LHP 3
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)
* 
)
1. Unlike Plato and Aristotle, extreme skeptics avoided forming firm opinions on anything. Their main teaching was that everything can be both questioned and doubted, therefore the best option is to keep an open mind and accept that nothing matters. I believe the teachings of skeptics were not Socratic because they were not driven by a quest for truth. Though Socrates insisted that all he knew was how little he knew was a skeptical position, but Pyrrho took the skepticism way further and I'm not sure that Socrates would support his philosophy.
ReplyDelete2. Pyrrho never trusted his senses because he believed they often mislead us. He didn't rule out that his senses gave him accurate information but he kept an open mind about them. I think this is a pretty crazy way to live. To see a cliff edge and continue walking, and to feel your toes going over the edge but continuing to ignore the senses and believe they are deceiving you is a very radical way to think and live.
3. Pyrrho visited India as a child and it is said that the great India tradition of spiritual teachers and gurus putting themselves through the most extreme physical deprivation heavily influenced Pyrrho's personal philosophy and approach to life. Pyrrho's approach to philosophy was described as being close to that of a Mystic.
4. Pyrrho's philosophy was summarized by asking three questions that he believed we should ask if we want to be led to happines. What are things really like? What attitude should we adopt to them? What will happen to someone who does adopt that attitude? He believed we could never know about the nature of reality and should forget about it. He believed that because of this, we should not commit to any view. He believed that unhappiness arises from not getting what we want and that we can't determine if anything is better than anything else so, to be happy we should free ourselves from desires and not care or worry how things turn out.
5. Many skeptics take a moderate approach because it is hard achieve the same results as Pyrrho. Not everyone has a non-skeptic friend to protect them from danger, and it's hard to believe that Pyrrho's philosophy would yield the same results for the rest of humanity. More moderate skeptics believe that we should trust our instincts and it was pointed out in the reading how Pyrrho himself could not even avoid the initial reaction of his instincts. In our world today, we have much more responsibilities and things that cause us to worry than Pyrrho may have had in his time so it's much harder for even the most skeptical person today to achieve complete freedom from all cares.
1.They differed by avoiding having any firm opinions on anything. The main teaching of skepticism was do not commit and you will not be disappointed. The concept of never committing to an idea does have a relation to Socratic beliefs. In that, Socrates wanted everyone to question what they thought they knew and would claim that he did not know anything. Thus, both ways of thinking encourage people to always question the matter at hand.
ReplyDelete2.Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because our senses can be wrong, such as in the dark a figure could appear to be a fox yet only be a cat in reality. That decision is not prudent in most cases although it is very interesting to note that our senses are not what reality actually is. Our senses have a short spectrum they can obtain information from, such as our eyes only see a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Our sense of touch is simply the pressure of other objects' atomic structures repelling our own (note that pressure is not an accurate depiction of the mechanics of that situation, but it reveals the point). And initially the way photons enter our eyes the whole image is upside down, so our brain has to invert the picture of the world we see. There are many other examples of how vastly inaccurate our senses are, really humans are just a big mushy ball of fat/protein floating inside a calcium exoskeleton wrapped in an armor of regenerating muscle and skin. I am not saying that we are not amazing creatures, I am simply saying in the grand scheme of things we are not evolved to accurately sense the entirety of the universe. As far as possibility, it is very possible for problems to occur in humans that distort the few senses we can conjure such as schizophrenia and other illnesses.
3.Pyrrho visited India as a young man. With India having a large amount of spiritual practitioner that would perform extreme features to show how their faith allowed them to be at peace in extreme situations; Pyrrho may have concluded that the driving force that allowed them to be at peace was not letting their senses overwhelm them, thus he should not trust his senses. Because if senses would tell someone to be scared in a situation that having the feeling of being scared would not help them then why trust the senses in the first place.
4.Pyrrho thought that one should free themselves from desires and not care how things turn out, since unhappiness comes from not getting what you want. Another way to free oneself from worry comes from stoicism, determine what is within your capabilities to change and for everything that you cannot change do not spend your time worrying about it. Going deeper on the subject, for the matters that you can change partition segments of each problem that needs to be worked on and fit them in chronological order. Even deeper, do not concern yourself with problems that will be in the extreme future because events will happen before that time and will change many aspects that would have gone into the calculations.
5.The point of moderate philosophical skepticism is to get closer to the truth, or at least to reveal how little we know or can know. You don’t need to risk falling off a cliff edge to be this kind of sceptic.
section 11
ReplyDelete1. They differed from Plato and Aristotle because the skeptics never wanted to hold solid opinions on anything. Everything was a question to skeptics. The main philosopher that came hip with this idea was Pyrrho. I think in a sense they were socratic. Even in the book they said that a lot of what socrates came up with was skepticism.
