Skepticism-LH 3. FL 5-6, HWT 4-5. Post your thoughts, responses, questions (etc.) in the comments space below.
LH
1. How did the most extreme skeptics (or sceptics, if you prefer the British spelling) differ from Plato and Aristotle? What was their main teaching? Do you think they were "Socratic" in this regard?
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
FL
1. What did Anne Hutchinson feel "in her gut"? What makes her "so American"?
2. What did Hutchinson and Roger Williams help invent?
3. How was freedom of thought in 17th century America expressed differently than in Europe at the time?
4. Who, according to some early Puritans, were "Satan's soldiers"? DId you know the Puritans villified the native Americans in this way? Why do you think that wasn't emphasized in your early education?
5. What extraordinary form of evidence was allowed at the Salen witch trials? What does Andersen think Arthur Miller's The Crucible got wrong about Salem?
HWT
1. Logic is simply what? Do you consider yourself logical (rational)?
2. What "law" of thinking is important in all philosophies, including those in non-western cultures that find it less compelling? Do you think it important to follow rules of thought? What do you think of the advice "Don't believe everything you think?"
3. For Aristotle, the distinctive thing about humanity is what? How does Indian philosophy differ on this point? What do you think is most distinctive about humanity?
4. According to secular reason, the mind works without what? Are you a secularist? Why or why not?
5. What debate reveals a tension in secular reason? How would you propose to resolve the tension?
Isaak Cadet #11
ReplyDeleteLH
1 Many of the more drastic sceptics were rather Socratic and fervently believed that nothing could be trusted (this included their senses) thus it was not possible to know anything. In contrast, both Plato and Aristotle believed that it was possible to understand our surroundings and heavily relied on either experience or the mind respectively to find understanding.
2 Our senses often mislead us since our reaction to sensory information is predetermined based on our prior experiences. I do believe this to be rather prudent, because our senses may mislead us the information that they provide us can prove invaluable, and ignoring this could easily endanger us.
3 In his youth Pyrrho traveled to India where many gurus put themselves through unbearable physical deprivation in order to grow closer to inner stillness. This might have helped him to attain a calmer state of mind making it possible for him to experience life while questioning how real it was.
4 Since unhappiness has historically been the consequence of not getting what you want there would be no reason to be mad if you understand that you do not know anything because you have no way to perceive what you desire. Something apart from scepticism that might have to the same effect would be nihilism, because if nothing matters there isn’t anything that matter enough to get worry about.
5 Using a modicum of scepticism is not unhealthy, because it keeps us open to other possibilities and continues to check what we believe to be true.
I agree with you that ignoring our senses can be prudent and dangerous.
DeleteEmily Seeto Section #12
ReplyDeleteLH
1. How did the most extreme skeptics (or sceptics, if you prefer the British spelling) differ from Plato and Aristotle? What was their main teaching? Do you think they were "Socratic" in this regard?
- The extreme skeptics believed that nothing could be trusted. Plato and Aristotle argue that it’s okay to not know everything and obviously still question what’s told. They also heavily rely on others experiences to further their knowledge on something.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
- He didn’t trust his senses because it can hinder other possibilities of thought. He felt that if he relied on an experience and not think more on it then that can be dangerous
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
- He traveled to India
4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
- Being unhappy correlates to not getting something that you want Pyrrho says that if you just go with the flow instead of worrying then there's no reason to feel unhappy
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
- It keeps everyone open to other possibilities
Ariana Arenas section #11
ReplyDeleteLH
1. How did the most extreme skeptics (or sceptics, if you prefer the British spelling) differ from Plato and Aristotle? What was their main teaching? Do you think they were "Socratic" in this regard?
- The extreme skeptics believed that nothing could be trusted, while Plato and Aristotle would question everything. I think they were socratic .
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
- He believed that our senses could mislead us. I do not think such a thing can be prudent, but you can empathize with him in regards that our senses can be inaccurate at times.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
- As a young man Pyrrho visited India, where he learned about gurus putting themselves through horrific physical deprivation to reach inner stillness.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
- I believe it's due to opening up our horizon of infinite possibilities , but also because it was the safest thing to keep skepticism moderate.
#11
ReplyDeleteLH 3. When Pyrrho was younger, he had spent time in India. The familiar but unorthodox teachings that hail from India could have been the spark that ignited Pyrrho's interestingly atypical lifestyle.
FL 2. Hutchinson and Rodgers were at the forefront of American Individualism.
HTWT 1. It is "the systematic working through of the implications of true statements." I do think of myself as being pretty logical, for the most part. I would hope that others would say the same of me.
