Remember, we meet in the Library (Room 264A) today with librarian Rachel Kirk. Bring your questions about navigating the library and its website.
Skepticism-LH 3. FL 5-6, HWT 4-5.
"Skepticism is the first step toward truth."
- Denis Diderot
Diderot, born #onthisday in 1713, is probably best known for editing the "Encyclopédie" - the 'dictionary of human knowledge'.
Find here Diderot's Wikipedia entry (oh irony
)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Diderot
Learn more in a 1.5 minute video about this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C71vkrsiyKE
Pyrrho
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)
==
Pyrrho not an idiot
"Pyrrho ignored all the apparent dangers of the world because he questioned whether they really were dangers, ‘avoiding nothing and taking no precautions, facing everything as it came, wagons, precipices, dogs’. Luckily he was always accompanied by friends who could not quite manage the same enviable lack of concern and so took care of him, pulling him out of the way of oncoming traffic and so on. They must have had a hard job of it, because ‘often . . . he would leave his home and, telling no one, would go roaming about with whomsoever he chanced to meet’.
Two centuries after Pyrrho’s death, one of his defenders tossed aside these tales and claimed that ‘although he practised philosophy on the principles of suspension of judgement, he did not act carelessly in the details of everyday life’. This must be right. Pyrrho may have been magnificently imperturbable—Epicurus was said to have admired him on this account, and another fan marvelled at the way he had apparently ‘unloosed the shackles of every deception and persuasion’. But he was surely not an idiot. He apparently lived to be nearly ninety, which would have been unlikely if the stories of his recklessness had been true."
"The Dream of Reason: A History of Western Philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance by Anthony Gottlieb -- a very good history of western philosophy.
==
A character in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, identified as The Ruler of the Universe, has been called a solipsist. I think he sounds more like a Pyrrhonian skeptic... "I say what it occurs to me to say when I hear people say things. More I cannot say..."
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
ReplyDeletePyrrho visited India.The common practice of spiritual/thought leaders putting themselves through extreme physical challenges may have influenced his philosophy of allowing himself to be put into harms way.
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 extreme skepticism led to happiness because he thought unhappiness came from not getting what you wanted. So, he reasoned, if you did not expect anything to happen, you couldn’t be disappointed.
He set the bar pretty low, didn't he?
Delete1. Unlike Plato and Aristotle, extreme skeptics avoided holding firm opinions on anything, because they believed that we cannot be sure we know anything.
ReplyDelete2. Pyrrho believed that because our senses sometimes mislead us, we should distrust them entirely because we cannot be sure that they are not misleading us. I think that not only is such a task impossible, because if you truly decide not to trust anything you sense, you would have to exist in an essentially comatose state without moving, seeing, feeling, hearing, or breathing (because that may lead to a smell); because given that you cannot trust your senses, it would be irrational to do anything as it would be entirely deception of yourself and possibly putting yourself in harm's way, because how can you be sure the ground is not going to simply open up and swallow you when you step on it? Beyond the fact that it is impossible to take skepticism to its full extent, it is not prudent, because the senses are correct more times than not, and this philosophy will just put you in unnecessary danger. This is the equivalent of finding one or two incorrect definitions in a dictionary and then proceeding to insist that all definitions are false as a result.
Good analogy. We need to improve our dictionaries and our beliefs, not eliminate them.
Delete3. He went to India; it has a lot of spiritual teachers or gurus putting themselves through extreme and almost unbelievable physical deprivation. Through the physical deprivation, his body may have endured large amounts of physical trauma to where everyday occurrences are no longer a bother to him because he knows he has been around worse circumstances.
ReplyDelete4. To be happy, you should free yourself from desires and not care about how things turn out. Recognize that nothing matters. That way nothing will affect your state of mind, which will be one of inner tranquility. I feel like if we worry about something, we care about its outcome to a certain extent. So to get rid of worry, you’ve got to take away the care and personal thoughts you have towards the subject to alleviate worry.
My view is that any form of happiness dependent on indifference is pretty vacuous, not to mention socially irresponsible.
DeleteHannah Ferreira H01 2. Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because sometimes they mislead us. I do not think this decision is prudent. Just because something doesn't work 100% of the time does not mean we shouldn't try to use it. Not trusting them at all has a much lower success rate than trusting them and it not working out sometimes. I don't see how somebody could live life like this, not trusting anything that they have that makes them human. It seems like a sad way to live in my opinion. And I don't think it's possible in a lot of ways, like the book said, there are reflexes we can't ignore. Humans have senses for survival reasons and our instinct is to survive.
