:37

doesn't make sense in that context. You

4:39

mentioned these two forms of ancient skepticism,

4:41

which are going to be important here because

4:44

they were suddenly available

4:47

or available, though it's just never before. In

4:49

the time period we're looking at. And you

4:51

mentioned academic skepticism and pyrinism.

4:54

Can you explain what you take

4:56

be the difference between these two forms of ancient skepticism

4:59

and maybe then say, how

5:01

well the sixteenth century readers understood

5:04

the difference between

5:04

them? The two forms are obviously peronism

5:07

that we get at this time through sextus

5:10

and pericus outlined on peronism.

5:12

So, say, the sixteenth century is really the period

5:15

where sextus probably at his

5:17

most influential in

5:19

the history of Augustine. He was

5:21

a sort of minor figure really

5:23

and and not read basically up

5:25

until this time. And then you have

5:27

the other part is the academic synthesis

5:30

in which at this time they know

5:32

through Cicero's academic. And

5:34

Cicero's academic was read throughout

5:37

the midlates. Certain periods

5:39

more than others, but it was available.

5:42

So we can we can clearly see the

5:44

influence through the middle ages,

5:46

all the way into the sixteenth century.

5:48

And that's important because

5:50

even though sextus sort of pops up

5:52

as now a new text that

5:55

gets red in a much wider way than

5:57

it ever was. Cicero is

5:59

still there being red at the same time even

6:01

more probably so. Than sex does

6:03

action. So the big difference between

6:05

these two is that the academic skepticism

6:08

as it came up and it's presented in

6:11

in sisters was very much a kind of

6:13

negative skepticism towards the

6:15

possibility of empirical knowledge

6:17

and knowledge through the senses. It's

6:19

really directed at the stowage, their

6:22

idea of how you can acquire

6:24

these catalytic impressions

6:26

or infallible beliefs. While

6:29

the difference between that view

6:31

and sextus as sextus presents

6:33

the Peronian view is that a Peronian

6:35

doesn't hold beliefs. Either

6:38

positive or negative. The pluralists

6:40

have not to have beliefs. And also

6:42

that will lead the pluralistic to

6:44

this stay of calm

6:47

or utterancexia in

6:49

Greek. That's an important difference because

6:51

that aspect is not in the academic

6:53

tradition. So this practical

6:55

aspect of skepticism that it leads

6:57

to this state of calm.

7:00

So that aspect is not present

7:02

before. The sixteenth century. It

7:04

comes with sextus into

7:07

sixteenth century and the early modern

7:09

philosophy. That skepticism could

7:11

have a goal. And one way

7:13

to express the difference between these two

7:15

schools might be to say,

7:17

first of all, there's this thing about achieving calm

7:20

by being suspension of judgments.

7:22

But also, I take it that

7:25

if you said to sex as well is

7:27

empirical knowledge possible or not,

7:29

he would say, I don't know. I suspend judgment

7:31

about that because the academic skeptics

7:33

would say, no, it's not possible. So that's

7:36

like a really clear difference between the schools.

7:38

Right? Yeah. Definitely. Did

7:40

these two forms of skepticism get

7:42

taken up in a way that

7:45

involved awareness of the difference between them

7:47

or were they transformed? In any way

7:49

by readers in the sixteenth

7:50

century? The most important aspect

7:53

here is that the way it's taken up, when

7:55

reintroduced it is translated in the fifteen

7:57

sixty two, and published, there's an

7:59

introduction there of the concept

8:01

of Dow. So that is very

8:04

central because Dow doesn't really

8:06

play a role. In the way that

8:08

the ancient Greek formulation of

8:11

Euronism is presented by sextus.

8:13

So you have this idea that it can be at the

8:15

loss of some. But you don't really doubt

8:18

because doubt is a difficult concept. Doctor

8:20

is a process that you know something to

8:22

be able to doubt. And that is caused

8:24

contrary to the cooler of terrorism. Can

8:27

you explain that? Why would you need to know something

8:29

in order to be in doubt? To be able

8:31

to doubt that something is a prime? Example.

8:33

You have to already know what the prime is.

8:36

I mean, prime number. The prime number. Yeah. Yeah.