1. Plato and especially Aristotle were more concerned with what was going on in the world around them. They questioned the world and reality around them while skeptics didn’t trust or believe in anything around them. I don’t think the skeptics were Socratic because he believed in questioning everything while the skeptics “realized nothing matters.”
ReplyDelete2. He thought his senses could mislead him. I don’t think such a decision is possible because of natural human instincts that let us know when something is wrong. Most of the time a ‘gut feeling’ isn’t misleading.
3. He visited India. Indian philosophers were known to do extreme things to themselves to reach inner stillness, so he might have taken the form of extremity he saw in India and made it his own.
4. He believed his belief that nothing matters led him to happiness because he had nothing he needed to be unhappy or worried about.
5. They’ve probably favored a more moderate skepticism because its dangerous to live the way Pyrrho was. He might be a good example of staying cool under pressure, like he did during the storm on the boat, but for the most part his life was very dangerous.
Laney #11
mona ikbariah #7
ReplyDeleteLH
1- Skeptics believed that a person should keep an open mind, because sometimes the things we believe in are not true. So, we have to have the ability to change our minds. That’s why sceptics, such as Pyrrho, kept an open mind to new ideologies and opinions.
2- Pyrrho believed that he should never trust our senses because they sometimes trick us in believing in something that didn’t really happen or occur. I think it was a prudent decision because it's not something impossible, our sense can actually mislead us. But as Pyrrho did, we should keep an open mind because sometimes those sense are accurate.
3- Pyrrho visited India when he was young.
4- Pyrrho believed that to become truly happy you should free yourself from your desires.
5- Most philosophers favored moderate skepticism because it brings you closer to the truth and it allows you to live without doubting everything that surrounds you.
1. Logic is simply, “the systematic working through of the implications of true statements.” I would consider myself logical.
ReplyDelete2.The Law of Excluded Middle is important in all philosophies. All cultures have their own version of it in their philosophy. I think the advice could be useful in some scenarios, but could complicate things other times.
Laney #11
John Wright #12
ReplyDeleteLH
1. The most extreme skeptics, like Pyrrho, believed that we could never understand the true nature of our reality. The answers could not be gained through abstract thought, such as Plato, nor exploration of the world around us, like Aristotle. The questions that are posed to us are simply unknowable with certainty. In this way Socrates could be viewed as a skeptic, for he knew that he did not have all of the answers to the questions he asked, and he believed that no one really did. However, Socrates was not as indifferent or nihilistic as Pyrrho.
2. Our senses can deceive us, and Pyrrho thought that they were unreliable. He questioned even our most basic instincts of survival . I would say such a decision is not completely unwise, but it is completely impossible to turn off primal instincts that have allowed us to evolve this far, and even Pyrrho found it difficult at times to overcome his mind.
3. Pyrrho visited India when he was younger and supposedly experienced gurus and other thinkers who purposely tortured themselves to achieve a greater understanding of their selves and the world around them. In this way he learned that you can overcome your natural instincts of self-preservation and cross over into a different plane of thinking, where nothing mattered. He also believed that happiness was derived from freeing yourself from worldly possessions and worries.
HWT
1. The systematic working through of the implications of true statements. I would consider myself a logical person in the aspects of my life that need a straightforward answer, however I do find myself thinking irrationally when it comes to ideas that live on emotional or artistic planes. This seems to be how my mind operates, even if I try to convince myself of the more rational approach.
2. Law of Excluded Middle. I would say that it is important to follow rules of thought, especially when it comes to keeping a consistent viewpoint and understanding of the world around us. However, it is difficult to rationalize the inconsistencies that arise when you follow these rules in a strict manner. I have always believed that the context of any thought, idea, or argument is the most important feature. I think that not believing everything you think is important, if for no other reason than to check our own ideas and truly flush them out to have a complete understanding of our own thoughts.
4. The mind works without supernatural assistance to deliver an understanding of the world and ourselves. I do think of myself as a secularist, for we can come to rational conclusions that aren’t simply because a certain god/deity made it that way or allowed us to think that way.
5. Science versus Ethics. Scientific endeavors should not be censored or confined to an arbitrary line. However, when we learn that we can do something, we should then debate whether we should do something.
Sam Hutto
ReplyDeleteLH
1. The most extreme skeptics were Socratic and did not even trust their own senses to interpret the world around them
2. He decided to never trust his scenses because of how often they can mislead us. I think this is possible to nut trust your scences as long as you still use them
HWT
1."the systematic working through of the implications of true statements". I consider myself illogical.