ReplyDelete2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
ReplyDeleteHe believed that the senses were a distraction, and thus found himself keeping an open mind when it comes to the world around him. There was no worry, as he did not think too hard on consequences or the current situations around him. It is a belief that heavily discourages the point of philosophy, and therefore holds no prudence or possibility. It is necessary to use our senses to truly grasp the world around us.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
He went to India, where he saw the worst of physical trials given to different teachers and gurus. He learned to achieve their calmness through denial of observing the world around him, and thus sought peacefulness through living life ignorantly.
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 that the world was taken too much for granted and thought about too much, and thus found happiness through giving no thought onto the world around him. The only other way I could think of achieving freedom from worry is through total optimism or total pessimism, as you can only expect the best or worst to occur out of situations. There's no worry at that point should you already expect the outcome.
LHP 1
ReplyDeleteThe most extreme skeptics did not take a stance or opinion on anything, which was unlike Plato and Aristotle.
Their teaching was to keep an open mind and not commit to anything, so you don’t get disappointed.
I guess in a way they were Socratic because they questioned absolutely everything.
LHP 2
ReplyDeletePyrrho decided to never trust his senses because they can sometimes be misleading.
I don’t think it is even possible to live a life where you don’t trust your senses. You would be questioning even the simplest things, like are you actually hearing someone’s voice, and that is not an easy or even possible life to live. The book states that he survived because of his less skeptical friends. I agree with the book on this that I don’t think he would have survived on his own.
FL 1
ReplyDeleteAnne Hutchinson believed in her gut that she was heaven-bound.
She is referred to as being “so American” because she didn’t admit self doubt. She believed her beliefs were right because she believed they were right.
Keira Warren HO2- HWT 4. Secular reasoning believes that the mind works without needing a supernatural or religious influence. To be secular it is purely the seeking to interpret life based on the material world absent of religion. Coming from an area known as "The Bible Belt" it is rather hard to find anyone who is secular let alone be secular myself. To be secular is perfectly fine as long as one does not impose their ideas on those who don't want it.
ReplyDeleteHWT 5. A debate that reveals a tension is that based on ethics and morals. A secularist would not be able to properly support morals without any sort of religious or supernatural "way of doing things". They often times try to take a rational look at ethics but cannot form a solid basis for such. This is a common issue among the community and often times has been pushing onto looking into other kinds of philosophies such as Ethical Naturalism. Which I think makes sense or even possibly just not caring about having a basis but caring about your own morals and ethics regardless of having support from others.
LHP 1
ReplyDeleteUnlike Plato and Aristotle, the most extreme skeptics avoided holding firm opinions on anything whatsoever. Skeptics main teachings argued everything can be questioned and doubted. The best option, then, is to keep an open mind. Don't commit on any beliefs, and you won't be disappointed. In my opinion, being socratic requires personal bias of some level, so I don't believe extreme skeptics were likely socratic, although moderate skeptics could be.
Because our senses quite often mislead us, Pyrrho decided never to trust them. Ignoring your senses is incredibly unwise because you perceive the world through them, so it's analogous to not living your life to the fullest. I rely on my senses, so seeing someone not use them, even though he has the capability to, is absurd and honestly puzzling.
ReplyDeletePyrrho decided to never trust his senses because he thought that they often mislead us. I don’t think that this decision is prudent because it completely disregards some human reactions that are natural when one feels like they’re in danger, but yet Pyrrho still didn’t subscribe to that. This way of thinking put him in harm's way more often than not and even his own natural instincts weren’t in agreement with the choice in his head, so I also don’t think it possible.
ReplyDeletePyrrho visited India as a young man, and this influenced his philosophy because of India’s traditions of their spiritual teachers putting themselves through extreme physical deprivation. He may have learned that nothing could scare him if he didn’t believe that it was real or a threat, much like what he saw in India.
ReplyDeleteLHP #5
ReplyDeleteMost philosophers have favored a more moderate scepticism as it allows them to get closer to the truth and dig deeper by gathering evidence from others to support the claims that they make. In the case of Socrates this way of approaching topics or peoples beliefs can reveal how little we know.
