"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..."
(LHP)
ReplyDelete1. Extreme skeptics believed everything could be questioned and nothing was ever inherently true, so they chose not to keep a true opinion and instead an open mind (although this realistically leads to a lack of interest in searching for truth). This differed from Plato’s belief of philosophers as the true holders of wisdom and Aristotle’s belief of empirical research being sufficient proof. It would be more accurate to say Socrates was a skeptic than skeptics were “Socratic” because Socrates was content with having more questions than answers which is what a skeptic inherently strives for; the difference is Socrates was actually curious to hear the answer.
2. Pyrrho believed no human, even himself, could perceive the true reality, therefore, senses were unreliable and could be disregarded. This lifestyle was very impractical to live out as we have survival instincts for a reason, but the concept is important: how much trust can we put in what we physically perceive?
3. Pyrrho visited India which has a long history of gurus and teachers that practice extreme self-discipline in order to achieve inner stillness. This idea of testing the limits of your own natural instincts may have resonated with Pyrrho and encouraged him to challenge his own automatic feelings about the world to work towards inner peace and calmness.
4. Pyrrho believed that by not concerning oneself with instinctual feelings, one could be free from worry as there would be nothing to worry about. There are healthier mindsets to minimize worry, but worry is an important part of life that helps us fix things that we need to worry about; outside of believing worrying doesn’t need to exist, it would be difficult to achieve ataraxia.
5. Moderate skepticism has the positive effects of extreme skepticism without the danger that comes with it; a moderate skeptic can find more questions to answer while also maintaining a pragmatic regard for the safety of themselves and others.
H03
DeleteFL 1:
Anne Hutchinson felt two things "in her gut." She "knew" that she was going to heaven and "knew" if you were going too. The thing that makes her so "American" is that she was able to believe whatever she wanted, and she felt she had the right to be able to live like that, even if someone else disagreed.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP-
1. The most extreme skeptics, particularly those from the Pyrrhonian tradition differed significantly from Plato and Aristotle in their approach to knowledge and certainty. The extreme skeptics doubted the possibility of any knowledge while they both tried to establish certain truth about their knowledge. They believed that like how for every action, there is always a reaction force, for every argument an equally convincing counter-argument could be made. This ultimately leads to suspension of judgement and mental instability.
They mainly taught that nothing could be known with certainty. They believed that by suspending judgement on all matters, one could achieve peace of mind and avoid distress.
Socrates himself practiced a form of skepticism by questioning people's knowledge and exposing their contradictions in their beliefs. He was a moderate skeptic since his idea was to persistently question to arrive at certain truth.
The extreme skeptics, on the other hand, believed that such certainty was unattainable. So, it took a more radical conclusion.
3. Pyrrho visited India as a young man while accompanying Alexander the Great on his campaign. During his time in India, he is said to have encountered the Indian Gymnosophists and possibly early Buddhist teachings. These encounters likely influenced his philosophy, particularly his thought on impermanence on perceptions and the importance of mental peace.
So, maybe, this exposure to Indian traditions might possibly have contributed to his development of skepticism and his belief in suspending judgement to achieve mental stability.
FL-
2. Anderson talks about how Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams were key in inventing the concept of religious freedom in America. They challenged their rigid religious orthodoxy of their time and advocated for separation of church and state, laying the groundwork for religious pluralism that later became a hallmark of American society.
Maheswari Ramesh (Maahi)
I also found that the teachings of the Indian philosophers were key to his campaign for extreme skepticism and his termination of judgement to achieve mental stability. The Indian traditions have indeed played a major role in this process. I think that the extreme skepticism approach like the one of Pyrrho is too radical and should exist in theory but should not be practiced in reality due to its ignorance of sensual perception and instincts.
DeleteI also agree with your analysis of the Fantasyland description which I found conforms with my interpretation.
LHP-1: Extreme skeptics like Pyrrho differed from Plato and Aristotle by rejecting all claims to knowledge. His main teaching was that nothing can be known for certain, so the best approach is to terminate judgment. He was "Socratic" in acknowledging ignorance, but unlike Socrates, skeptics doubt even the possibility of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteLHP-2: Pyrrho did not trust his senses because he believed that sense perceptions are unreliable and do not provide knowledge. This is reflected in the story of him nearly walking off a cliff, saved by his apprentices. The decision to completely ignore. Or distrust the senses is impractical and almost impossible, but in Pyrrho’s case it describes his extreme skepticism.
LHP-3: Pyrrho visited India, where he was influenced by Indian philosophers, particularly their teachings on detachment and suspension of judgment. This exposure shaped his ideas on skepticism.
