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 vilified 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?
==
==
Pyrrho was an extreme skeptic, who'd abandoned the Socratic quest for truth in favor of the view that beliefs about what's true are a divisive source of unhappiness. But most philosophers do consider themselves skeptics, of a more moderate strain.
The difference: the moderates question everything in order to pursue truth, knowledge, and wisdom. They're skeptical, as Socrates was, that those who think they know really do know. But they're still searching. Pyrrhonists and other extreme ancient skeptics (like the Roman Sextus Empiricus) find the search futile, and think they can reject even provisional commitment to specific beliefs.
My view: we all have beliefs, whether we want to admit it or not. Even those who deny belief in free will, it's been said, still look both ways before crossing the street.
So let's try to have good beliefs, and always be prepared to give them up for better ones when experience and dialogue persuade us we were mistaken.
==
It's hard to take the legend of Pyrrho seriously.
"Rather appropriately for a man who claimed to know nothing, little is known about him..."*
Pyrrho
First published Mon Aug 5, 2002; substantive revision Tue Oct 23, 2018
Pyrrho was the starting-point for a philosophical movement known as Pyrrhonism that flourished beginning several centuries after his own time. This later Pyrrhonism was one of the two major traditions of sceptical thought in the Greco-Roman world (the other being located in Plato’s Academy during much of the Hellenistic period). Perhaps the central question about Pyrrho is whether or to what extent he himself was a sceptic in the later Pyrrhonist mold. The later Pyrrhonists claimed inspiration from him; and, as we shall see, there is undeniably some basis for this. But it does not follow that Pyrrho’s philosophy was identical to that of this later movement, or even that the later Pyrrhonists thought that it was identical; the claims of indebtedness that are expressed by or attributed to members of the later Pyrrhonist tradition are broad and general in character (and in Sextus Empiricus’ case notably cautious—see Outlines of Pyrrhonism 1.7), and do not in themselves point to any particular reconstruction of Pyrrho’s thought. It is necessary, therefore, to focus on the meager evidence bearing explicitly upon Pyrrho’s own ideas and attitudes. How we read this evidence will also, of course, affect our conception of Pyrrho’s relations with his own philosophical contemporaries and predecessors... (Stanford Encyclopedia, continues)
* 
)
LH
ReplyDelete2. 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 could be deceitful. This decision isn't possible because humans have instincts, he could disregard them but he'd still have natural reactions to perceived danger.
4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)? Pyrrho thought his skepticism led to happiness because he believed unhappiness came from not getting what you wanted but if you saw everything as equally meaningless you wouldn't have a desire for anything. I think it would be difficult to cultivate a state of mind where you can completely free yourself from worry as a non-skeptic because they would care and find meaning in their goals but it would still be possible to manage.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why? Most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism because its a more feasible lifestyle and if they didn't believe in anything they experienced in life it'd be difficult to contemplate as philosophers.
Hannah Collins sec 10
ReplyDeleteLH 3: Pyrrho traveled to India alongside Alexander the Great where he met groups of wise individuals in the mountains where he himself stated his philosophy developed some of its origins. Perhaps his impartiality stemmed from the aspect of having to take away prior prejudice to learn from these wise men, or it was the impartiality of these wise men's beliefs that made them so wise to Pyrrho.
LH 2: Pyrrho believed his senses to be deceitful in that they would lead to partiality. However, forgoing one's own senses is an impossible task seeing that we as living things will always be connected to innate desires that will lead to bias.
LH 4: Pyrrho saw happiness within skepticism as impartiality would make all things both good and bad the same. With joy being the same as misery sadness cannot exist. Personally, this seems like a miserable and nihilistic way of living as this philosophy essentially drains the meaning of life. Why do anything if it is all the same?
LH 1: They refused to hold a strong belief in anything whatsoever, mainly teaching to not believe anything.
ReplyDeleteLH2: He decided to not trust his senses due to them often misleading us. It's almost impossible to truly do that, due to how much we rely on our senses.
LH3: He visited India, which could have influenced him due to the tradition of spiritual teachers putting themselves through extreme physical deprivation in order to obtain inner stillness.
