Conceptualizing Ancient Skepticism as a Global Pattern: Zhuangzi, Sextus Empiricus and Nāgārjuna

Abstract Chinese, European and Indian ancient philosophy all saw movements of skepticism. However, the philosophical proximity in which these three movements stand is often not appreciated. In this article, I provide a comparison of the three most important figures of these movements: Zhuangzi, Sextus Empiricus and Nāgārjuna. I show a broad range of similarities with respect to the arguments they provide for their skeptical views, but also with respect to the way they conceptualize skepticism. I argue that in light of these similarities, we should regard ancient skepticism as a global phenomenon, rather than one confined to one tradition. I also argue that while there are differences in tonality, Zhuangzi and Nāgārjuna are properly classified as skeptics, contrary to their treatment by Matthew Bagger.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal for the Study of Skepticism
Published
2025-05-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1163/22105700-bja10103
Primary Topic
Classical Philosophy and Thought
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Conceptualizing Ancient Skepticism as a Global Pattern: Zhuangzi, Sextus Empiricus and Nāgārjuna

Tammo Lossau
International Journal for the Study of Skepticism
Classical Philosophy and Thought
article

Conceptualizing Ancient Skepticism as a Global Pattern: Zhuangzi, Sextus Empiricus and Nāgārjuna

Tammo Lossau
article en

Abstract

Abstract Chinese, European and Indian ancient philosophy all saw movements of skepticism. However, the philosophical proximity in which these three movements stand is often not appreciated. In this article, I provide a comparison of the three most important figures of these movements: Zhuangzi, Sextus Empiricus and Nāgārjuna. I show a broad range of similarities with respect to the arguments they provide for their skeptical views, but also with respect to the way they conceptualize skepticism. I argue that in light of these similarities, we should regard ancient skepticism as a global phenomenon, rather than one confined to one tradition. I also argue that while there are differences in tonality, Zhuangzi and Nāgārjuna are properly classified as skeptics, contrary to their treatment by Matthew Bagger.

International Journal for the Study of SkepticismVol. 15(3)
University of Bremen (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 89%
Classical Philosophy and Thought
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.