LHP-4: Pyrrho believed that extreme skepticism led to happiness by freeing people from the distress of trying to determine what is true. This state of ataraxia was seen to achieve inner peace for skeptics. Other ways to achieve ataraxia might include acceptance or mindfulness, but Pyrrho’s approach was through complete termination of judgment and ignorance of his senses.
LHP-5: Most philosophers preferred moderate skepticism because it allows for inquiry and the possibility of knowledge while avoiding the limiting doubt that comes with extreme skepticism. Pyrrho’s level of doubt was too radical, making practical life and decision-making difficult and ultimately too risky.
FL-1: Anne Hutchinson felt "in her gut" that she could directly interpret God's will without the need for spirit. What makes her "so American" is her embodiment of individualism, self-reliance, and the belief in personal spiritual authority, which are traits deeply ingrained in American culture.
FL-2: Hutchinson and Williams helped invent the concept of religious freedom in America. Their defiance of established religious authority for individual belief laid the groundwork for the separation of church and state and the idea that people should have the freedom to follow their own spiritual paths despite the immense pressure by religious institutions.
FL-3: In 17th century America, freedom of thought was expressed more radically than in Europe. While Europe was beginning to embrace Enlightenment ideas through intellectual debate and scientific research and conversation, America’s version of freedom of thought often manifested in extreme religious sects, leading to a more diverse religious landscape.
On the LHP #4 I agree with the idea you gave about achieving ataraxia. Accepting things as they are is a good way to rid of worry and achieve peace of mind.
DeleteH01
ReplyDeleteI think that many people today could take inspiration from Pyrrho’s skeptic philosophy. I feel that most people, including myself, worry too much about the uncertainty of the future, and the best way to go about it is to have a resigned attitude. Much like how Pyrrho remained calm while at sea during a thunderstorm, we, too, should take the opportunity to deflect from negative expectations even during extreme uncertainty.
Pyrrho’s advice on how to achieve happiness- let go of desires and remain indifferent to how things unfold- reminds me of a teaching from Don Miguel Ruiz, a Mexican author of Toltec spiritual books, such as The Four Agreements. In this book, Ruiz explains that in order to live a happy life, one should not (among other things) make assumptions nor take anything personally. By doing these things, people are holding onto their desires and expectations for the future and other people. Pyrrho and Ruiz would likely agree that the best way to live life is to let go and live in the moment.
LHP 3. Pyrrho visited India in his early years, a place in which spiritual gurus would purposefully put themselves in extreme and dangerous situations. Upon seeing this and learning their intentions behind this, Pyrrho did the same to remember that everything is only an opinion. To him, things were only a danger if you viewed it that way, and, in turn, it was wise to be skeptical of everything you know.
Hi Mai, I agree with your first point, that some people should take some wisdom from Pyrrho. especially those of us who have too much anxiety. I hadn't really thought about that application of his skepticism. I mostly thought he was a fool with only a little wisdom.
DeleteH02
ReplyDeleteLHP #2- Pyrrho lived completely though the notion that we genuinely cannot know anything for sure and therefore we should not rely on our instincts or situational cues. We don't know them to be true, so we should not obey them. Pyrrho, when presented with an obviously dangerous situation, decided not to trust his senses. This type of mindset is one I've never considered. I naturally trust my gut when something feels wrong and to read about a man who questioned whether falling off a cliff would actually be harmful is insane to me. This seems like irrational thinking more so than a philosophical principle. I do agree with angels of skepticism, however the disregarding your sense aspect of Pyrrho's skepticism is one I can't wrap my head around.
LHP #3: Pyrrho had visited India which is the country believed to have had a great influence on his world view. While there he witnessed their spiritual teachers willingly putting themselves through excruciating circumstances in order to achieve a calm and still mind. Shades of this concept are seen in Pyrrho's philosophy as he showed no fear or worry in extreme situations because he consistently questioned reality and since nothing can be known as an absolute truth, it should not affect us. Being given this piece of information about Pyrrho's exposure to Indian religious practices allows for me to understand where his mind was at a bit better and how he believed life should be lived.
LHP #5- From this reading it is very clear that Pyrrho was on the extreme end of skepticism principles which appears to be a dangerous way to live. Pyrrho was correct in the fact that we know nothing to be true and that we should question everything, but that should not go to the extent of testing whether situations will physically harm you or not. All philosophers do need to have a moderate shade of skepticism involved in their personal philosophy. If no skepticism was involved, philosophy and our way of life would not progress, we would accept whatever to be true and that would be the end of the discussion.
I agree with you on your opinion on Pyrrho's skepticism. It is extreme to think that someone could truly not fully believe that, even at the edge of a cliff, that they are in danger. It's not philosophy in my opinion it's just crazy.