2. He didn’t trust his senses because they mislead us sometimes. I feel like Pyrrho is somewhat right about this but how are we living if we question every little thing we feel. Sometimes it’s just better to go with your feelings even if it could hurt you in the end. You could really tie this back to happiness and that we are never fully fulfilled. Take a risk for happiness even if it might be a bad outcome.
3. He visited India and this influenced his philosophy because of the unusual lifestyle that comes in India. There spiritual teachers would go to great extents like being buried alive to physical deprivation.
4. People viewed him as a guy who was calm and at piece. His way of never trusting anything let him experience much more than more people do. I envy him for this reason. Fear usually stops us from accomplishing something. We as humans I feel like we are built to feel fear and it would be really hard to back off of that if you were put in a situation you weren’t sure of. I don’t think there is a way to seek freedom from worry.
5. Most people favored moderate skepticism because it meant they weren’t questioning every little thing every time.
1. Skeptics like to question everything, therefore not having firm opinions. Much like Socrates they question everything. However, they believed no one can ever know anything because you cannot always trust your senses to be true. This was a much more extreme view. Plato and Aristotle had firm beliefs, unlike skeptics.
ReplyDelete2.Pyrrho believed that sense could be misleading. He claimed to somewhat consider them, but did crazy things like almost walk off a cliff, which he only survived thanks to his less severe or non skeptic friends. I think it is possible to break oneself into a desensitized state, but it is dangerous to do so.
3.Pyrrho visited India as a young man. India has a trend of gurus who put themselves through rough "rituals" that are almost like torture to achieve a sense of "stillness." This could have inspired Pyrrho to go to such extremes in his life.
4.Pyrro expressed that believing that you do not truly know what you want is the key to happiness. We should not worry what will happen because whatever is supposed to happen will. I do not think it is smart to simply forget about things and let things happen. The best way to control intense fear is to prepare and have a plan, and know it is okay if it does not always work out the way you planned it.
5. Many moderate skeptics could see that Pyrrho's method was dangerous. It is also hard to ever have an opinion or idea if you deny everything all the time.
Class 13
FL
Delete1.She knew she was Heaven Bound and godly. She was a true American because of her confidence in her beliefs, even if they were completely ridiculous and delusional. She also never admitted self-doubt, and that her beliefs were true because they were hers.
2. Hutchinson and William invented American Individualism by letting people believe whatever they wanted to, or claimed they should be allowed to.
3.Europe had began to enter a time of reason, encouraging thought and discovery. However America was very against this at the time, freedom to think and act different seen as an act of Satan.
4. The Puritins called Indians Satan's Soldiers. They used this to villianized them, making them out to be a road block in America's betterment and creation of God's Nation. However this is entirely wrong. Indians were busy doing their own thing then paying attention to the silly white settlers. They were busy being their own person and battling each other. We often skim over this in history because it is not so pretty to admit America was founded by extremist Christians who created a bloodbath of innocent Indians than to skim over it as a small skirmish of events.
5. During the Salem witch trials, they allowed judges to use spectral evidence to prove if someone was using witch-craft. During The Crucible, it depicts the girls lying to gain power and a upper hand, and that Judges were going along not to appear stupid. However Anderson believes that some people during this time really did believe they were seeing things, that the judges were saving people, that some people even believed that Satan had caught them and they were guilty. Another example of people being stuck in a fantasy.
Class 13
Section 010
ReplyDelete1. The most extreme skeptics avoided holding firm opinions on anything, unlike Plato and Aristotle. Skeptics would argue that no one truly knows anything. This viewpoint is socratic, given that it mirrors Socrates’ views.
2. He believed his senses may be deceiving him, so he didn’t completely trust them. He never took anything for granted. Such a decision does not seem prudent, given that humans are wired with an innate instinct to survive. This extraordinary skepticism works counter to that instinct.
3. Pyrrho visited India. His observance of gurus and spiritual teachers taking drastic steps to achieve inner peace may have influenced his philosophy.
4. Pyrrho believed that because there’s no way to discover the truth, there’s no reason to get worked up about anything. This ultimately is responsible for his inner stillness. I do think there are other ways to achieve freedom from worry. Maybe we can’t ever escape worry, but we can choose not to be bound by it. We can recognize its destructive nature and opt not to let it loom over us.
5. Moderate skepticism is constructive because it creates an avenue for us to think critically and edge closer to elusive truths.
LHP 3
ReplyDelete1. Extreme sceptics take greater risks with their philosophy, they can potentially put themselves in danger. Plato and Aristotle taught you should question, and sceptics took this very seriously. I think they could be socratic, they are questioning to the greatest degree they possibly can. To such an extent, they've become questioning of themselves and instincts.
2. He felt they mislead you. He seemed to describe misinterpretations of sensory stimuli to be an incentive to not trust yourself. I think it is possible, though Pyrrho cannot resist his reactions to such stimuli every time. He can limit the amount of influence they have over him mentally.
3. He went to India. There is common practices of physically painful acts as a form of meditation, if they could be closely compared. He understood you must overcome fear, and perhaps even seek pain to understand more.