FL #1
Anne Hutchinson knew she was Heaven-bound. She was "so American" because she was so confident in herself and her intuitions that she didn't recognize ambiguity or self-doubt. Her beliefs were true because they were hers.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
ReplyDeletePyrrho visited India, which has a tradition in which spiritual teachers/gurus practice very extreme deprivation. This may have influenced his very extreme philosophical views in the way that he was able to be unaffected by certain situations and keep calm, no matter how undesirable or painful it may seem in ‘reality.’
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 extreme skepticism allowed a person to live in an “uncommitted way” and not be tied to any unhappiness caused by an attachment to desires. Freedom from desires and an overall indifference to life would give you peace, according to Pyrrho. I think stoicism is another method of achieving ataraxia that is far less extreme than Pyrrho’s skepticism. From the content of stoicism I’ve consumed, I have come to learn that stoicism emphasizes the things you can control. Stoicist thinking has helped me a lot in the past because it allowed me to reframe anxious thinking into a more realistic mindset, especially since I tend to worry about things I can’t control.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
ReplyDeleteHe decided never to trust his senses beause our senses can often mistlead us. I personally don’t think such a decision is prudent because it completely contradicts our biologial instincts for survival. The book even mentions how Pyrrho wouldn’t have survived long if not for his non-skeptic friends. Because such thinking could lead someone to do something dangerous or even fatal, it might not be physically possible to live with this type of philosophical thinking, or at least to the extremity that Pyrrho did.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
ReplyDeletePyrrho decided never to trust his senses because he believed that, since they could be fooled or mistaken at times, they ought to never be trusted.
I think that literally never trusting your senses is not a good strategy for life because our senses are all we have to navigate the world around us, but I think it is a good idea to hold some doubt towards what you experience and to realize that you can be mistaken. I don’t think it’s truly possible to completely ignore your senses. As I said, they are all we have, and it could be argued that life is just a collection of sensory experiences. As Warburton says, you can ignore your senses all you want, but if a dog is running at you about to attack you, I don’t think you can make the choice whether to run or not.
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 once you realized nothing actually matters, you would feel great inner peace all of the time.
I think there are lots of ways to temporarily relieve worry, including spending time with people you love, deep breathing, listening to music, drawing, and writing. I’m skeptical (ha) of the idea that you can relieve yourself from worrying completely, but I know that there are some people, like Buddhists, who have claimed to have done so through meditation.
I think worrying is a natural part of life, and not something that necessarily should be relieved, even though it is painful in the moment.
H02 - LHP
ReplyDelete2. He chose to never believe his senses because he believed that since there's a possibility for them to mislead you, you shouldn't trust them at all. I don't think that this is even truly possible because your senses are all you have to navigate through the world. I think it's fine to hold reasonable doubt towards certain things your senses tell you, but to completely disregard anything your senses tell you isn't a great way to live life in my opinion.
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?
Most extreme skeptics differ from Plato and Aristotle because they thought you shouldn't have an opinion on anything. I think they were at least somewhat Socratic as they questioned everything, which is a bit more extreme than the average idea of being Socratic goes.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
He never trusted his senses because they can be misleading, such as mistaking what you're seeing in the dark for something else. I don't believe this is possible. There is no way you can't trust some of your senses. You have to trust that what you're feeling is real, because there is no evidence that it could be something else. For instance, I can't doubt that the ice I'm touching is fire, because ice is undeniably cold and fire is undeniably hot.
3. 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. The fact that he witnessed gurus putting themselves in harsh situations probably influenced his philosophy, as he also began to put him in situations such as walking over cliff edges to test his perception.
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 that if someone realizes that nothing actually matters, they would find true happiness. I don't really think there is a way anyone can achieve freedom on worry. Worry is always looming around us, even if we don't presently feel it. I also believe worry is sometimes a gift. Sometimes worry helps us to do things such as double check a process we've completed and find mistakes we would have made.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
They favored modern skepticism as it is how they challenge dogma. They have to be at least moderately skeptical to be able to ask people why they believe what they believe. The point of being moderately skeptical is to get closer to the truth.
Jaylin Moore - H01.
ReplyDeletePyrrho decided that since your senses can sometimes be misleading, you can never be completely certain that they're accurate. This is technically true, but in most cases you can be pretty sure that what you are experiencing is real, so Pyrrho's choice to always doubt them is not a very wise one. Pyrrho's skepticism reminds me of that concept that nobody sees the color red the same way. I have about the same reaction to both of them: sure, I suppose that could be true, but in the end, 99% of the time, your senses will give you accurate information and everyone will think the same things are red, so taking these concepts too seriously is not helpful and will probably just stress you out.