DeleteH01
DeleteI wouldn't necessarily say that it is crazy; it really just comes down to what you choose to believe. You could choose to believe that your senses could always be lying to you, or you could believe that, unless you have legitimate reason to believe otherwise, you should just take your senses as more or less accurate representations of the world since those are the only possibility you could ever have to understand the world. So maybe it is a little crazy that Aristotle didn't say to himself "well, I also can't prove that falling off this cliff WON'T cause me harm."
#H1
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because sometimes they mislead us. Although he didn't completely rule out them being true, he did not trust them.
3. In Pyrrho's young age he visited India. India has great tradition of spiritual teachers of gurus putting themselves through torture of the senses to reach internal stillness. It may have affected his philosophy because his is close to a mystic.
4. Pyrrho thought in order to be happy you must free yourself from desires and not care about how things turn out. I think another way to rid yourself of worry is to come to terms with the fact that life isn't all cupcakes and rainbows. If you realize that sometimes bad things happen, but don't let that effect your life long term.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
#2 – Phyrro believed his senses to be leading him astray in life, deceiving him of the truth. He would not trust these senses, despite facing dangers such as the edge of a cliff. I do not believe that a rejection of the senses is 100% possible (nor is it wise) because I believe that there is a sort of instinct that humans have for survival. Just as Warburton remarks “[Phyrro] couldn’t completely overcome his automatic reactions...” in response to a dog snapping at him.
#3 – Phyrro visited India as a young man. There, he met gurus who subjected themselves to extreme cases of physical depravation in an attempt to reach a state of inner peace. I believe it to be these methods of depravation that inspired Phyrro’s unusual level of skepticism, influencing Phyrro to “deprive” himself of his natural senses or instincts.
#5 – While Phyrro took his skepticism to the extreme by doubting his senses, most modern philosophers choose to adopt a tamer sort of skepticism. Instead of depriving oneself of their natural senses, this skepticism involves the doubting of assumptions and believing that there may be other answers that have yet to be revealed. The reason for this doubt of assumptions is to challenge the idea of dogmatism, the expression of one’s opinion as if it were a fact.
H1
ReplyDeleteThe extreme skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle because they refused any firm opinions on anything at all. Their main teaching was that everything could be questioned and disproven. I believe that that are not Socratic, since they are so firm in their beliefs (and, cannot trust senses, so how can they trust the hearing of word?) to be so.
Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because sometimes they were wrong. He decided that they were often giving him false information about the world around him, and so they could be right or wrong, but never trusted. I believe that this is incredibly foolish and do not believe that this is possible.
He visited the country of India when he was young. India has a great number of gurus who demonstrate incredible, unbelievable physical deprivation. Witnessing people being buried alive and not eating for weeks, he saw great dedication to the idea of inner stillness.
He thought his skepticism led to happiness because thinking one thing is better than another leads to unhappiness from not getting what you want. If you free yourself from desires, nothing is better than anything else, and then you will be happy. I believe that there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry, such as simply accepting that things happen because they should, or that things can go wrong and to come to terms with that.
Most philosophers favor modern skepticism because they believe it is not good to be dogmatic, or fully confident that you know everything. The point is to get closer to the truth and reveal how little we know.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP 1. The most extreme skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle because they never held firm opinions on any subject. Skeptics challenge anything and everything, down to simple tasks, whether someone is actually doing something or just hallucinating.
LHP 2. Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because what you see won’t always be what is there in reality. I don’t think this is possible because even the text states that he still trusted them to an extent, but never took it as truth. Even if his senses were accurate, he didn’t trust them as much as he could.
LHP 3. Pyrrho visited India as a young man, which has a culture surrounded by traditional figures who put themselves through extreme physical deprivation in order to achieve something. Pyrrho, although not outwardly putting himself in long-term extreme physical deprivation, still had views in his adulthood that aligned with the practices of the mystics.
#HO3
ReplyDeleteLHP
3. Pyrrho visited India as a young man and developed an unusual lifestyle. Pyrrho found inspiration in spiritual teachers or gurus who took great lengths to physically deprive themselves whether it was being buried alive, hanging weights from sensitive parts of the body, or depriving themselves of food for weeks to gain inner stillness. Whatever his methods of achieving inner stillness were, Pyrrho's calmness deeply impacted others. Pyrrho did not get worked up about anything because he truly believed everything was simply a matter of opinion.
4. Pyrrho thought his extreme skepticism led to happiness because he thought it was necessary to free yourself of desires and not worry about outcomes. He felt that every desire suggests that one thing was better than something else and unhappiness stemmed from not getting what you truly wanted. Pyrrho recognized that nothing matters and was able to find inner tranquility by remaining indifferent. Interestingly enough, Warburton points out that while this method worked for Pyrrho, it would not produce the same results for most people. So are there other ways to achieve ataraxia (state of calmness or serenity)? Personally, I find prayer often helps with my worries. Sometimes, I like to go for a drive and mull things over to clear my head. Others find comfort in talking things over with friends or going for a run. I think it is important to deal with worries, but I think how they are dealt with involves a personal choice because what works for some, might not be beneficial to others.