4. He was indifferent. You won't have disappointment of an expectation not being achieved if you cease to conjure an expectation in the first place. I think their could be other ways of gaining freedom from this.
5. Maybe because scepticism can aid you in certain ways, like reaching a full potential without fear or expectations, but it didn't have to be done to such an extreme extent.
- Kelly Molloy, Section #13
Q1. 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?
ReplyDeleteA1. They only sought to question everything, not to find answers to the questions they were asking. To know nothing, and to be happy because of it. No, not at all. To be socratic you must at least know that there is an answer out there that you can find, even if you don't know it now.
Q2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
A2. He decided to never trust his senses because he couldn't know for certain that they always gave him the correct answer. NO! With out his friends around to stop him he would have died many times over.
Q3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
A. India. He was very influenced by the people he met in India who were doing very extreme things to find "inner peace".
Q4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
A4. By knowing that you know nothing (ironic) you don't need to worry about anything and as a result you will be happy. Yes! Be comfortable in knowing that you don't know everything and make it a goal to gain more knowledge as you go along.
Q5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
A5. Knowing that you don't know everything leads you to the truth more often than not.
1. A lot of sceptics avoid having strong opinions because they want to live life worry free. Their main teaching is to free themselves and not care for desire. I think they were Socratic in a way because they still questioned their thoughts before acting on it.
ReplyDelete2. Pyrrho never trusted his senses because he believed it to be misleading. I believe it to be impossible because no one can 100% ignore their senses.
3. Pyrrho visited India as a young adult. It influenced his philosophy because believed everything is a opinion and does not need an answer.
4. He believed if you let go of your thought and not commit to any viewpoint, you will be happy from knowing nothing. I think there could be other ways of achieving freedom from worry. An example is trusting yourself more.
5. Modern Skepticism is favored more because its less risky and can lead closer to the truth while showing human ignorance to things.
LHP 3
ReplyDelete1. The most extreme skeptics believed that there was no way we could know anything for sure, so there was no point in wondering about it. Pyrrho taught that we need to detach ourselves from all firm beliefs, which is similar to Socrate’s “all I know is how little I know.” However, Pyrrho took this idea a lot farther than Socrates.
2. Pyrrho thought that the senses were not entirely reliable, so he decided to ignore them. There are some reflexes that are impossible to control, so his decision to never rely on his senses is not entirely possible. Furthermore, his logic is that if something fails one time out of ten, it’s unreliable and so you should just never trust it again makes no sense; it’s absurd.
3. He visited India and might have been influenced by the mystics he saw there.
4. Pyrrho said that living a life of detachment ensures that you are never disappointed. If you cut out your desires by realizing that nothing really matters, then you can be happy. I think that this is an interesting proposition, but it’s impossible to just stop wanting things. However, reducing attachment to physical objects is a good idea and can contribute to ataraxia; I just feel like Pyrrho took everything to such extremes even though his philosophy was to not commit to anything (except for his delusions, I guess??).
5. Pyrrho’s reasoning was flawed. Just because you can’t always rely on your senses, doesn’t mean you should walk off a cliff to prove a point. He was a little crazy, but he did have some good ideas. It is true that we can’t know everything, and not dwelling on what we can’t have can increase our happiness. Pyrrho was pretty hypocritical with his whole “avoid holding extreme opinions,” but I do think that’s a good idea, to not overcommit to any idea, especially if there is no way of truly knowing the truth.
Section #10
DeleteFL
1. She just knew that she was heaven-bound, even though there was no reason to believe that. This stubborn belief for absolutely no logical reason is typically American.
2. They “invented” American individualism.
3.Europe was going through the Age of Reason, in which some of the world’s greatest thinkers challenged the status quo and made impressive discoveries that changed scientific thought as we know it. In America, on the other hand, people were talking about the Antichrist and debating who was heaven-bound or not; freedom of thought in America was strictly religious-focused.
4. Asian people and Native Americans were “Satan’s soldiers” according to the early Puritans. I did not know that the Puritans felt this way about the Native Americans (I just thought they saw them as heathens), but honestly I’m not surprised. As Americans, we’re all about ignoring the ugly parts of our past, glossing over anything that might make the country look bad. I honestly didn’t know a lot of what Kurt Anderson is talking about, and now I’m wondering what else I didn’t learn about in history class and what I was told that isn’t actually true.
5. Recounted dreams and supernatural visions were used as evidence during the Salem witch trials, leading to the prosecution of many so-called witches. Anderson believes that, unlike in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, the people involved in the witch trials truly thought that witchcraft was real and that whatever they were experiencing was due to some supernatural cause. They weren’t lying or falsely accusing people on purpose, they were just delusional.
#10
ReplyDelete1. They avoided having opinions on anything at all. The main teaching was "Don't commit and you won't be disappointed." I feel like this is not Socratic as Socrates held opinions on some matters. He came to the conclusion of "I know only what I do not know" which is still a conclusion. He committed to that.