8:38

But you can't be at a loss without

8:40

piece of pulsing that you claim

8:42

anything to be true, really. And

8:44

that's more of an accurate description of

8:47

I think how sextus describes the

8:49

skeptics. The skeptics are,

8:51

are you sad a lot? We can't say

8:53

that this is right. We can't say that the other

8:55

thing is right. So we suspend belief.

8:57

We suspend judgment. So

8:59

we're at a loss, but we don't doubt. The

9:02

skeptic doesn't doubt. I think this

9:04

concept was introduced into

9:07

into the discussion of skepticism by

9:09

Augusta already. And then

9:11

it became foremost as an interpretation

9:14

then of academic skepticism. But

9:16

then it becomes a long traditional characterizing

9:19

skepticism in terms of doubt

9:22

that I think by the sixteenth century is basically

9:24

taken for grant So, and the translators

9:27

of sextus is presented with this

9:29

view that they then introduce the

9:31

concept of doubt into the text. Which

9:33

think is a strong interpretation. I think

9:35

probably a wrong interpretation of

9:37

the classic principle, period monetization.

9:40

When Montana and Chevron

9:42

and and later thinkers read sextus,

9:45

they get this idea that it's

9:47

a skepticism involved in concept

9:49

of

9:49

doubt. We stand naturally also

9:51

there in Dominic's, the early model discussion.

9:54

I wanna get to Montana and Adamson in

9:56

just a second. But first, I had

9:58

one other question with the historical context,

10:01

namely to what extent

10:03

skepticism in this period is a response

10:05

to what was going

10:06

on. Politically, like the reformation,

10:09

the wars of religion, and so on. That

10:11

is a complicated question. Of course,

10:13

it has been particularly in relation to

10:15

how some interpret as read,

10:18

maintain how some reads

10:20

a role that that it is. They're

10:22

using skepticism

10:25

as a kind of the chance of catalysis

10:27

somewhat. In this debate going

10:29

on from Montana, it's primarily between

10:32

cathelicism and Calvinism. For

10:34

him is the sort of target. An

10:37

aspect that is very much used

10:39

here is the idea that's precedent sectors

10:42

that sense the skeptic doesn't

10:44

really hold when he believes or

10:46

sort of suspensefully, that means

10:48

that the skeptic still needs to live in

10:50

a society. It still needs to be there

10:52

to be able to live. Yeah. So the so the skeptic

10:55

then is supposed to follow the tradition. And

10:57

that becomes an important as thing

10:59

of the way a skeptic lives. The

11:02

skeptic suspends the leaves, but still

11:04

accept laws. Still

11:06

accept tradition, still accepts

11:08

religion. And this kind of conservativism

11:11

or whatever it is, in skepticism, gets

11:14

used, I think, as like, more time to argue

11:16

for pulling on to beliefs and

11:19

faith in this very difficult

11:21

time that the sixteenth century

11:23

is. So just as I might,

11:25

as a skeptic, without having any beliefs

11:28

about how digestion works, I still eat when

11:30

I'm hungry because I just kind of follow my

11:32

No. Yeah. Yeah. You you you follow

11:35

this appearance as they say as they

11:37

say. Yeah. And in the same

11:39

way, I stick with Catholicism because it's kind

11:41

of there and it's holding society together

11:43

and I don't have to have some kind of

11:45

dogmatic commitment to it. No. Exactly. Skepticism

11:47

doesn't imply sort of revolution and

11:50

and and changing of

11:52

society. I think that's also

11:54

interesting that skepticism comes

11:56

out at least on this telling skepticism

11:58

comes out as being conservative rather

12:00

than potentially revolutionary -- Yeah. --

12:03

because we might have assumed that being

12:05

skeptical in the context of a very

12:07

religious society would lead to something

12:09

like

12:10

atheism. Yeah. But here it's exactly

12:12

the reverse. That's

12:13

exactly the reverse. And I mean, and of course,

12:15

that has been used as a criticism

12:17

of skepticism. Well, let's now

12:20

delve into these specific thinkers who

12:22

we've mentioned in passing, and let's start with Montana.

12:24

So actually something we haven't mentioned yet is that you

12:26

wrote a whole book which came out early recently

12:28

about this group of skepticism. Yeah. And

12:30

in that book when you're talking about sixteenth

12:33

century skepticism, you say

12:35

that contrary to what a lot of scholars

12:37

have argued or maybe just assumed, it's

12:39

actually not that clear that Montana was a skeptic.