FL
2. Williams and Hutchinson were both key inventors of American individualism. Both Hutchinson and Williams believed in extreme freedom of thought and speech. Williams founded a new colony in Providence, Rhode Island and allowed Hutchinson to move there to practice her religious beliefs. While Williams did not agree with Hutchinson's religious beliefs, he firmly believed in freedom of speech and thought.
H02:
ReplyDelete1. When comparing extreme skeptics to Plato and Aristotle, the skeptics truly had no firm opinion on anything what so ever. Skeptics truly avoided having any opinion, fear, or even acknowledgement of anything. The Skeptics main teachings were telling people that they simply didn't know anything. This teaching supported the idea that no one knows what they are doing, what they believe, or what they see. In LHP, it references that many skeptics would question if you could even read, period. I don't think this type of teaching is very socratic; in fact, it is everything against socratic teaching. Socratic teaching yearns to question and debate; while, a skeptic wouldn't even try to debate because they don't yearn to know because truly humans don't know anything. Though socrates questioned everything and realized he didn't know everything, there was still that drive to learn, while skeptics could care less.
3. Pyrrho, when he was a young man, visited the country of India. This visit inspired his belied of skepticism due to the Indian life-style and spiritual traditions. The practice of starvation, self-harm, and deprivation in order to find peace, inspired Pyrrho and his beliefs. After Pyrrho found his inner peace, he truly did not get worked up or have an opinion about anything because it didn't matter.
5. More modern philosophers have adopted a more moderate/light version of skepticism. This is because skepticism is good to a point. It is good to question evidence and assumptions, but having the ability to not live in the doubting questions and disbelief. The whole part of philosophy is to question dogma and try to find the truth, but skepticism takes it a little too far.
#H03
ReplyDeleteLPH #1- Extreme skeptics believed everything could be questioned, and nothing was inherently true. Socrates could be considered a skeptic, as he was content with having more questions than answers but was genuinely curious to hear the answers.
#3- Pyrrho visited India and was influenced by their spiritual practices. Their practitioners subjected themselves to extreme physical circumstances This helped shape his philosophy of questioning reality and remaining calm in extreme situations.
#5- Pyrrho was at the extreme end of skepticism principles, which was dangerous. Most philosophers preferred moderate skepticism because it allows for inquiry and the possibility of knowledge without jeopardizing their own safety and that of others.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. Pyrrho never trusted his senses because they can be deceiving. Such a lifestyle, one where the perceived world around us is not truth, is a very hard life to live. I believe it is possible to live this life, but I would not live it in a million years. Our senses help us stay alive, we cannot just forsake them.
3. He journeyed to India, where he met many spiritual teachers and gurus. India at the time had the reputation of putting themselves in situations of extreme self deprivation. The main takeaway I can see Pyrrho having is endurance. If life cannot be trusted, and it can harm you, one must learn to push through life.
4. Pyrrho believed that by being skeptical of everything, we would want for nothing. This would lead to a feeling of nothing mattering, and therefor produce happiness. Since nothing matters, only you can make yourself happy. While that is a way of achieving freedom from worry and happiness, I do not believe it is ideal. I believe the way to be free from worry is to live and learn. Simply by just confronting your fears and focusing on yourself can you slowly rid yourself of fears and achieve true happiness.
HO2
ReplyDeleteLHP 1- Skeptics differ from Plato and Aristotle in that they never held firm beliefs on pretty much anything. They believed that nobody knows anything for sure and that even if you believe something that doesn't make it true. They determined that by never holding firm beliefs they would never be disappointed when something was discovered that proved what they believe wrong. It is slightly Socratic in the way that they believed just like Socrates that they knew nothing and to question everything.
LHP 2- Pyrrho didn't trust his senses because he knew how easily your mind could be misled by them offering seeing a cat in the dark but thinking it was a fox as an example, but Pyrrho took this belief to an extreme level never believing his senses even when everything around him was crystal clear. He didn't disregard the information his senses gave him he just never fully trusted them when making decisions. In my opinion this life holds very little meaning, Pyrrho was indifferent to most of life with stories of him being completely blank faced when faced with a storm on the ocean. People like this probably don't have full lives because they spend too much time not believing. How can you have a family if you don't believe in the world around you being as you perceive it.
LHP 3- Phyrro visited India as a young man and this had a tremendous effect on his philosophy. In India, there are spiritual gurus who undergo horrific training to reach inner stillness as they called in which nothing could faze you. They would go long periods without food and basically torture themselves until it didn't effect them anymore. Phyrro took a lot of that philosophy with him finding inner stillness on his own and being so calm about everything even saying, "absolutely everything is a matter of opinion. If there is no chance of discovering the truth then why fret."
