Introduction to Ancient Scepticism: Pyrrhonism

real knowledge about the world is impossible isn't that knowledge this is the primary problem the ancient skeptics from the Greek skep --ss meaning investigation grappled with is the sceptical position itself a dogma is itself contradictory another common criticism against scepticism is the impact ability of the position they say they have no beliefs but how does a skeptic then live they still act as if they believe they sit on chairs as if they believe they will hold them up they eat food as if they believe it will satiate them the ancient skeptics are usually divided into two camps the academics and the Peroni ins the academics believed that nothing could really be known about the world while the Peroni ins argued that even this was knowledge and sought to make the skeptical position logical in itself whether they succeeded or not is up for debate we'll look at Piron ISM through the three most important pianist s' Poirot himself an acid Amos and Sextus empirical hero of Ellis lives sometime around 365 to 275 BCE he wrote nothing what we know of him comes from his pupil tim'm and later fragmentary mentions from aniseed amos and Sextus in particular Poirot was famously tranquil a conscious result of his skepticism according to heuristically some 500 years later Tim on said that his teacher Pierrot wanted to answer three questions what are things like by nature what attitude should we adopt towards things and what will the outcome of this attitude be heuristically said that Timmons said that Pierrot said that things are equally undifferentiated and unstable and indeterminate for this reason neither our sensations nor our opinions tell us truths or falsehoods but we already have a problem some of these words can't be translated accurate in the Greek the word for indeterminate could also be indeterminate bull and there's a difference if it's that things are indeterminate Hiro is arguing that things in themselves are always changing can't be pinned down and so it's impossible to get any accurate unchanging knowledge of them species died out the climate changes for example if though the translation is indeterminable Pierrot is arguing that we as humans can't determine what things are some things might have a true nature but our perceptions our intuitions our perspective is always changing so the things are indeterminate bull if he's saying things are indeterminate this is an ontological proposition it's a statement about things if he's saying that indeterminate bull this is an epistemological proposition it's a statement about how we acquire knowledge about the world luckily while it's an important debate either translation would still lead to Paros next point that if this is true if things are in determinate or indeterminate bull then the only correct attitude to take towards them is to suspend judgment in the Greek this is a pocke in turn for Pierrot suspending judgment relieves man of the burden of questioning of knowing what things are really like and so a poky is mentally to tranquility or undisturbedly in the greek ataraxia but how can a person live without taking a stance on anything how does Pierrot avoid wandering off cliffs or starving to death when a came to his death says that he calmly sank on a ship in a storm picking up food is not suspending judgment that the food keeps you alive according to Tim on to avoid paralysis Pierrot lived by custom Tim on says that honey is sweet I do not assert but I agree that it seems to be these few details though were all we know of Pierrot of Ellis he seems to have been ignored until he was revived some 200 years later in the 1st century BCE by a nice edema a nested Amos was frustrated with the skepticism of the Academy that Plato had started because it had become too dogmatic the philosophers of the Academy claimed to know for certain that we cannot arrive at knowledge a position that anis oedema saw as unscoped achill was anti skepticism disguised as skepticism he wrote The Pianist discourses which although itself has been lost we know through photius writing a thousand years later Annie said Amos discussed Piero's argument that in determine ability leads to a poky which leads to tranquillity he argued that skeptic should live by appearances he apparently said that pianist affirm the appearance without also affirming that it is of such a kind we too perceived that fire burns but we suspend judgment about whether it's in its nature to burn Annie said Amos was also the original author of the ten modes of skepticism which we hear of through Sextus empiric us Sextus empirica so lived roughly another 300 years later around 200 ce e is our main historical source on Peronism in the first volume of outlines of Piran ism he draws together much of what comes before him like Poirot for Sextus the goal of skepticism is tranquility competing views alike waits on a scale that can be tipped either way because everything has a counter argument our position should be one of Aquila pants importantly Sextus avoids having his own views the skeptic should use their opponents own positions against them rather than taking positions themselves Ted Brennan and cliff Roberts put it this way the dogmatist put sand on one side of the scale rather than the skeptic responding by putting his own sound on the other side he takes some from the dogmatist or takes sand off of another scale another argument for counterbalance this way he avoids having his own position by doing this sexless attempts to get round The Skeptical paradox that being skeptical is itself a position and so the skeptics position is self-contradictory he writes that the skeptic investigates not what is apparent but what is said about what is apparent and this is different from investigating what is apparent itself for example it appears to us that honey sweetens we concede this in as much as we are sweet and in a perceptual way but whether as far as the argument goes it's actually sweet is something we investigate and this is not what's apparent but what is said about what is apparent whether this is consistent or not has been a matter of contention ever since in outlines of perónism sexless presents and he said a mice's ten modes for doing this his ten modes of skepticism followed by five more recent modes by a gripper another skeptic who'd lived a couple of centuries before Sextus philosopher ban Morrison writes that the modes are devices for generating an equal and opposing argument in response to a dogmatists attempt to show how things are in true skeptical fashion Sextus begins by saying of the modes that he makes no affirmation either about their number or about their power they may be unsigned and there may be more than those I shall describe first the mode depending on the variations among animals animals have different views on the world different senses different limbs different needs how do we know our own human view is the correct one second the modes depending on the differences between humans he says our bodies are all different so it's likely that our souls are two different cultures enjoy different things ingest things easier some see in the dark better the third mode is the differences between the senses they disagree with each other water might be good to human stomachs but not to lungs perfume smells nice but tastes horrible the fourth is the mode of different conditions things are different depending on whether we are sleeping tired old moving drunk hungry fearful v mode is one of positions things look different from different angles different from a distance and/or appears bent in water thus it is the mode of AB mixtures things are different depending on what their width sound appears different in a cave our eyes are made of membranes and liquids so there's already a combination before we see the 7th is the mode of preparations goats hair looks different on a goat's than it does on the sound sound looks rough individually but Beach looks smooth eighth is the mode of relativity we have a position the thing we observe has a position our interlocutor has a position ninth is the mode of frequent or rare encounters a rare comet is more impressive to us than the common son earthquakes don't bother those who are used to them and finally the tenth mode is the mode of customs and beliefs different peoples punish different ants ban or praise different activities these 10 modes are followed by the five of a gripper which are related but broader they follow a more linear path imagining an argument first is the mode deriving dispute that anything can be disputed in some way the second is the mode deriving from infinite regress any justification given for an argument that can then be disputed itself needs another justification and so on ad infinitum this is analogous to the child asking why to every question the third is the mode deriving from relativity at the person's position to the arguments is relative fourth is the mode according to hypothesis a dogmatist will try to stop the infinite regress of why-why-why with a final cause usually without proof and finally the mode according to reciprocity that instead of giving a final calls a dogmatist might argue that argument stands together because of all the other arguments that are related to it let's take an example person a there is a god skeptic well person zared argues that there isn't go personai of course there is a God if not who made the world skeptic then who made God and who made the God that made God ad infinitum personai no one made God God is infinite skeptic maybe but another perspective is that there are many gods person a No God is an ideal form like a platonic form he's perfect skeptic that's a hypothesis you have no evidence for it person a I do God is a platonic form because he is ideal because he's infinite because he made the world because there is a God because how else would we be here skeptic that's circular what backs up all of that person a I'm tired sexist his thought is particularly important of a history of Western philosophy it was one of the most influential texts rediscovered during the Renaissance discussed by thinkers like Montaigne and Descartes and so had a major influence on the Enlightenment the major contribution of the Peroni ins is that to be consistent skepticism must be applied to being skeptical itself this might be called negative dogmatism it's a lack of a position rather than a position of having no position positively stating I have no position is a position but is the disposition maybe I have a position maybe I don't have a position still a position is it any less dogmatic this depends on your point of view and there's a paradox but it's a thought experiment that's indispensable for considering the other side of an argument if you like these videos I need your help and here's my request if you think you get the same value from four of these videos as you do from just one cup of coffee then please consider pledging just $1 per video that's three to four dollars per month to keep this channel going you can even limit your pledge to one dollar a month and if you pledge $5 out add your name to the credits to those that already support them and I thank you so much this channel just wouldn't exist without you you can also hit like share follow me on Twitter and Facebook etc all of these things really contribute to helping Ben and I grow thanks for watching and see you next week