12:42

No. It's first of all, I I like that you're skeptical

12:45

about whether he's a skeptic, if I'm not very

12:47

pleasing. But, second of all, I want to ask you

12:49

why you say that in a book. I based

12:51

this on the reading of his apology

12:53

over three months ago. There,

12:55

even though he uses skepticism, he uses

12:58

both the Peronians capacism presented

13:00

by sextus and he uses the the academic

13:03

skepticism presented by CECL. He

13:05

doesn't at the end come out to endorse

13:08

any of it uses the

13:11

skeptics to sort of criticize reason,

13:14

that reason and rationality can

13:16

sort of help us to live our

13:19

lives and in the discussion of the media

13:21

can actually give us support

13:23

or grounds for our beliefs.

13:26

In catholicism. But he

13:28

doesn't sort of come out. He ends in a

13:30

very sort of pessimistic job that

13:32

recent can't really help us But

13:35

God can't really help us either

13:37

in some sense because we don't know

13:39

if we're saved. We don't know if

13:41

God will give us grace. So it says yes,

13:43

it's a Ukrainian background. So

13:46

phase, really, is in the end what

13:48

we have. This phase that will save us.

13:50

Because I read that it's not primarily

13:52

an endorsement of skepticism as

13:55

such, and people have argued that

13:57

what does come up is this feedback

13:59

is some Perhaps you can say

14:01

that that's where he

14:02

ends, but it isn't a clear skeptical

14:05

position. It's more

14:06

like skepticism as a stepping stone towards

14:08

videos.

14:08

Exactly. Yeah. Which I think was a very common

14:11

way of using sentences actually.

14:13

And do you think the same thing is

14:15

true of Montana's friend, Charhon,

14:17

who's often assessed as pretty much

14:19

just having repeated ideas from Montana,

14:22

whether or not that's fair -- Yeah. -- at least and when

14:24

it comes to skepticism, this is stance pretty

14:26

much the

14:26

same, would you say? I won't say so. I think

14:28

there's the difference in emphasis between

14:30

them. I think that is interesting where I

14:32

would interpret than I do in the book. Shahro

14:35

has much more of an academic skill,

14:38

much clear around his use of

14:40

Cicero and and his negative

14:42

attitude to knowledge. To the possibility

14:45

or not? There's a slight difference in

14:47

emphasis, I think. It's much clear

14:49

as ciceronean aspect to

14:51

Charronan number is to

14:52

maintain. Obviously, these two

14:54

were closed. They knew each other and probably

14:57

discussed, get this resolved. And do you think that,

14:59

Sharon, maybe this question could also be posed

15:01

without Montana, but let's just think about showroom

15:03

because he also has a pretty strong

15:06

moral theory. Maybe theory is not the

15:08

right word, but, you know, he has this kind of stoic

15:10

leaning ethical stance

15:12

as well. Yeah. And I'm wondering how

15:14

that's compatible with what you were just

15:16

saying about him being a more full

15:19

blooded academic

15:20

Henrik. Howard Bauchner: That's right. He

15:22

has this idea that we follow

15:25

Lagerlund nature gives this

15:27

guide the way we should live. Or

15:29

this wisdom that he talks about. For

15:31

him, it's also not that we can know

15:34

that this is the right way to live.

15:36

He gives us of arguments and reasons.

15:39

For that. But he doesn't strongly

15:42

endorse

15:43

this is something we can know. So there is this

15:45

skepticism underneath even though

15:47

he has this moral theory on

15:49

top of it. His ethical views then

15:51

would be just another case of following

15:53

appearances. Like we were saying before.

15:55

I would think so. Yeah. Even in Toronto, you

15:58

see an emphasis on Canada,

16:00

so the probabilism. Which is

16:02

not really present in more ten. You

16:05

can see how you can use tiny others

16:07

as a basis for following

16:09

what is

16:09

probable. In that sense is

16:11

a clear academic skeptical. I

16:14

should probably say insofar as that name has

16:16

come up before in the podcast, I guess I called

16:18

him carnadis.

16:19

Oh, kind of names. Yeah. But we could perhaps suspend

16:21

judgment about the right

16:23

There's the right way to pronounce his language.