LH, 4. He believed that if you recognize nothing matters, that would give them inner peace. He thought that you shouldn't care about anything and free yourself from your desires
ReplyDeleteLH, 5. Because living out his way of thinking is perverse. There's no fact that this way of thinking proves true peace of mind (because it doesn’t). Although the premise that we should question everything is good and helps us mature and evolve, he leads it to a conclusion of madness and can’t challenge the premise by proving things he (and we all) know is true.
LH, 2. He didn’t trust his senses because he believed they misled him too much. I don’t believe it is possible because I feel like you have to use your senses to not trust your senses
Section 6
ReplyDeleteHWT 1. Logic is just the way of thinking something through before just acting on it, I do consider myself logical now but definitely not in the past.
Section #6
ReplyDeleteLH 1: Most extreme skeptics differed from Aristotle and Socrates due to their refusal or distrust of their senses and the information they provide. I do however feel that this act is interestingly Socratic, even despite the difference in approach to Socrates and Aristotle’s styles of thinking, as it’s an idea based on questioning the unknown to attempt arriving at a clearer solution
LH 2: Pyrrho never trusted his senses, as he believed them to be inherently unreliable and faulty (examples being visual and auditory hallucinations or misreadings and how common they are). I feel that doing so, while somewhat understandable in terms of wanting to learn more about the world and trying to stay open minded about things, and possible in some sense for Pyrrho, is mostly impossible (especially nowadays) due to the dangers it could bring, while also being highly impractical, as over-skepticism can actually trap you into questioning everything rather than being able to accept certain truths to then further your questioning with that information (at least in my opinion)
LH 4: Pyrrho believed that extreme skepticism led one to happiness through being able to be free of worry, anxiety, and fear about what ifs. As technically, everything is what ifs in that style of thinking. I personally believe however that anxiety and fear are emotions that we’ll fully and truly escape, (as they’re principal emotions derived from various parts of life) but they are feelings that we can better overcome through emotional growth and counseling, as well as some healthy logical thinking
LH 5: Most philosophers favored more moderate skepticism due to the fact that while our senses are never 100% trustworthy, they’re still trustworthy enough to keep us safe and healthy, as well as accurate enough to let us attempt to view and analyze the world. We never fully be sure of our perception, but we can be sure enough to continue learning, growing, and asking larger questions
Section 7
ReplyDelete1.The Skeptics of philiosophy were very different from Plato and Aristole. The skeptics believed nothing to be fundamentally true even if it was right there in front of you. This is the complete opposite of Plato's form theory and ignored Aristole's idea of valuing the real world. They were most like Socrates; believing they really knew nothing.
3.Pyrrho took teachings from India to further explore his philosophy. The mystics had brutal ways of eliminating human fear and instinct, testing their bodies at great extremities. This is the mindset that Pyrrho took and utilized in his own life: nothing matters and embrace inner stillness.
4. By being skeptical, Pyrrho never had to experience the drama and hardships of life. He merely rejected them and the concept. While this may lead to a life of no worries, it also leads to a life of little joy. Without the bad there can't truely be any good. To isolate yourself from being human is an effective but potententially damaging way to overcome life. Is being scociopathic how we can be comfortable? What of other people? His way of thinking completely disregards things that should matter. I dont doubt for a second that Pyrrho ate food at some point; Let's feed him imaginary bread.
Section 6
ReplyDeleteI find the philosophy comic very funny. Sometimes I personally don’t
understand that form of thinking. I have had the unfortunate luck of running into someone like this who drove me up the wall with their comments. It was as if they were just trying to insight anger in those around. Even when we would explain mass and density and all of the science we have that was developed over years and years to explain how the world exists he would still deny basic or what I would consider basic principles of reality.
Giovanni Del Valle Section 7
ReplyDelete3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
Pyrrho visited India when he was a young man. He might had seen the spiritual teachers and gurus achieve inner stillness through intense physical acts and deprivation. They would bury themselves alive, go on a long fast, and hang weights on their bodies.
Hayden Dalton section 7
ReplyDeleteLH 3. He visited India in his early youth, and the methods by which these people lived spiritually had an impact on his philosophy.