2. Pyrrho thought that our senses mislead us. Interesting enough, his extreme skepticism went full circle into a committed conclusion. He was of the opinion that we shouldn't trust our senses. On top of that, it is impossible not to trust your senses as your body exists to keep you alive and your reflexes will do the work you won't.
3. Pyrrho visited India as a young man. This was a time when many gurus or teachers would submit themselves to extreme bodily deprivation like being buried alive. It would seem Pyrrho saw these dangerous acts which sparked his own curiosity.
4. Pyrrho figured it was a waste to stress over the truth if it was impossible to find it. In this sense, I don't think there is any other way to reach freedom from worry. You cannot truly be care-free if you still care about something.
5. pyrrho was dogmatic, meaning he firmly believed he knew the absolute truth. This goes against everything philosophy stands for, as the goal of philosophy is to keep questioning and keep looking for answers. "Absolute truth" has no place in modern skepticism because it's still a belief in something.
#11 LHP
ReplyDelete1. How did the most extreme skeptics differ from Plato and Aristotle? What was their main teaching? Do you think they were "Socratic" in this regard?
Most extreme skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle because they avoided holding firm opinions on anything. The main teaching of skeptics were that everything can be challenged and questioned. In a way, yes, because Socratic's always questioned things and made people wonder about why they believe what they do.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
He decided to never trust his senses because they could sometimes mislead us. An example that was given is that in the dark, a fox could be mistaken for a cat. In a way, I do see his point that sometimes our senses could be giving us false information although at times we should follow them, such as our "gut feeling".
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
Pyrrho visited India as a young man which is what might have inspired his unusual lifestyle. This might have influenced his philosophy because of the spiritual teachers and gurus there, putting themselves through extreme physical deprivation all to "achieve inner stillness". His approach was seen to be close to that of a mystic.
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 that unhappiness is caused from not getting what you want although we can't know anything will make us happier. Pyrrho thought that in order to be happy is that we should free ourselves from desires and to not care about how things would turn out. I don't think you can fully escape from worry, although I do think there are many and different ways you can cope with it.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
I think they favored more moderate skepticism because it is not as extreme and less risky although still makes you think critically.
#10
ReplyDelete1. The extreme skeptics differ because they did not believe in anything because they could not be sure ,therefore, why question if I will never know the answer. They could be seen as "Socratic" in a regard because neither of them ever claimed to know something for sure, but Socrates never completely dismissed his senses.
2.Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because he believed that they mislead him and caused him to know things when he did not. I do not believe it is possible to completely ignore your senses because they are apart of our everyday life and I do believe they can keep you alive.
3. Pyrrho visited India when he was a young man. When he visited, he witnessed gurus and spiritual teachers going through extreme physical deprivation, which is probably the reason he decided to stop trusting his senses.
4. He thought extreme skepticism led to happiness because you were never longing for anything due to never knowing if you wanted it. You never knew what was good or bad, so how could you want stuff. I think it is possible to reach a certain degree of freedom without worry by accepting that you cannot control everything.
5.I believe that most philosophers favored more moderate skepticism because you have to be crazy to willingly put yourself in danger to prove a point. Also, Pyrrho thought that you could never know anything, which goes against the whole idea of philosophy you are always suppose to be questioning not just the things around you, but yourself as well.
1. The most extreme skeptics differed from Aristotle and Plato because they avoided holding firm beliefs. They were never quite sure of anything and continually questioned if anything in reality was real. They were "socratic" in some ways, meaning they admitted to not knowing for certain if some things were true. However, Socrates' never questioned his instincts or senses the way Pyrrho did.
ReplyDelete2. Pyrrho chose to never trust his senses because he believed that they could be misleading at times. Personally, I do not think this decision is possible. I cannot see or understand how anyone could go most of their life without trusting in what they can see, hear, feel, and taste. I think some of the stories about Pyrrho are exaggerated, or, in some cases, entirely made up.
3. Pyrrho visited India as a young man. While he was there, he was introduced to a variety of different spiritual leaders who had a tendency to put themselves through physical pain and discomfort in an attempt to achieve peace. Pyrrho adapted these teachings in some ways, thinking that in order to attain a peaceful state of mind, everything has to be a matter of opinion.
4. Pyrrho thought that if you eliminated the possibility of truth with skepticism, then you would be truly happy. I am skeptic to believe that there is a way to achieve a worry-free life. Often times, it seems as if humans are incapable of not worrying, which is why I believe that it is nearly impossible for humans to achieve perfect peace.
5. Modern skepticism means questioning assumptions and looking at the evidence for the things that we believe. They do this to get closer to the truth of it all. Why we are here, why we believe the way we do, and why we act the way we do. Asking these questions and questioning the assumed answers to these questions shows us how much we do not know and how much there is left to find out.