16:26

There's one other Henrik that I had just covered

16:28

in the previous who I wanted to ask you about, and

16:30

this is from Cisco Sanchez --

16:32

Yeah. -- who is from the Iberian

16:34

Peninsula, but was also active in

16:36

France.

16:37

In Cordova as well. Yeah. So

16:40

there is some connection. So all three of them are

16:42

some kind of association with. I have wondered

16:44

whether

16:44

there was something in the Lagerlund Bordeaux or maybe

16:47

the wine, actually.

16:48

Maybe the Maybe the wine. Yeah.

16:50

Listeners can write in to tell us whether

16:52

Bordeaux makes them skeptical. Wins

16:55

from that region. In his case,

16:57

it seems like he's pretty clearly like

16:59

a very aggressive skeptic. Right? I mean, he literally

17:01

writes a book called that nothing can be

17:03

known. Yeah. But on the other hand,

17:05

again, here, there may be a nuance

17:07

because at the end, he seems to be

17:10

holding out the prospect of some kind of

17:12

empirically based if not

17:14

knowledge, then at least way of forming

17:16

better beliefs or something like that. Yeah.

17:18

Reading his work, I actually wondered

17:20

whether although he's apparently very

17:23

aggressive skeptic, actually all he's

17:25

doing is saying, well, if knowledge is what use

17:27

scholastic say it is, then knowledge is unattainable.

17:30

So we need something

17:30

else. Which is course very different from being

17:33

a a real skeptic.

17:34

Yeah. Do

17:34

you think that that's right? I think basically

17:37

that's where I land, although we can't really

17:39

say much more. Because this

17:41

is really what he promises that

17:43

nothing can be known. And then he says that

17:46

he will go on to develop a new

17:48

method, a new more positive new

17:50

for scientific knowledge. I think we're forced

17:52

to draw the conclusion that he's escaped it

17:54

because that's all we have to base our

17:56

assertions on. If we are

17:58

to believe his own words.

18:00

He wanted to do something more. He never

18:02

did it. What we have today and

18:05

does nothing happen to know is the clearest

18:07

skeptical phrases. And

18:09

the skeptical treaters that is aimed

18:12

at an Aestotelian account

18:14

of knowledge, which is not, of course,

18:16

something that figures at all

18:18

much in Ilimotham

18:20

or in Chahron. Yeah. He's more

18:22

like someone like Lorenzo Bala. Yeah,

18:25

colonizing against elasticism. Exactly.

18:27

Yeah. Well, I was actually just wondering, does

18:29

that mean that Sanchez actually

18:31

isn't as new as people sometimes say

18:33

he is because actually there is a kind of long

18:35

standing humanists project

18:38

of tearing apart the

18:40

foundations of scholacism. In some sense,

18:42

I think that's right

18:43

too. He isn't as noble as some people

18:45

have claimed. I will agree to that because

18:47

they're not only in the Humanist tradition,

18:50

even in the Scholastic tradition, I mean, there's

18:52

a long standard concern

18:55

about isotillion method,

18:57

isotillion theories of not

18:59

theory knowledge. That it is way

19:01

too demanding. So possible

19:04

to achieve. I mean, we have the Iranian discussion

19:06

from the fourteenth century, which continues because

19:09

all the way into the sixteenth century, which

19:11

is very much problematized and rethinking

19:14

with the foundations of knowledge on.

19:16

United States to tell you in context. So that's

19:19

great point actually that Scholasticism had

19:21

the seeds of skepticism against Scholasticism

19:24

within itself. I mean, as you mentioned at the beginning

19:26

in fourteenth century, glasses, and we even

19:28

have people wondering whether God

19:30

is deceiving us about everything we believe about

19:32

the external world. Right? Exactly. Yeah.

19:35

Yeah. Which leads us

19:37

naturally onto one last person that we must

19:39

mention who is, of course, Dick Huts, the author,

19:41

a thought experiment where it's not God, but an evil

19:43

demon who's deceiving you about everything you believe.

19:46

And he's not too far away now.