LH:
ReplyDelete1.Extreme Skeptics believed that we should not trust anything with 100% certainty yet Plato and Aristotle knew they didn't know everything and will shift views when it is brought to their awareness.
2. He believed the senses were not always reliable, they mislead us into seeing, hearing, or believing things that in reality aren't true. I'd say it is prudent due just experience there are plenty of times where maybe the mind fills in information based on what it doesn't know, such as being in the dark.
3. Pyrrho visited India, he was surrounded by gurus who had a tolerance for physical deprivation in order to reach a certain level of stillness, which influenced his calm and collected living.
4. Due to Pyrrho not trusting anything, anyone certain of something was in the way of their own peace. Yes we must shift a perspective on fear, we must see things from an optimistic point of view in order to move on with whatever is going on. Also not caring what the outcome is, not expecting something,
5. Modern skeptics do not consider putting their life in danger due to being skeptical about something.
I think what set Ann Hutchinson apart in her beliefs was that she truly believed in freedom. She wanted to keep her own beliefs which is why she left the Puritan society. She and Roger Williams went on to found another state to maintain their religious freedom. -Sophia Williams section 7
ReplyDeleteChloe Rush #7
ReplyDeleteLH
1. Skeptics believed that they should not hold firm opinions of anything. Because everything can be questioned. I do not think they were Socratic in this regard. Pyrrho was en extreme skepticist while Socrates was not, he only held some of the ideas.
2. Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because they often can mislead you. However, he still kept an open mind about the possibility that they could be true. I believe to some degree it is impossible to not trust your senses. There could be some points in your life where you have to trust them.
3.Pyrrho visited India when he was young. He saw the other spiritual gurus in India put themselves through immense torture. But he has a calm mind, this was because he did not get upset about anything because he believes that everything was a matter of opinion.
4. He believed that to escape unhappiness you should free yourself from desires. Because you do not know that something is better than something else. Recognize that nothing actually matters. I do believe there are other ways of achieving freedom. For me, it is letting go of the judgement you have of other people and you believe they have on you.
5. Most philosophers challenged the idea of dogma. They want to know why people believe what they do. This is to get closer to the truth. To reveal how much or little that we truly know.
1. The skeptics believed that we shouldn't trust anything that we believe is 100% true while Aristotle and Plato believed that when something new was brought forth that, they believed to be true they changed their views to accommodate that.
ReplyDelete2. He said to never trust your senses because they might be giving bad information. I don't think it is possible for anybody to not trust their senses because they are there to give us an idea of our surrounding and if we can't trust them than what can we trust.
3. He visited India as a young man and that probably altered his view of the world because they were known to do very extreme things to achieve inner stillness and he thought that would be a good way to look at life.
4. He didn't have to worry about the common human emotion known as fear and that would lead him to be less afraid than most people. If you live a virtuous life than you don't have to worry most fears but it won't eliminate all of life's fears.
5. They chose a modern version of skepticism because it allows philosophers to question previously known answers to questions that people always thought to be true.
This is Cole from #7
DeleteWhat specifically in India do you think altered his view? What practices?
DeleteBetti Houser #12
DeleteHWT:
1: Logic is simply a way to gather knowledge and teach it to those around us. I consider myself to be logical in some sense. I like to learn how things work and teach it to others, even though sometimes they may not be interested...
2: The Law of Excluded Middle is important to all philosophies. I think it can be important to follow the rules of thought, but I feel if we only ever strictly follow those rules, we won't be able to advance in our own personal philosophy. "Don't believe everything you think" is advice that cautions us against "judging a book by it's cover" so to speak.
3: The most distinctive thing about humanity, as said by Aristotle, is rationality. In Indian philosophy, however, humanity is defined by their ability to tell what is right from wrong, or dharma. For me, personally, I think the most distinctive thing about humanity is our ability to grow and change as things around us grow and change.
Savannah Spann
ReplyDeleteLH:
1. The most extreme skeptics avoided holding firm opinions on any given topic or ponder. Their main teaching was to keep an open mind. Don't commit, and you won't be disappointed. This was not socratic thinking.
2. Pyrho ignored his senses because he believed that they would often be misleading, therefore they were always untrustworthy. Even in the most terrifying and deadly situations he believed his senses were giving him false worries. I think this is an irrational decision because although our senses can indeed be misleading, they are also the part of our human instinct that keeps us alive.
3. He visited India which influenced his philosophy because many Indian gurus would put themselves through intense physical deprivation for the same reasons Pyrho was not scared in dangerous situations.