Section 10
DeleteSection #11
ReplyDelete1. The most extreme skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle because they took the unknown to an extreme by completely disregarding their senses. They mainly taught that if you keep an open mind about things and don't commit to something, there will be no disappointment. I believe they were still Socratic is some ways because they still had to question specific matters that may have arisen at one point.
2. He decided to never trust his senses because they could mislead us. I believe this could be possible, however the risks of not following your instincts from your senses heavily outweigh the benefits of ignoring them in my opinion.
3. He visited India as a young man. This may have influenced his philosophy because India had spiritual leaders and gurus who put themselves through deprivation. He perhaps could have learned from these practices and applied them to his life. This may be where he gets his calm state of mind from.
4. He believed through extreme skepticism, you could clear all your desires, and ultimately not care how things turn out. I don't believe you can truly free yourself from being worried, but I do believe you can control the amount of energy or thought into something that causes that feeling. For example, doing something to take your mind off of what you are worried about would be taking control in a sense.
5. I believe most philosophers favor a more moderate skepticism for the simple fact of the massive risks that are involved with being an extreme skeptic. I believe most philosophers can establish that it is not wise to ignore our senses to a degree that puts themselves or others in danger.
LHP #11
ReplyDelete1. Extreme skeptics differed from Aristotle and Plato by refusing to except anything as true. They took "question everything" to a whole new level in which they questioned everything and were undeferential to what is true since they thought the truth was impossible to find. I think they were Socratic since they did question everything but just took it to a new extreme.
2. Pyrro chose to never trust his senses because they could be misleading. I don't think this is possible because humans have natural reflexes that we can't control. As it said in the book, even Pyrro flinched when a dog tried to bite him.
3. He visited India as a child, and I think that could have affected his philosophy since the gurus there practice putting themselves through physical pain to achieve complete tranquility like what Pyrro did.
4. Pyrro thought that not getting what you expected lead to unhappiness and disappointment and so the only way to be happy was not expect anything and stay indifferent. By not desiring anything you could never be disappointed. I don't think there is any way to avoid worrying. I think it is in human nature to expect good things and hope for them which in turn can cause anxiety of those things not coming.
5. Modern skepticism is looked higher upon because if there were extreme skeptics like then they would have all died off from experimenting with the unknown such as falling off cliffs. Also, the modern skeptics find a more balanced sequence of questioning things and also excepting certain realities.
ReplyDeleteLHP 3 Section 13
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 differed from Plato and Aristotle because instead of seeking out any answers, they instead just question everything. I don't believe they were Socratic because they did not believe there was an answer to find in general.
2.
Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because he felt they could mislead us.
3.
Pyrrho visited India and could have possibly been inspired by their unique practices.
4. Pyrrho believed that recognizing that nothing matters would allow nothing to affect your state of mind. He believed this was the way to be happy and not experience any negative emotions.
5.
Most philosophers have favored moderate skepticism because it is much less dangerous and more realistic.
#10
ReplyDelete1. The most extreme skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle because the skeptics avoided holding firm opinions on anything. Their main teaching was that no one knows anything and that everything can be questioned. I do believe that the skeptics were being “Socratic” because the only thing that they knew was how much they did not know.
2. Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because they often mislead us. Pyrro did not deny that his senses may have the ability to give him accurate information he just kept an open mind about them and would often question their credibility. I do not believe that someone could completely distrust their sense because of how much we rely on them every day. An example of this would be if you were to go outside and check to see if it was raining. If you can hear the raindrops, feel the water hitting your skin, and see the rain falling then you are relying on your senses.
3. Pyrrho visited India as a young man and it influenced his philosophy by introducing him to the idea that there is no truth to anything and that everything is simply an opinion. I believe that this mindset is what led Pyrrho to believe that his senses could not be trusted.
4. Pyrrho believed that his extreme skepticism led to happiness because he recognized that nothing matters, so you have nothing to worry about. Pyrrho also believed that if you do not desire anything and you do not care about how things turn out then you can never be unhappy because unhappiness arises from not getting what you want. I do not know if there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry, but I do not agree with Pyrrho’s philosophy. If the world revolved around this philosophy then there would be no sense of purpose and if you were trying to achieve anything then it would not really matter because in order to be happy or to achieve inner peace you should not desire anything.
5. Most philosophers have favored a more modern skepticism because it helps them get closer to the truth, or helps them reveal how little we know or can know because they ask skeptical questions which is what philosophy is really all about.
Section 11
ReplyDeleteLHP 3:
1. The extreme skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle in the way that they chose to ignore the possibilities of wisdom and understanding from higher places, and also the lack of trust in the human senses. Extreme skeptics main teachings were to disassociate with feelings, desires, ambition so that you could enjoy everything. I can see how this could be viewed as Socratic, but I do not think this to be on the same terms as Socrates.
2. He believed that our senses could mislead us, ex: smelling food you think of while hungry. hearing fake noises. etc. I think avoiding the senses is not possible. I imagine the daily life now would be extremely difficult without paying attention to one's senses.