HWT 1. Logic is just the art of reasoning, and I would say I'm a quite logical person with sound reasoning.
section 7
ReplyDelete1. Most of the early extreme skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle because where Plato and Aristotle believed in the value of life and all that is in it, the skeptics like Pyrrho trusted nothing. Most skeptics believed that our senses mislead us and they avoided holding opinions about anything. I think this relates to Socrates belief in questioning everything, even his own ideas.
2. Pyrrho decided never to trust his sense because he stated our sense can be misleading. He did not rule out his sense completely. He stated that the possibility of the senses providing accurate information is there. I think this decision is dangerous. As the text stated, even with Pyrrhos toes curled over the edge of the cliff, he refused to believe his senses.
3. As a young man Pyrrho visited India. His visit to India most likely effected or influenced his philosophy. In India the spiritual teachings of gurus putting themselves through physical pain for the sake of stillness, impacted Pyrrho. The text states Pyrrho's approach to philosophy was close to that of mystic.
4. Pyrrho thought that extreme skepticism let to happiness because, by recognizing that nothin really matters, you can not be unhappy with the fact that you are not getting what you want. If nothing matters than can you really want anything? By freeing yourself from desires, is there any point to happiness if there is no unhappiness?
5. I think most philosophers favored moderate skepticism over Pyrrho's skepticisms because they saw the beauty in the world. The questioned the world yes, but they also used their senses to answer these questions, and to form new ones. This lead to more learning and more discovery.
If Pyrrho was a skeptic and didn't believe in anything and didnt trust his senses, how did he hope to gain new information? How can you gather information and increase intellect, if you are unwilling to believe in anything strongly?
Charlcie Shelton 007
ReplyDeleteLH 3:
Pyrrho visited India when he was younger, India is famous for depriving their bodies in the name of religion. This could've influence Pyrrho's thinking due to the fact that the Indians live so differently. Happiness comes from the way we look at things, and the culture around us.
LH 2 Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
ReplyDeletePyrrho decided to never trust his senses because his senses were sometimes wrong. For example, the author wrote about how we misperceive object in the dark and can mistake audio inputs as well. Pyrrho took this concept to the extreme and decided to actively mistrust his senses.
I believe that completely mistrusting in your senses isn’t even possible. Because then the ground you are standing on and the visuals you are receiving that tell you your location are also just lies. Or just the fact that you move from one place to another; your senses play a role in telling you that you are moving or have moved. However, by Pyrrho’s extremist concept, none of that is true.
He could be right, though, and we are all in a simulation of reality.
3-How was freedom of thought in 17th century America expressed differently than in Europe at the time?
ReplyDeleteShortly after the reformation, Europe had a resurgence of religiously devoted people. An enlightenment led to people finally being able to think clearly and escape papal corruption.
LH 3
ReplyDeleteThe country Pyrrho visited as a young man was India. In India, many people practiced extreme physical deprivation. This included gruesome and harmful acts to the body in attempt to achieve a sort of inner stillness. Pyrrho himself was a very “inner stillness” type of person. His philosophy included not worrying about anything because everything was “simply a matter of opinion” and there is no chance of discovering the truth.
LH 4 How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
ReplyDeletePyrrho believed that his extreme skepticism led to happiness because his philosophy included not worrying about anything. He thought everything was simply a matter of a opinion and there is no chance of discovering the truth; therefore, why worry? We have no control over it. So once you accept this lack of control, you can live happier.
I believe there could be other ways of relieving yourself from this constant worry that plagues us all, but I haven’t heard of any other solution yet.
Section 7 Carter Marbry
ReplyDeleteLH 1: they didn’t have any strong beliefs or anything like that. I do believe in a certain way it is Socratic
LH 2: he believed that the senses could be misleading. I do not believe this is possible since our decisions are usually based on our humanistic instincts.
HWT 1: logic is acting after thinking about what the situation you are in calls for. I can be logical but sometimes my emotions can override logic
Felopater Melika #7
ReplyDeleteLH
1. They were skeptic of what they know instead of being certain. Their main teaching was to be skeptical. They weren't socratic instead they were skeptical of what they know
2. Because senses can mislead. Yes to an extent.
3. India. Possibly met some of the philosophers there and learned from them.
4. By being skeptical of everything, you can be skeptical of how you feel. Yes, by simply knowing what's in your control and what isn't and focusing on what is and accepting what isn't.