4. He believed that he could accomplish true happiness if he were not constantly worried or afraid of the unknown. I think there are many other ways to reach happiness and release oneself from worry without completely disregarding survival instinct.
5. This is because the concept of skepticism is valid and makes a lot of sense, but only to a certain extent. You can't reach the goal of happiness if you are dead right?
With your answer to question five, what do you think about Aristotle's belief that post death events can affect the quality of your life, your existence?
DeletePyrrho believed that the senses could not be trusted, because, how can we really know what is true and what is fake? He essentially believed that we cannot believe in anything. The text states, "No one will ever know about the ultimate nature of reality. Such knowledge simply isn't possible for human beings." I believe there should be a healthy balance. We should be cautious of unnecessary fears or feelings, but we do know some things. We know that fire burns, falling off of a cliff will severely injure or kill us. So, I think that it is not entirely possible.
ReplyDelete#11
ReplyDelete1 Although there was no proof or reason to Anne felt beyond a shroud of doubt that she was heaven bound, which was what made her distinctly American in that she was so confident in her beliefs.
2 Hutchinson and Roger Williams would develop the freedom of thought which encouraged anyone to believe whatever falsehood they pleased.
3 During the 17th century Europe would allow freedom of thought which would serve to further the continent intellectually while scholars and the like worked ardently to find proof of their claims; unfortunately, despite their common ancestry, this way of thinking would not translate to the Americas. Quite the opposite in fact, in America the freedom of thought meant a fundamental right to believe regardless of the validity of that notion.
4 Puritans would deem the native Americans to be the serviceman of Satan whom they believed had been them into America to raise an empire that Gods judgment would not reach. I did not know that this had been the case, but am far from startled to know that they did not emphasize this in earlier forms of education. To teach another reason spouted justifying a massacure of the Native Americans seems like something they would be rather hesitant to teach in classes, much like the many attempts made to assimilate the Native American people like the Carlisle Indian Industrial School where their objective was “to kill the Indian and save the man.”
5 In the Salem witch trials spectral evidence was allowed to be used within the court and thus witness accounts of dreams containing demons and other supernatural beings can be found on record. This was portrayed to have been used for selfish gain in Arthur Miller's The Crucible, but Andersen finds this hard to believe. As Kurt Andersen said “My strong hunch is that the Salem trials were not mainly a willful sham. I’m sure Cotton Mather believed the nonsense he wrote. And many or most of the other principals in Salem in 1692 surely believed what they said.”
Hannah Crumley #11
ReplyDeleteLH
1. How did the most extreme skeptics (or sceptics, if you prefer the British spelling) differ from Plato and Aristotle? What was their main teaching? Do you think they were "Socratic" in this regard?
Extreme skeptics differ from Plato or Aristotle because they do not hold a firm view on anything. The main teaching was to keep an open mind. I do not think they were “Socratic” in this regard because they took it too far.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because they can sometimes mislead us. I’m not sure if the decision would be possible.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
He visited India as a child, which inspired him through all their spiritual teachers and gurus putting themselves through different extremes.
4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
He thought it led him to happiness because it allowed him to free himself from desires and not worry about how things may turn out. I do think there are other ways to achieve freedom from worry. You can have a go-with-the-flow attitude without being an extreme skeptist.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
Most philosophers favored a more moderate skepticism because it allows you to question things without living in doubt all the time. They are still able to be skeptical without distrusting their senses and always doubting everything.
LH
1. How did the most extreme skeptics (or sceptics, if you prefer the British spelling) differ from Plato and Aristotle? What was their main teaching? Do you think they were "Socratic" in this regard?
Extreme skeptics differ from Plato or Aristotle because they do not hold a firm view on anything. The main teaching was to keep an open mind. I do not think they were “Socratic” in this regard because they took it too far.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because they can sometimes mislead us. I’m not sure if the decision would be possible.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
He visited India as a child, which inspired him through all their spiritual teachers and gurus putting themselves through different extremes.
4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
He thought it led him to happiness because it allowed him to free himself from desires and not worry about how things may turn out. I do think there are other ways to achieve freedom from worry. You can have a go-with-the-flow attitude without being an extreme skeptist.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
Most philosophers favored a more moderate skepticism because it allows you to question things without living in doubt all the time. They are still able to be skeptical without distrusting their senses and always doubting everything.
Sydney Boyce #11
ReplyDeleteLH
1. Skeptics believed that they could know nothing. That even their senses of what we consider reality were untrustworthy. They differed from Aristotle because they believed we could learn nothing from reality and we should ignore our instincts.