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. The extreme skeptics differed from Aristotle and Plato in the extremity of their dedication to Socrates's philosophy. The Skeptics believed in questioning every single aspect of life, as they thought that anything could happen at any given time. Plato and Aristotle did not subscribe to the idea that nothing could be known at all, as they believed there was some certainty in some aspects of life.
2. Pyrrho believed that due to the unreliability of the human senses, they could never fully be trusted; therefore, he treated every situation as equally possible. This way of life seemed to take away the worry and fear he felt, as he believed no experience could be completely and truly bad. Although Pyrrho's philosophy may have allowed him peace during his lifetime, I do not believe that his views were truly the most effective at bringing one to flourishment. Pyrrho did help reveal a key aspect of life, which is that anything is possible, but he failed to take into account that some things are more probable than others. We can not be certain that our senses our telling us the truth, but due to the fact that our entire experience of life is based on our senses, it appears to be probable that our senses are giving us a semi-accurate depiction of reality.
3. Pyrrho had visited India, which had become a hotspot for spiritual teachings and life styles which allowed one to flourish. Many people in the area had experimented with ideas of removing the emotion of suffering through different forms of painful therapy, it is likely that some of these ideals and teachings inspired Pyrrho's philosophy in the western world.
#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because he claimed they were misleading. Even though one always experiences their senses many times they do lead astray. While in theory this practice could be possible at the end of the day each of us will have to trust our senses if we want to stay alive longer than one day. One cannot completely disregard all senses without accepting fatal consequences, however, how can we really know ?
3. Pyrrho visited India as a boy which most definitely had an effect on his later years. Inspired by gurus and religious teacher he took an aptitude to finding his own inner stillness. He practiced this is by not being sure of anything at all. Understanding that he could not be sure of anything meant absolutely everything was a matter of opinion even in the circumstance of life or death.
5. I believe most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism because of our consciousness and understanding that there are certain absolutes in the laws of nature. Because the universe is rational and nature stays consistent( one may disagree), there are some absolutes even to the senses. Since these can be tested over and over again and produce the same results, we can make sense of numerous realities around us and expound on them with further philosophical questions.
#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. Pyrrho believed that we could not trust our senses, that they hold us back from like experiences. He believed our senses can mislead us, that we may may see the world in one perspective because we held ourselves back. I do not think this is possible, fear is hardwired into our brain for a reason. Our senses are what keeps us alive.
3. When Pyrrho was younger, he visited India. India has a lot of traditions in order to keep their minds strong. He took their traditions and teachings and took it to a whole new level. He put himself through physical deprivation in order to live out his teachings, he wanted to prove that you could live a life with no fear.
4. He believed that we could not commit to any view because not everything is certain. Pyrrho believed that in order to achieve happiness that we should let go of all judgments and uncertainty and not care how things turn out. I do believe that there are all kinds of ways to experience true happiness without having to "let go". You have fears for a reason but letting some of them go would not be the end of the world. Experiencing what life has to offer is a gift that everyone should have.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 2
Pyrrho understood that one's senses cannot be trusted, so there is no possible way that we could know if the outside world really is how we think it is. If you take this to its extreme, then there is no way of knowing whether it is a good idea or not, since there is no way of knowing if that decision is bringing you closer or farther away from reality.
LHP 4
Pyrrho thought that this type of skepticism led to happiness because it didn't make any sense to worry about anything that you couldn't even know was real. I believe that this is a double-edged sword, because that also would mean that there are many things in life that you cannot be happy about, since you don't know if they are real, either. There are also other ways of being released from worry. One way would be to distract yourself, although this is arguably only a temporary fix.
HWT 2
The Law of Exclude Middle. Basically, it says that a specific, definite piece of unambiguous information can only be true or false, and not both. I think that it is important to follow rules of thought, except that there is no way we could really prove these rules, since they are the foundations that reasonable thinking is based on. For example, I can't prove that 2+2=4. I can't put into words why this is the case without relying on other statements that would deal with the same problem. I think the advice "Don't believe everything you think" is really good advice, because it is so easy to think about something but not think it through all the way, and thus come to an incomplete or wrong conclusion.
I like your idea that not worrying about things because of their uncertainty being a double-edged sword and that things that the average person may find happy, to a pyrrhonist it is questionable whether it is real or not. I did not initially take that into consideration!
DeleteNigel, Warburton. A LITTLE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. New Haven, Yale University Press, 30 Oct. 2012.
DeleteBaggini, Julian. HOW THE WORLD THINKS. Granta Books, 10 Mar. 2019.
