Or so Pyrrho, a Greek skeptic philosopher, would argue.
Don't commit, and you won't be disappointed. At least in theory..
So the philosophy of skepticism would have one believe for several hundred years in Ancient Greece, and later Rome. But no one topped the infamy of Ancient Greek Pyrrho (364c.-270BC.)
Pyrrho decided to never trust the senses because he believed they could often mislead.
This is Pyrrho's skepticism also referred to as Pyrrhonism.
I could see Pyrrho walking down the padded dirt roads passing a snake, getting nearly bit with a tee-shirt stamped with the line "ignorance is bliss".
This lead Pyrrho into many extreme and often dangerous scenarios that luckily his entourage would mediate him through.
But that is the question with a slew of many others.
Is ignorance truly bliss?
Then the following..
When does ignorance become arrogance because one chooses not to learn?
Can walking blindly into a lion's den just because the lions have yet to tear you apart personally be that profound?
Let's give more context to ignorance versus arrogance based off definition.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorance
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrogance
The issue at hand:
In layman's terms, Ignorance is not knowing better.
- Pyrrho never could have truly achieved full ignorance. Before the adoption of his own philosophy I am certain he knew better. The only way one can achieve true ignorance is to never be taught differently or be the clean slate mind of a child.
Arrogance is thinking that your opinion is the supreme truth.
- Pyrrho chose not to believe his perceptions and taught others to do the same.
Which leads to my arrguement:
I believe Pyrrho was extremely arrogant for thinking that his philosophy of skepticism would lead to happiness. He chose to put himself in dangerous scenarios that discounted the concerns of his entourage, and his own well being. This all to prove his theory that everything is a matter of opinion, nothing matters, and you can not trust your own perception of danger? Whilst also putting himself directly in harms way.
Appropriated Western Teachings:
Pyrrho's philosophy was that in order to achieve happiness one must relinquish their attachment to outcomes. That one can not trust their senses because the senses can deceive.
Pyrrho did not waste time worrying because he believed ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING was a matter of opinion.
This level of detachment, and stoicism no doubt had ties to his trip to India when he was younger. He was influenced by the gurus. It felt as if he took the principles, and tried to expedite the dharma.
As the Buddhists would endure extremes to achieve their own inner stillness, Pyrrho would create his own version.
How far is too far?
Can you really not even trust your own perception?
As I am typing on this keyboard, am I really feeling the keys press or are my senses lying about what I am currently typing?
If that is the case, and I am lying to myself about the clicking then why are words forming in this text box?
Or am I being mislead by my sight as well?
Even better..
We all learn what hot and cold is as a child.
My experience was that of Pyrrho.
I was all of maybe six years old. My mother had just got done curling her hair then unplugged the curling iron. She told me not to touch the heated tool due to it still being hot. Despite her warning I grabbed the blazing metal with my bare hand which ultimately led me to the emergency room.
All because I defied my mother's experience in the matter and exercised my Pyrrhonism.
Was it my mother's matter of opinion that the heated tool was hot after use?
My six year old right hand in bandages and ointment would say she was absolutely truthful.
My perception of heat and her opinion was so to the point that I was in tears.
I could run in circles with ideas of misleading perception.
However, Pyrrho was very affluent in these regards. He paved the way for other skeptics to question dogma, and religious beliefs.
I believe that there is a healthy balance of skepticism.
I do not think it is bad to question what we are taught. It can lead to answering whether we are following paths that are suitable to our morals, and thought processes.
His idea was if you recognize nothing matters, then nothing will affect your state of mind. Which in turn will be one of true inner tranquility.
Conclusion to the Madness!
So I have translated this to ignorance is bliss, and it does not matter if you know better. In the end, it is a matter of opinion if you find Pyrrho's level of skepticism arrogant. In the grand scheme of it all, nothing really matters.
We are to ignore biological responses to fear and not commit to even the most vital solutions to threats. Those perceived threats could be misleading anyways. Throw all caution to the wind, and make sure you have a group of friends willing to keep you out of "their matter of opinion".
My ultimate take away from all of this is just because a philosopher said it years ago.. Does not make it inherently true or practical. Wouldn't it be just as fitting to be skeptical of the skeptics? Question their understandings and apply it to our modern world. I believe it is healthy to question ways of life, but apply it in a strategic way. We would not be able to critically think without skepticism. I think Pyrrho kinda had things right but leaned a little too hard into it. If one could dial it back by 50% and apply with moderation.. skepticism could be a beautiful tool.
.png)
A true pyrrhonist would probably have been indifferent to the curling iron, not curious enough to care whether it would burn or not. That's too indifferent to generate the kind of worldly engagement required for happiness or peace of mind, I'd say.
ReplyDelete