+0
"I cannot accept the second part of this argument, since even though it is true that the affirmation that science does not describe the world as it is in itself does not entail the abandonment of ethical skepticism, it is inevitable that the claim that both morality and science are faulty presupposes the possession of a view of the world which is beyond the reach of skeptical attack. For to affirm that moral and/or scientific entities do not exist independently of us, it is indeed necessary to possess some kind of knowledge about what entities do form part of the objective world."

Is this clear enough from a grammatical point of view?

Sextus
+0
Is this clear enough from a grammatical point of view?

Sextus, do I correctly grasp your meaning if I paraphrase the first part this way:

If I am skeptical about the objectivity of science, it does not mean that I have no basis for being skeptical about the objectivity of ethics. What is inevitable is that I can be skeptical of both, as long as I have a view of the world that is beyond criticism. (Is there such a thing as a point-of-view that is beyond the reach of a skeptic?)
Comments  
I cannot accept the second part of this argument, since even though it is true that the affirmation that science does not describe the world as it is in itself does not entail the abandonment of ethical skepticism, it is inevitable that the claim that both morality and science are faulty presupposes the possession of a view of the world which is beyond the reach of skeptical attack. For to affirm that moral and/or scientific entities do not exist independently of us, it is indeed necessary to possess some kind of knowledge about what entities do form part of the objective world.

This is difficult to parse without being familiar with the rest of your argument (which sounds fascinating, by the way) and the exact meaning of phrases you're using (e.g., "describe the world as it is in itself", a "moral or scientific entity). I'll give it a shot anyway.

-- Typically, "it is true that" is an unnecessary phrase. Sometimes one uses it (as I guess you are) to imply acceptance of a disputed point, but given all the "thats" in your sentences, I'd cut it for clarity.

-- "It is inevitable that X presupposes)" could be cut (again, getting rid of one of the THAT's ) and replaced with an adverb-verb combination such as "necessarily presupposes" or "inevitably presupposes," or with a stronger verb ("necessitates").

-- "For" is a conjuction. And we don't start sentences with conjunctions. I'm torn on this one, because I've never liked that rule and think "for" clarifies the claim - reasoning link.

===

I cannot accept the second part of this argument. Although the affirmation that science does not describe the world as it is in itself does not entail the abandonment of ethical skepticism, the claim that both morality and science are faulty necessarily presupposes the possession of a view of the world which is beyond the reach of skeptical attack. To affirm that moral and/or scientific entities do not exist independently of us, it is indeed necessary to possess some kind of knowledge about what entities do form part of the objective world.

edit -- Yikes! BBCode doesn't like me.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Thanks, I've found your remarks very acute.

Why do you suggest I should delete the "since" in the first sentence?

Finally, I'm kind of puzzled by your remark about "for", because I've seen it used in quite a few papers and books on philosophical topics, where reasoning is very important.

Sextus
I'd split the first long sentence into two sentences (one short, one long). Peeling off that first clause unburdens the rest of your sentence to remain complex without losing the reader. Also, a variation in sentence length keeps it hoppin'. Emotion: smile That done, you don't need the "since" combining the two clauses any more.

According to the strictest grammarians, one never begins a sentence with a conjunction. That would argue for leaving it out. But (conjunction!) the "for" is useful because it plainly demonstrates "that was my claim. this is my reasoning." Basically I'm saying I don't know.
 davkett's reply was promoted to an answer.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Yes, that's the meaning.

To answer your second question, it depends on what kind of skepticism one is talking about. From the point of view of ancient Skepticism (i.e. Pyrrhonism), any view of the world is called into question. But this is not always the case with contemporary forms of skepticism.

Sextus