Actually, the above citation for A LITTLE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY may have been incorrect. "New Haven" may need to be omitted.
DeleteH02
ReplyDelete1. They mainly differed from the sense of dogmatism that both Plato and Aristotle had. While they may have had their disagreements about their dogmas, they both had the assumption that what they knew was true. On the other hand, with extreme skeptics, they believe that everything should be questioned, even the most known and agreed upon principles. I do believe in a way that it is Socratic, but not in the sense of his beliefs or followers.
3. When Phyrrho visited India, I believe that the reason he was so influenced by mystics was because when he saw the feats they were achieving, it reinforced his ideas of not trusting the senses. This was because when he saw mystics doing things such as hanging heavy items off of sensitive parts of their bodies, he deduced that it is best not to trust the senses, as people are capable of far more than people thought.
4. The way that Phyrrho was able to achieve the happiness that he described was by putting his way of thinking in a state skepticism that allowed him to never be disappointed or sad. This was because no matter how bad that something seemed, he never truly knew if that was bad for him. I definitely think that this is not the only way to achieve freedom as well as the best way. I believe that the best way to achieve freedom is to find the freedom you want most and to pursue it as you see fit.
#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. The most extreme skeptics avoided having firm opinions, unlike Plato and Aristotle. The main teaching of skeptics was to challenge everything and that all is not what it seems to be. I think that this is very socratic because Socrates believed that he knew nothing, and skeptics also challenge everything and ask questions about everything, and therefore “know nothing”.
2. Pyrrho thought that his senses were possibly deceiving him, and because of this he did not trust them. I do not think that this is a very good idea because if you don't trust your senses then how could you possibly live? The book says “Any extreme sceptic needs the support of less sceptical people, or very good luck, to survive for long” (Warburton 16). I completely agree with this as if you saw a bear and just said there is no bear, the bear may take offense to that and try to eat you and you need your less skeptical peers to get you out of the situation.
3. Pyrrho visited India as a young man and it influenced his philosophy as many gurus in India were trying to achieve inner stillness at the time, and that is what Pyrrhos philosophy pertained to, as he wanted to basically be unmoved to most all things.
4. Pyrrho believed that through becoming indifferent to all things then you would in turn have no worries and would be happy and carefree. I believe there are other ways to achieve freedom from worry, one way would be to take moral holidays very often, like we talked about in class on tuesday by taking a moral holiday you are trying to leave your worries behind, and when you do you can be freed from that worry for at least a little while.
5. I believe that most philosophers favor moderate skepticism as it seems that being an extreme skeptic would be exhausting, questioning everything, and believing nothing. Also because with nothing to believe than what is there to really philosophize about, if your philosophy is to believe nothing than how would one believe in your own philosophy, it seems very paradoxical to me and I just would not understand.
H01
ReplyDelete1. Skeptics such as Pyrrho were different from Plato and Aristotle because they viewed dogmatism as something to be questioned rather than followed. They taught to always question everything regardless of what other people's prior opinions were to the subject, and in extreme cases, never to trust yourself as your body/senses may also be lies. The skeptics were less "Socratic" meaning that they valued questioning more than understanding something which goes against the principles of a Socratic conversation.
2. Pyrrho did not trust his senses because he believed that the reality around him may not be real. His decision doesn't feel very sound to the average human, but it does maintain a form of logic in the sense that our perceived reality may not be as true as it seems.
4. Pyrrho didn't believe that his skepticism would lead him to happiness, however, he did believe that freeing himself from worry would bring a calmer state of mind. This was what formed the basis of his philosophy, AKA ataraxia.
H02
ReplyDelete1. Pyrrho was an ancient Greek philosopher known for extreme skepticism. He believed that the senses could not be trusted because they often deceive us. This skepticism stems from his belief that nothing can be known for certain, and therefore, it is better to suspend judgment on all matters. As for whether this decision is prudent or possible, it can be argued that while skepticism encourages critical thinking, completely distrusting the senses may not be practical in daily life since we rely on sensory information to function and make decisions. However, from a philosophical standpoint, it can be a useful tool for questioning assumptions and beliefs.
2. Pyrrho believed that by suspending judgment and refusing to form definitive opinions about the world, one could achieve *ataraxia*, or a state of inner calm and freedom from worry. The idea is that when you stop making judgments or having beliefs about what is good or bad, you free yourself from the emotional turmoil associated with those beliefs. Other ways of achieving *ataraxia* might include practices like mindfulness, meditation, or even stoicism, which also advocate for emotional detachment and acceptance of what is outside of one’s control.
