The argument explores the possible consequences of a philosopher´s critical revlsion of his own beliefs and certalntles, in which he would consider the posslbility of being mad. Although the argument is developed in the first person -with a Cartesian profile allen to the argumentative pattem of anclent Pyrrhonic scepticism- it nevertheless ends with a scepticai concluslon. lt radicaJiy challenges and checkmates classical reason's ideals of certainty and absolute. knowledge.

The argument explores the possible consequences of a philosopher´s critical revision of his own beliefs and certainties, in which he would consider the possibility of being mad. Although the argument is developed in the first person -with a Cartesian profile alien to the argumentative pattern of ancient Pyrrhonic scepticism- it nevertheless ends with a sceptical conclusion. It radically challenges and checkmates classical reason's ideals of certainty and absolute. Knowledge.

The argument explores the possible consequences of a philosopher´s critical revlsion of his own beliefs and certalntles, in which he would consider the posslbility of being mad. Although the argument is developed in the first person -with a Cartesian profile allen to the argumentative pattem of anclent Pyrrhonic scepticism- it nevertheless ends with a scepticai concluslon. lt radicaJiy challenges and checkmates classical reason's ideals of certainty and absolute. knowledge.