2. Pyrrho believed that that our senses and instincts mislead us. That we can't really know if they are telling the truth unless we ignore them every time, but even then we can't know that the outcome will be the same every time. If he could do it it must be possible, but it is very difficult to ignore the feeling to run away when a very angry dog is running towards you.
3. He visited India. In India there were many spiritual leaders/ gurus that would put themselves through extreme physical deprivation to try to reach inner stillness. Pyrrho must've witnessed this and yearned to achieve the same inner stillness he believed these people were reaching.
4. Pyrrho believed that desires led to unhappiness, because you can't always get what you want. To solve that, he believed that if you accepted that nothing truly matters, (because who knows if the thing you want is really better than the thing you are more likely to get) then you will find freedom from worry.
The way I find freedom from worry is part of my religion. Jesus tells us in Matthew 6: 25-34 that we are more valuable to God than the flowers and the birds, yet He provides for them, so would it not follow that He also will provide for us? I find that I am the least worried when I am reading my Bible consistently and trusting in the Lord's plan to provide for me. Jesus also says in Matthew 11: 28-30 that He will take our burdens from us if we give them to Him. That He will give us His burden, which is light, and He will give us rest that is found in trusting Him. So, I don't have to worry because I know that God will provide for me, and even though this life will be hard, Jesus has promised to help me carry that load.
5. Most philosophers have favored a more mild form of skepticism because the only way to actually learn about the world around us is to trust our senses, at least a little bit. Skepticism as great at Pyrrho's left him believing that we could learn nothing from the world, and that is a philosophers goal.
Betti Houser #12
ReplyDeleteHWT:
1: Logic is simply a way to gather knowledge and teach it to those around us. I consider myself to be logical in some sense. I like to learn how things work and teach it to others, even though sometimes they may not be interested...
2: The Law of Excluded Middle is important to all philosophies. I think it can be important to follow the rules of thought, but I feel if we only ever strictly follow those rules, we won't be able to advance in our own personal philosophy. "Don't believe everything you think" is advice that cautions us against "judging a book by it's cover" so to speak.
3: The most distinctive thing about humanity, as said by Aristotle, is rationality. In Indian philosophy, however, humanity is defined by their ability to tell what is right from wrong, or dharma. For me, personally, I think the most distinctive thing about humanity is our ability to grow and change as things around us grow and change.
(Posted this under someone elses post by accident.)
Chris Barnes #12
ReplyDeleteLH:
1. Skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle in that they were committed to a distrust of everything, including their own senses. Their main teaching was an inherent distrust of anything and everything. I do not think skeptics were socratic in nature, considering Socrates' philosophy relied heavily on one's experience of the world.
2. Pyrrho decided not to trust even his own senses on the basis that nobody truly knew they could be trusted. There was no evidence that our senses or even our consciousness for that matter were tangible or real. I think such a decision is possible. It would be tough to say either way, considering everything I have ever been taught or sensed disagrees, but if Pyrrho was correct then it's entirely possible that I am simply too immersed in a false experience to see true reality.
LH:
ReplyDelete1. An extreme sceptic has no source of beliefs, and refuses them, while Plato and Aristotle did not dismiss beliefs, but rather, challenged them.
2. He thought that our senses mislead us; thoughts that they mislead our direction of thought. I don’t think that it is possible, as our senses help in operating out human instincts and stray us from danger.
3. Pyrrho visited India, which possible lead him to his philosophy by learning about extremist such as the gurus, who put themselves through horrific things to achieve stillness.
4. He thought that beliefs causes conflict, and conflict caused unhappiness, so to be happy meant to hold no beliefs.
5. They thought that by challenging beliefs meant that they could widdle away what was false until they learned the truth.
HWT:
1. Logic is “the systematic working through of the implications of true statements”, meaning to figure out what is true and what is not, consider it knowledge, and then to share that knowledge with others. I think I am logical in some cases but not all.
2. The Law of Excluded Middle. The rule of thought is important in way that I think that every thought or idea we have is important as long was we do not dedicate ourselves to said thought. Rather, use those thoughts to examine and work around it find what angles of it is true or false.
Pyrrho Believed not trusting our senses because it could cause a miscommunication and falseness between what we believe. Our feelings can alter lots of thoughts into us that maybe don’t even hold truth.
ReplyDeleteRejgar Tovi #7
ReplyDeleteLH
2.)For Pyrrho, if someone asks you for your views on some controversial ethical issue, on the latest government spending bill, or what’s the greatest movie of all time, you ought to simply demonstrate epoché and say, “I have only my opinion on the matter, as have you, so I shall say there is no answer.”