FL-
3. In 17th-century America, freedom of thought was heavily influenced by the Puritan religious environment, which was often restrictive. Dissenters like Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams faced persecution for expressing religious views that diverged from the dominant Puritan orthodoxy. In contrast, parts of Europe were beginning to experience the Enlightenment, where intellectual movements advocating for freedom of thought and expression were growing. However, in both America and Europe, religious and political authorities often suppressed dissenting ideas, though America had the unique context of being a colonial society with its own evolving identity.
4. The Salem witch trials famously allowed "spectral evidence," meaning testimonies based on dreams or visions where witnesses claimed they saw the spirit or specter of the accused committing witchcraft. This type of evidence was highly controversial because it relied on subjective experiences that could not be verified. In Arthur Miller’s *The Crucible*, although the play draws heavily on the historical events of the trials, it takes certain dramatic liberties. For example, Miller condenses timelines, creates fictionalized relationships (like the affair between Abigail Williams and John Proctor), and emphasizes certain themes to reflect the McCarthyism of his own time, rather than focusing solely on the historical context of Salem.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 2- Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because they can easily and often mislead you. Things are not always what they appear to be, so you must not believe what you see is true. I think holding doubt and skepticism is important, because without doubt, we would never improve or grow. If you only ever take anything at face value, you can never learn more about it. Mathematics was created because people questioned, we know about space and biology because people held doubts about the common "truths" of the time. But I think subscribing yourself to Never trusting your own senses is incredibly foolish and also unrealistic. We know things through our own experiences and through the shared experiences of the people we interact with. Even if you've never been hit by a car and injured yourself, you should still trust your eyes when they show you a busy road.
LHP 4- Pyrrho thought his extreme skepticism led to happiness because he was able to hold a calm mind throughout his life. If nothing is real, or everything is false, then none of it matters. You don't have to worry about anything, be fearful of anything, stress about anything. You don't have to be sad or disappointed by let-downs because you have no desires. I think the idea of being fully free from worry (ataraxia) is not just unattainable but also sad. We worry about the things and people we care about to show we care. To me, caring about nothing is not the brag you think it is. That is an unremarkable life, to be uncommited to everything.
FL 5- In Salem witch trials, "spectral" evidence was used in court to convict supposed witches, such as dreams and supernatural visions. Andersen thinks that the Crucible misconstrued the pure insanity that was prevalent in Salem during this time. These people truly believed in the madness they were preaching, and they killed people on it. The witch trials were such a horrifying period of early American history because it showed just how quickly unity (or the illusion of unity) can crumble. The fear of "Satan" drove their every move, and no one was trustworthy anymore. If you were weird, or different, or black, or literate, or opinionated, you were dead.
Ho2
ReplyDelete1. Extreme skeptics like Pyrrho differ from other philosophers we've learned about in their lack of solid beliefs. Because no one can prove to know anything theres no point in believing in anything, Socrates and Aristotle loved having beliefs so they didn't agree with this. I think the difference between Stoicism and Skepticism is stoics say you know you can't do anything so you might as well be at peace with it. Skeptics say you don't know anything at all, you don't even know if you can do anything.
2. Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because they could be missleading him at any time. This of course, isn't to say that they ARE misleading him, as he has no was to rule that possibility out. So he decided he can't reliably expect anything ever so he just doesn't. He sounds super fun to hang out with.
3. As a young man Pyrrho visited India, where he may have been influenced by gurus and spiritual leaders and learned to not rely on anything physical. But of course, we have no way of knowing if this was where his philosophy actually came from, and even if we did we couldn't prove that we actually knew that information for certain so there would be no point anyway.
4. Pyrrho believed that we couldn't reliably trust any physical objects and that most people take all these things for granted and aren't happy. Most people are unhappy because they don't have things they want, so why not just stop wanting things. Pyrrho was annoying but probably right about a lot of things.
5. Skepticism was modernized to be focused on questioning the root of why we think the way we do and challenging the root of beliefs, rather than questioning everything your senses absorb like some kinda paranoid maniac. Modern skepticism is at the root of most philosophy as it is the nature of philosophy to ask questions, which is all skepticism is at it's core.
I agree that Pyrrho was probably annoying to be around even if he was philosophically onto something. His basic concepts might've been right but having to save him from a cliffs edge and savage dogs sounds exhausting.
Delete( Hey Liam, whats up bro)
#H2
ReplyDeleteLHP 1. In Ancient Greece, extreme sceptics never held a firm opinion on anything, unlike Plato and Aristotle. Their mean ideology was that the best thing you can do is keep an open mind about everything. Keep questioning and doubting everything, and also not to commit as it meant never being disappointed. This idea was similar to Socrates because he also believed that people should always keep questioning everything. He also talked about how little he actually knew about life, so he can fit into that area of scepticism as well.
LHP 2. Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because they often mislead us. I don’t think that “never trusting your senses” is even possible considering that you have to trust your senses to even come to that decision.
