The skeptic cannot intelligibly raise doubts about the principle of non-contradiction, because accepting the principle of non-contradiction is a necessary condition for having meaningful thought at all.
The first response takes its inspiration from a re-consideration of the Strawsonian transcendental arguments that were criticised by Stroud, but offers a different interpretation of them in the light of that critique. Thus, it is suggested, the mistake is to see Strawson’s argument as straightforwardly world-directed in the way that it was presented earlier, as offering a direct response to the skeptic by proving what the skeptic doubts. Rather, it is said, the strategy is more like Aristotle’s
Extraction notes
Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks