2025/02/11 by Benoit Guilielmo, Artūrs Logins · 1 voice
Arts and Humanities · Social Sciences · #Critical Realism in Sociology #Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics #Mental Health and Psychiatry
paper · doi:10.1080/09515089.2025.2462142
openalex publication_date 2025/02/11 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
Suspension of judgment is a ubiquitous phenomenon in our lives. It is also relevant for several debates in contemporary epistemology (e.g., evidentialism/pragmatism; peer-disagreement/higher-order evidence; inquiry). The goal of this paper is to arrive at a better understanding of what suspension of judgment is. We first question the popular assumption that we call the Triad view according to which there are three and only three (paradigmatic) doxastic attitudes, namely, belief, disbelief, and suspension of judgment. We elaborate a cumulative argument regarding crucial differences between belief/disbelief and suspension and conclude tentatively that suspension is not a doxastic state. On the constructive side, we defend the positive thesis (with special attention to justification/rationality and reasons for suspension) that suspension is rather an affective phenomenon, viz. a sort of mood. Finally, we consider further consequences of our view for contemporary debates in epistemology, and how it relates to ancient skepticism.