19:48

So looking ahead to

19:50

him, to what extent do you

19:52

think that we should see these figures we've been

19:54

discussing now like

19:55

Sanchez, for example, as an

19:57

important precursor or source for Descartes

20:00

or to what extent do you think Descartes are really doing

20:02

something fundamentally different? Traditionally,

20:04

Dicorn has been interpreted as

20:06

someone who answers the challenge

20:09

of the skepticism of the late

20:11

sixteenth century. And his project

20:13

then becomes kind of antisceptical project.

20:16

Like most scholars have sort of moved away

20:18

from that interpretation of the occurred. He

20:21

wasn't really concerned about rejecting skepticism.

20:24

His project was something else, something

20:26

different. And then there's different ideas

20:29

of what that project was. But I think

20:31

it's clear that both Charron

20:33

and Monten is a background to

20:35

the car in the sense that he read them

20:37

obviously. I mean, he knew them. They were

20:39

so well read, I mean, Charons

20:42

of wisdom is one of the most read

20:44

philosophical works in French at

20:46

this time. And it was so early as well

20:48

translated into English. So it had

20:50

a a really widespread reach.

20:53

So certainly, you know, the Daker's knowledge

20:55

is of tradition and of historical knowledge

20:57

is much better than he himself's

21:00

like to present. He was

21:02

obviously educated at the foremost

21:05

institutes in Europe at the time.

21:07

And he got a very solid background

21:09

knowledge of Scholasticism and

21:12

other things at La Fleche. When

21:15

he writes in the meditations and

21:17

also in the discourse, he uses

21:19

the skeptical arguments And he

21:21

knows them from this discussion in

21:24

the late sixteenth century, and he

21:26

knows them from an earlier discussion in

21:28

this Scholastic tradition. So when

21:30

he uses the evil demon argument

21:32

or the dream argument or the illusion

21:35

argument in the first meditation and

21:37

in the disc course. He knows these arguments.

21:39

He's well aware, I mean, even Hobbes

21:41

said his objection to the meditation, complaints

21:44

that they can to such an original and

21:46

interesting thinker, why would he bring up

21:48

all these old arguments about skepticism?

21:51

This is well treaded, waters,

21:53

why why Hubble was

21:55

not fooled by the claims of originality. Yeah.

21:58

Exactly. And and they got many answers.

22:00

He says that, no, I'm not claiming to be original

22:03

here. I'm not bringing out these arguments because

22:05

they're new and I have done something

22:07

special with. He's bringing out these arguments

22:10

because he has specific purpose with them.

22:12

And that is to get rid of everything

22:15

that we can get possibly from

22:17

the sensors or anywhere else. He

22:19

wants to isolate ourselves into

22:22

our minds. And once we've gotten rid

22:24

of everything, he can ask the

22:26

question, is there anything else is there now

22:28

still something we can know. And

22:30

that's when he finds the covetor. So

22:33

for him, the skeptical arguments

22:35

a means to a certain purpose.

22:37

I think the way it's it's for Montana as

22:39

well. So it's not skepticism

22:42

so much for itself, its skepticism

22:45

as a tool or as a means to something

22:47

else. So think the card is very

22:49

well aware of this skeptical discussion

22:52

I don't know whether he actually read sextus, but

22:55

he certainly read people that commented on

22:57

sextus. Okay. Well, having

22:59

just stepped into the seventeenth century with

23:01

Descartes, people who

23:03

are listening may start getting the impression

23:05

that we're just about done talking about French

23:07

philosophy in the sixteenth century, and that's true.

23:10

Next time we're going to be looking

23:12

at someone who actually lived mostly

23:14

in the seventeenth century, but who has to be discussed

23:17

in this context. Because this is someone

23:19

who had a very close relationship to Montana.

23:22

And I am speaking of Maury Deshaunee, who

23:24

was actually the editor of his works. And

23:26

was very influenced in her own works, but also

23:28

wrote other things that Montana

23:31

probably wouldn't have written, like for example,

23:33

a defensive women. As

23:35

being equal to men. So that's what we're gonna talk

23:37

about next time. But for now, I will and

23:39

Kenwick very much for coming on the

23:41

podcast. And as I say, for all you've done to

23:43

teach people about the history of skepticism and

23:45

the history of philosophy in the sixteenth century.

23:47

Thank you very much. My pleasure. And

23:50

I'll invite listeners to join you next time as

23:52

we turn to Mario Desconet here

23:54

on the history of philosophy without any

23:56

gaps.