Jocelyn Bullock H01
ReplyDelete3. Pyrrho visited India as a young man, and through learning about Indian gurus who put calmly themselves through unbelievable physical conditions, Pyrrho likely drew inspiration from their ability to peacefully endure.
To further elaborate on LHP #1 - extreme skeptics were very socratic in their thinking. Like Socrates, they knew that it was hard to take a stance on things because of questioning everything. Questioning everything allowed for them to see the flaws within society, causing them to be Socratic.
ReplyDelete1. The skeptics believe than nothing can be known for certain, and that is up for debate as well, because they do not trust their senses. They diverge from Platonic or Aristotelian in that they hold nothing to be for sure. A true skeptic refuses to make a sure claim bout anything (possibly even that is not sure). Important thing to take away from skepticism is to questing all things despite what your senses tell you because they may be mistaken. This is not an idea Socrates would have agreed with as his point was not that we cannot trust anything merely that we do not look at things at a deeper level. It was important for Socrates that others realized they did not know why they believed what they thought.
ReplyDelete3. Pyrrho visited India as a young man and their idea of inner peace and stillness regardless of perception may have led him to his belief in skepticism.
5. Most philosopher look to modern skepticism because it is more permissive to a functional life. It allows you to question things while still get somewhere from your skepticism.
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?
-skeptics would avoid holding opinions over anything; and this is socratic in my opinion but it is overboard
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 they might not be telling the truth. i do not think that it is prudent because despite our senses not being 100% perfect they are not 100% imperfect either, and in order to make choices we have to trust something.
Adriana Ramirez Speis H03
ReplyDeleteLHP 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 “avoided holding firm opinions on anything whatsoever.” They believed that committing to one side or the other would lead to disappointment. It its best to question everything and live in perpetual doubt. This belief is very similar to the socratic quote of “the only thing I know is that I know nothing.” I think Skeptics would take it a step further and ask how they could even be sure of that. A true skeptic should be skeptical of their own skepticism. I find this philosophy as making the claim that everything should be doubted and that you should not hold a firm opinion is an opinion in itself.
LHP 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 he believed that they easily misled us. It reminds me of the Bible verse about the heart being deceitful. I can relate to his reasoning because I have often thought I heard someone calling my name in class only to find that no one had. Being an EMT, I’ve also thought I heard sirens or call signs while driving. This is not a very feasible philosophy. As mentioned in the text, without the protection of others, a true Skeptic would quickly die. Stepping infront of a car or walking on a cliff’s edge is very dangerous and it is in fact putting the skeptic in real danger.
LHP 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. Being exposed to Eastern philosophy and spiritual practices likely had a great influence on his views. As mentioned in the text, many teachers will endure starvation or walking on hot coal and other physical extremes while remaining calm. Their discipline to remain calm in the face of great danger or pain likely influenced Pyrrho and how he managed dangerous situations.
LHP 4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
Skepticism lead to happiness because you would never be disappointed. Living a life of indifference and doubt allows you to never get your hopes up or crushed. I think true ataraxia (freedom from worry) is dangerous. Worry and fear are what keep us from stepping off the cliff edge and crossing a five lane highway.
LHP 5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
Most philosophers favor moderate skepticism because Pyrrhonic skepticism is dangerous and seems more stressful that freezing. It puts you in dangerous situations and is very difficult to follow.
LHP 3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
ReplyDeletePyrrho visited India when he was a young man. His visit to India influenced his philosophy because of the trials spiritual teachers and gurus went through to achieve inner stillness. Their practices probably helped shape his views around danger.
Tessa Wallace H03. 3. Pyrrho visited India as a young man. This might have influenced his philosophy by the tradition and culture of India. This could have inspired his unusual lifestyle because in India, they put themselves through extreme instances anything from being buried alive to not eating for weeks.
ReplyDeleteTessa Wallace H03. 5. I think that most philosophers have a modern look on skepticism because they do not think it has to be an extreme as Pyrrho took it. I think that every philosopher has their own way of skepticism, but they all differ.
ReplyDeleteI think Pyrrho gets a bad wrap for his perspective due almost entirely to misunderstanding and ridicule from the peers of his age. He had a rather extreme take on what to trust (absolutely nothing), but so did Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates for that matter. Socrates believed in ever searching for the Truth, always playing the devils advocate, looking for and chink in the armor of certainty. Pyrrho might contend that Socrates does not in fact have belief, for belief surpasses all chance of questioning.
ReplyDelete