3. As a young man Pyrrho visited India, the gurus putting themselves through unimaginable pain and suffering to find their inner peace influenced his methods on pushing the limits of life and discovering his own truth.
4. He believed his methods kept him from disappointment by not committing. There is a plethora of other methods to achieve happiness. Although I believe happiness to be like love, it comes and goes, I believe you can find happiness in something as simple as a walk on a nature trail or a quick peak at a sunset.
5. They have chosen to be skeptical in the search of truth, not skeptical and to ignore all but your own thoughts and intentions. Choosing to question what people think they know they believed would lead to a better understanding of what they thought to be true, developing a theory for people to rely upon.
FL
1. She felt that God has spoken to her and had told her all those things she repeated to her listeners. What made her so American was the fact that she was so confident in what she felt, she expected others to feel the same and wouldn't accept no as an answer.
2. They helped invent American Individualism.
3. Individual freedom of thought in early America was specifically about the freedom to believe whatever supernaturalism you wished.
4. Early puritans labeled Native Americans as 'Satan's Soldiers.' I was aware of the view early colonizers had for the Native people of this land. Although it was not taught in school, I have always had an interest in history, so I have personally studied much of what I consider important.
5. The dreams and supernatural visions the convicted girls had 'experienced.' What he believed to be wrong with the crucible is that the early Americans' beliefs in magic are not portrayed as sincerely mad, almost using the trials as a publicity stunt if you will.
Nyagoa Tut # 10
ReplyDeleteLHP 2
1. How did the most extreme skeptics (or skeptics, 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? Unlike Plato and Aristotle, the most extreme skeptics avoided holding firm opinions on anything whatsoever. Their main teaching was no one knows anything. I think they were a little close to Socratic although they differed a little bit; the most extreme skeptics believed fully that no one knows anything whereas Socratic believed all they knew was how little they knew.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
Because our senses quite often mislead us, Pyrrho decided never to trust them. Such a decision is not prudent at all to me.
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. His unusual philosophy might have influenced as a result of observing the Indian spiritual teachers who put themselves through extreme physical deprivation.
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 his extreme skepticism led to happiness by freeing oneself from the desires and not caring about how things turn out. I think another way of achieving freedom from worry, would be to face those things that worry you instead of ignoring them.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
Because it does really make sense to question assumptions and look closely at the evidence for what we believe, without attempting to live as if everything was in doubt all of the time. When the text says, “ The point of moderate philosophical skepticism is to get closer to the truth, or at least to reveal how little we know or can know.” That being said, most philosophers must favor a moderate skepticism because one can only get closer to truth by not believing that no one knows anything unlike Pyrrho.
#13
ReplyDelete1. The most extreme skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle because they avoided having firm opinions on any topic. Their main teaching was that no one knew anything. I believe that they were a little socratic because they believed that they knew nothing while socrates believed they knew very little.
2. Because Pyrrho believed that his senses could often mislead him he decided not to trust them which is not a logical or prudent decision in my eyes.
3. Pyrrho visited india, and seeing the gurus putting themselves through tremendous amounts of pain might have influenced his philosophy because it made him see just how far some people will go.
4. He believed that his extreme skepticism led to happiness because in his eyes nothing mattered so he had nothing to worry about, so no matter the outcome of situations it wouldn't affect him. There are many ways to find happiness one of which could be falling in love.
5. Because it seems more logical to question certain things instead of leaving it and not worrying about it because at the end of the day "it won't matter." As well as partly trusting your senses instead of cutting them off completely could also help you come to more logical decisions.
#11
ReplyDelete1. 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 were different from plato and arisotole because they refused to believe anything as true. Their main teaching was no one knows anything. I think that their beliefs were somewhat similar with socraties but very different in the regard that he had much different thoughts about the world.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
He decided to never trust his sense because you could never be sure if they were true or not. That his senses could be lying to him, and they could be deceitful. For him it was possible but for the average person it wouldn't be, we use our sense all the time in the world around us. It would take a very deviated person to ignore them, like smelling the milk was rotten but still drinking it, not believing your own noise.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
He visited India when he was younger, this could have influenced him because in India it was very normal for spiritual teachers to put themselves through the most extreme conditions. Some would even face death to prove their religion.
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 his extreme skepticism led to happiness by just not caring, by freeing yourself from your desires and not care about how things turn out, that way nothing would affect your mind in a bad way and you could be happy. I don't think there is I think that there will always some sort of worry in someones life.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
Because philosophers wanted to question everything to get closer to the truth, they wanted to use questions not in a skeptical way but in a way to gain more knowledge.
LHP 3
ReplyDelete1.Plato and Aristotle both had strong opinions of their own. Most extreme sceptics avoided having firm opinions on anything. This led them to question most things, even their own senses. Though the action of questioning is Socratic, the extent to which they are questioning is not. The main point of Socratic philosophy seems to be to create a progressive conversation to broaden one’s knowledge. Extreme sceptics’ conversations would seem to run in circles and leave most people confused.