5. Because you can get yourself killed by being skeptical of something like if I throw myself from a 1000000ft tall building I might not die.
HWT
1. Logic is reasoning that should proceed strict deductive steps giving a kind of quasi-mathematical rigour. I try my best to be logical but I am a human and as a human I have emotions that sometimes interfere with logic
2. Law of excluded middle. Yes, to an extent. I would say it's a good one because sometimes our thoughts aren't true or real.
3. Their rationality, for Indian philosophy by our capacity for dharma, for me their rationality and morals.
4. supernatural assistant. Yes, because the mind isn't supernatural.
5. Science and ethics, I don't know how to solve it
LH 3. Pyyrho visited India alongside Alexander the Great. Deriving inspiration from the country I believe he took to the spiritual deities and forms of enlightenment taught there. Falling in line with his own views, to reach enlightenment or a higher state of thought one must forget their physical senses.
ReplyDeleteLH 2. Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because he felt they misled him. Occasionally being misled by his sight or audio cues, he came to the conclusion that his senses can not be trusted. I believe this isn't practical due to the latent dangers. I believe our senses go further than the main five and can be crucial in our survival. I also think that by doing so, the sanity of one's mind may slip.
ReplyDeleteLH 2. Pyrrho didn't trust his senses because to him appearances can't deceive him. The book used the example of how in the dark, one may have thought they saw a fox and then it turned out to be a cat. The decision was only possible because his friends protected him from him not trusting his senses. The book used how he saw a cliff in front of him and didn't trust that there truly was a cliff in front of him, so he kept walking. His friends who were less of skeptics saved him from walking off a cliff. Our senses might not always be completely trustworthy; however, they still should be trusted to an extent. Such as in the cliff example, he should have trusted his senses to not walk off a cliff. Our senses keep us alive and so one should still trust most of their senses.
ReplyDeleteKailei Davis, Section #6
LH 3. As a young man, Pyrrho visited India in which had greatly influenced his philosophical decisions. India was known for their spiritual teachers putting themselves through great extents of danger to achieve a piece of mind. They would starve themselves for days to weeks, hang heavy objects off of their body, and so much more physical endearment. This influenced Pyrrho to not worry about what was physically happening to him, even if that included pain, but to keep a calm mind throughout whatever he experienced.
ReplyDeleteKailei Davis. Section #6
Derek Clayton
ReplyDeleteSection #6
LH
The most extreme skeptic doubted everything, including their senses, and even their thoughts. Plato, while he preferred to use thought, would find this notion silly, how can you not trust your thoughts. Aristotle trusted his senses, so he would also find this notion ridiculous. In a sense, it is socratic, just taking it to an extreme.
Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because they can be flawed. A noise may seem like someone is in the house, but it’s just it settling. This isn’t possible. Your body will move on its own, you can't walk without your senses, you cannot function without them. You do not exist without them, you are part of your senses.
Pyrrho supposedly visited India, which had gurus who would push themselves to these extremes, to push their senses to this extreme. He would see as people’s own senses disappeared, the clarity they received after pushing themselves so far.
Pyrrho believed his method led to the least amount of worry. If nothing is real, then why be bothered. There are better ways, for example, the world is real but that's what makes it fun. Enjoy yourself.
Most philosophers favored more moderate skepticism as it allowed for more thinking. Trusting in your thoughts allowed one to ask questions. Faith in your senses, or dialogues allowed on to observe.
LH,Q2- Pyrrho did not trust his senses because they can be wrong sometimes. It was stupid idea, but his friends protected him from learning why such an idea isn’t rational. If your senses are wrong 99% of the time you’ll be alright. If you are wrong but your senses are correct, you’ve inflicted unnecessary harm that could’ve been avoided.
ReplyDeleteLH,Q3- India gave Pyrrho a mystic view of life. That nothing is certain, and there are a multitude of options to achieve serendipity. This may have bolstered his belief that the variables of life are purely subjective.
LH,Q5- Moderate skepticism searches for truth and reason for that truth. Too much skepticism creates paranoia, and creates an overly subjective society. Not enough skepticism kills innovation and intuition, and creates an outlandishly objective society. Moderate skepticism gives enough life for innovation of value, while providing objective truths to research further in.
#6