Channel: Then & Now

Views: 12,715

Rating: 4.9518795 out of 5

Keywords: Then & Now, Then and Now, History, Philosophy, Politics, skepticism, scepticism, ancient scepticism, ancient skepticism, pyrrhonism, pyrrho of elis, sextus empericus, timon, outlines of pyrrhonism, aenesidemus, epoche, ataraxia, equipollence, academic scepticism, history of scepticism

Id: k_SAocFtlio

Length: 13min 26sec (806 seconds)

Published: Thu Jul 04 2019

Reddit Comments

[u/lewlewwaller]

In this introduction to Ancient Scepticism, I look at Pyrrhonism through it’s four most important philosophers: Pyrrho of Elis, Timon, Aenesidemus, and Sextus Empiricus. First I look at some of the basic arguments and problems laid down by both Pyrhho and the Academic Sceptics of Ancient Greece, then I look at the 10 modes of Aenesidemus and the 5 modes of Agrippa, both of which are discussed in Sextus Empiricus’ Outlines of Pyrrhonism. I also introduce epoche, ataraxia, and equipollence.

[u/[deleted]]

Not sure what the actual words are but humans exist in a state of Duality, the Epistemological as opposed to the Existential, Form and Substance respectively. It seems they are saying a Skeptic is aware that every observation is based in our perception of the world, not the world itself, very true, and only the actual world has a nature, our ideas of it are machinations or illusions.

The human Mind itself isn't an actual thing, it's an effect of a causal brain, a projection of a number of neurological functions, you could even say the brain and the functions of it are two different natures, an actual thing and a motion respectively, but the Mind itself is divorced from any kind of actuality, albeit it does exhibit traits of motion, the ability to look, learn, grow, change, understand, revise, adapt, forget, ignore.

So this form of skepticism (Pyrrhonism) is about the human Mind not the actual knowledge of the world. I have said humans are incapable of knowledge simply because knowledge is a medium, knowledge is in books or on Youtube videos, not in the human mind, the human mind has understanding or comprehension, not knowledge, we can have all the available information yet still not understand and we can have limited or no information yet clearly comprehend a concept.

If people could come to understand things in ancient Greece with a distinct lack of scientific information you would guess we in the modern world with our vast depository of knowledge could not only achieve their insights but far surpass them, yet I'd argue our capacity limits us, we aren't actually capable of more than them despite more information, if anything the ocean of information can overwhelm us, placing us at a disadvantage they weren't encumbered by.

Socrates still has the best quote for all this "I know one thing, that I know nothing, this is the beginning of Wisdom" the observation that wisdom is understanding and knowledge is just knowledge, a good communicator uses knowledge as a tool to impart wisdom but it is no guarantee the receiver is capable of wisdom.