2.Pyrrho believed our senses can sometimes mislead us and therefore are completely unreliable. However, he was open to the possibility of his senses being accurate. I don’t believe it is possible to completely not trust one’s senses. In most of the examples, it’s with the idea if something happened, would it even hurt? This shows to me that his logic wouldn’t entirely work if that something did happen. Because he wouldn’t be in denial of the event so in that sense it’s not possible.
3.Pyrrho visited India where their spiritual teachers would put themselves through intense physical deprivation to achieve inner peace. This most likely lead to his complete distrust of his senses because of the way they tested their limits by denying their feeling of pain. If they could deny their feelings, then it could have led him to believe they weren’t entirely true.
4.His extreme skepticism would lead to a life without worry. By having no opinions to commit there would be nothing that could cause fear or worry. He believed unhappiness came from not getting what you want. True happiness would be possible with no belief in material things there’d be nothing to want. I believe worry comes from having care for something and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Momentarily you can be worry free from drugs and other things but there's no long-term solution for worry. If you have no care for anything you could be worry free but that’s not a good way to live.
5.The goal of most philosophical skepticism is to become closer to the truth. By questioning one’s own assumptions it can deepen one’s understanding of themselves and the world around them. I believe that is a healthy way to live. Being open to all opinions of matters can lead to a more peaceful environment which is why most people favor more moderate skepticism.
1. Both Plato and Aristotle believed in everything that they were doing. It was something that had mattered deeply to them. While the skeptics did not know what exactly it was that they believed in so they stopped relying on their senses as much.
Delete2. Phyrho believed that even though something was there it didn't mean that we should just trust it. How we should not believe everything our senses are telling us. But he doesn't mean to ignore them completely.
3. Phyrrho went to India he met some of the spiritual teachers who had a unique way of doing things. Some of the practices seemed like they would be very harmful to the human body. But it was a way to test maybe even push their limits
4. His skepticism had kept him away from trouble as much as possible. While he followed through that he believed with his questioning he basically had nothing to worry about what he was afraid of. I believe that worry can come from something you are very concerned about something that means a lot to you like education and finances.
5. I believe the main purpose of philosophical skepticism. To help us become more aware of exactly what it is we know. To help understand exactly everything that we may or may not encounter. But I feel like we should listen to other peoples opinions but we should not always live by them just because it's what they believe in.
Section 11
DeleteLHP 3 #11
ReplyDelete1. 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?
They questioned everything, even their own thoughts. This isn’t a happy way to live, and it is not “socratic” as that was to question to gain knowledge, while extreme skepticism seemed to just make people run in circles.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
He figured If your senses could sometimes be unreliable, why rely on them ever. It is possible, just not smart. Not believing anything, even yourself, leads to a life full of dull emotion.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
He visited India and observed teachers out themselves through pain and seemingly ignored it. This may have influenced him into thinking a feeling like pain was not real. If they could ignore it, was it really there?
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 believed If you didn’t want anything, you would never be unhappy. He believed unhappiness was granted by not getting what you want, and he believed if you don’t think anything is better than something else, you’d never desire anything.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
Moderate skepticism enables you to still gain wisdom and learn. Extreme skepticism leads you in circles. Nothing can be learned because everything is questioned. Pyrrho didn’t care about anything really and didn’t care how anything turned out. He questioned literally everything, even the answers to his questions. How can you learn if nothing is true?
#13
ReplyDelete1.) The most extreme skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle because they believed anything could ever be true or as it seems. I do believe that in some way they were "Socratic" in this regard.
2.) Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because he believed that they were never reliable enough. Such a decision is impossible. Humans always use their senses, it is second nature to us. Our ears tell us when a room is too loud or too silent. Our nose gives us the first signal when we're sick. There are so many senses that we use on a daily basis, and to ignore all of them is to be foolish.
3.) Pyrrho visited India as a young man. In India, there were a lot of philosophers who went through extreme, and dangerous measures to test themselves. I believe that this trip to India encouraged his extreme beliefs.
4.) Pyrrho believed that his extreme skepticism led him to happiness. Because he held no strict and firm opinions which allowed him to live without care for any issues. However, I believe that there are alternative and more realistic ways to achieve freedom from worry.
5.) Most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism compared to Pyrrho's because it led them closer to the truth. Although questioning yourself and keeping an open mind to different opinions is great, this way of life is not benefitting 100% of the time.
13
ReplyDelete1. they questioned everything that was able to be questioned. Instead of the approach where they questioned things that could give them insight, they ran themselves on a wild goose chase trying to find some philisophical breakthrough that was not as profound as if they just chilled out a little.
2. pyrho didnt follow his senses because they were sometimes wrong, which is stupid because all observations and decisions we make should be founded in atleast some level of reality.
3. he went to india, where one of the main religions present is hinduism. They often go through extreme practices like fasting that rely on the cponcept of surpassing somatic symptoms by strength of mind. Perhaps this influenced his distrust of his senses because he believed his mind could provide a clearer vision than his senses could.
4. pyrrho believed that holding no expectations or beliefs could never let him be dissapointed, which seems like a more stoic practice to me. that said, this is something I often do. I assume the neutral standpoint in people, which often keeps me from being dissapointed when they are not the greatest of people.
5. most philosophers held moderate skepticism because if nothing is true how can anything be a solution?
LHP 3
ReplyDeleteMakenzie keen section #13
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 most extreme skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle since they did not commit to one single teaching. Their main teaching was that everything could be questioned, but also everything could be doubted, so they kept an open mind to all questions. This kept them from having a firm set of beliefs. They were Socratic in a way since they wanted to challenge peoples' beliefs on things that they believed they knew.
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 our senses often mislead this. I feel like this decision is almost impossible because it is like a natural reaction to trust your instincts, like when you are thirsty you know how to drink, to deny yourself things like this puts you in danger.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
Pyrrho visited India when he was young, and this is what may have influenced his philosophy because in India, depravation is a part of their cultural beliefs. They believe that through depravation of vital things such as food, water and sleep, you can achieve your higher self, these beliefs are prevalent in Pyrrho’s 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)?
Pyrrho believed that his extreme skepticism led to happiness because it kept him free from worry. I do believe there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry, one being the opposite of Pyrrho’s beliefs, and trusting our senses more. It makes sense to think logically and let your senses guide you in certain situations, of course we can still question it, and we should, but we should still do the thing that is more sensible.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
I believe most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism since it is more practical. It's extremely difficult to just turn off your human nature to assume, and use your senses, we are not all pyrrho, and his ideology put him in some extremely risky positions that not all of us would make it out of.
LHP 3
ReplyDelete1. 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 difference is that extreme skeptics hold no real opinion at all, while Plato and aristotle did. The skeptic claims that nobody can know anything for certain because there is always something more to question. They were definitely not socratic in this regard. Socrates was after the truth they were not.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
He observed that our senses often mislead us so how could we trust them. It is not smart at all, not even possible, otherwise we would die
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
He visited india. They have a tradition of spiritual gurus trying to attmempt pulling the mind out of the body
4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
If we dont desire for anything, then we wont be unhappy with the result of not getting anything at all. Basically don’t care about anything at all and you will be content. There are definitely other ways of release from worry. Like working to irradicate it by either finishing, fixing, avoiding, resolving the things causing the worry
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
The goal is to with every question get closer and closer to the truth, not completely separate yourself from it. His version is completely irrational, but it is good to question things to formulate your own opinions.
#11
ReplyDelete1. Most extreme skeptics differed from Plato or Aristotle, because they questioned and doubted anything. The way they taught that one should never be committed to anything/idea so you could never be disappointed.
2.Phyrro knew that your sense had the possibility to mislead you, however he only used examples where your senses would be naturally handicapped.
3.He visited India as a young man, and this affected his philosophy because of the extreme traditions carried out at the time. They regularly practiced horrible physical trauma just to prove a religion.
4.He simply believed not caring at all was a life of happiness. I disagree, because on paper being free from fear sounds really good, but in real life not so much.
5.Most other philosophers tended to question things in a different way. Not so much on every small decision they made in their life, but more as just trying to uncover answers to questions they had about life.
Section 10
ReplyDeleteRacheal Clark
LHP 3
1. The difference was a lack of holding an opinion upon, well, anything. His teachings were if you're never committed to anything, you can never be disappointed. They were the least Socratic due to the open
mind.
2. Pythons never trusted his or anyone else's senses for that matter because he had thought it could've mislead him and doubted it all. It may be possible, but not exactly reasonable.
３．He visited India and adapted their extreme spirituality into his own western culture.
４．Pyrrho concluded this bout of happiness comes from basically being humble. You can't be dissatisfied if you don't get something. You should free yourself completely from all desires.
5. Modern skepticism is safer and makes more open room to question. Coming to your own conclusions is fine; however, it may beat the main course focus of questioning.
Section 11
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Extreme skeptics avoided having an opinion on anything at all. Their main teaching was to keep an open mind and to not commit, and you'll never be disappointed. Socrates was interested in the truth and that we know nothing about the truth, and to form the closest thing to it. Skeptics just dont care about any opinion and would probably just shrug their shoulders and walk away.
2. Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because they can mislead us. Our sense can mislead us especially if they are being influenced from outside forces, and not our own thoughts and feelings.
3. He visited India, where there were many spiritual teachers and gurus that put themselves through pretty much torture to get inner stillness. He may not have went that far, but those around him were impressed by his calm manner.
4. That if you dont care as much and try not to desire things, you cant get disappointed, so you'll be happy.
5. Because it's important to have your own opinions on things rather than just not caring at all.