H#2
ReplyDeleteLHP - 2
Pyrrho decided not to trust his senses because he believed that they were misleading. He used the example of not knowing whether a small creature moving at night was a fox or cat to get his point across. I think that having a philosophy like this is interesting, but I don't see how it can be 100% possible. Being able to ignore your senses which we heavily rely on so much just seems like an extremely hard philosophy to take control of.
#3- Pyrrho visited India when he was young and this most likely influenced his philosophy to take a more spiritual freedom route. He believed that if you were skeptical about everything then you would stop thinking everything matters and reach a state of inner peace. This idea of inner peace through extreme measures was a more common philosophy in India which is why he might've been influenced from his visit.
#4- Pyrrho believed by taking the extreme measure of disregarding your senses you would reach a point of believing that nothing mattered and that would make you feel a state of inner tranquility because you would stop worrying about things. I think there are definitely more ways to get around worrying about things;however, I more strongly feel that worrying is a part of life. I feel that stress is part of human nature and it's the big decisions that bring stress which make life fun and hard. If life was always worry free and easy it might make it less meaningful.
#H3
ReplyDeleteLHP
Q2: Pyrrho decided that human senses were untrustworthy because they would often lead us astray, we could think we see one thing in the dark but it be something very different. Pyrrho believed that these small failings meant that any part of our perception could be wrong, therefore the perception of anything should be questioned. Personally I don't think that his way of thinking was really all the rational or practical, while it could make sense to always question things, always assuming their false and not acting based on what's around you seems like an easy way to get killed.
Q3: He visited India. India is famous for having very developed and unique philosophical belief based around putting ones body through extreme physical stress in order to teach one to separate their mind from the physical. This probably influenced Pyrrhos ability to detach himself from what he perceived around him and made it easier to question how much of it was actually happening since he could choose to not be influence by it.
Q4: Pyrrho believed that his philosophy could lead a person to happiness because his meant that a person would have to examine the world to a point where they wouldn't care anymore. He thought that once someone was able to detach themselves from the world they would stop caring and simply be content with their lives. I think you can sorta use Pyrrhos method, not so much that you question every part of reality and therefore completely detach yourself from it. Instead you could recognize the most uncertain parts of your life and question them to better understand them and hopefully find some improvement.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. Pyrrho's foundation for his argument against trusting one's senses is that, since the senses can't *always* be trusted, then they can *never* be trusted. Obviously, this is not prudent, as it is mandatory for one to rely on one's senses to continue living and interacting with the world. If you want to take your next breath, that's likely because it physically hurts not to do so. As for the possibility of "never trusting one's senses," I similarly reject the prospect. Every step we take relies on the corporeality of the ground beneath us. To continue to exist, we trust that continued existence is not chronically agonizing because we don't - in most cases - feel everlasting pain for actively or passively being. I may be being hyperbolic in my interpretation of Pyrrho's (alleged) distrust of senses, and I acquiesce to some of his skepticism about the reality of what we perceive; however, to unconditionally reject the merit of sense is beyond illogical, unless everything is a simulation.
4. Pyrrho believed that his radical skepticism was the key to true happiness because, if you doubt the very definition of happiness, then there is no truly happy life. You don't have to work to achieve fulfillment because what is fulfilling cannot be decided. If there's no goal post to be set for true happiness, then you might as well just be content in believing you're already there, no assembly required. I believe that you can free yourself from worry in a similar way to what Pyrrho describes. I don't think you can entirely dismiss the concept of happiness simply because you can't surely know why or if one thing is better than another and would, therefore, bring you joy. Obviously, we feel joy, physically. There are signals that our body sends us when we feels happy like a smile, an increased heart rate, or a flush in our cheeks. Even if the mind doesn't know what happiness really is, the body can surely process it. Thus, I won't do away with the idea that there is a "happy life" to be achieve. Instead, I think that, to free yourself from worry, you need to define your ideal life as something that is realistic for you. You can't idealize the unachievable "true happiness" you see in others because you can't entirely become that other person. If we can learn to place our ideal lives within reach - that's not to say easy to obtain - then we take steps towards releasing our worries because out ideal self is comprehendible. It would also be beneficial to accept the pace at which you approach your ideal life and not harshly judge yourself for slow progress towards it. However, I think, because of the human condition, we simply aren't capable of entirely releasing our worries without also releasing part of our sanity/humanity. Humans are social creatures. Ergo, we value the opinions of others by nature. To fully reject worry over the opinions of others is somewhat inhuman.
5. Most philosophers likely embrace moderate skepticism because it is simply more rational. It is paramount to be skeptical to be a philosopher. Question everything, per Socrates. To blindly follow dogma or authority without at least mild skepticism is dangerous behavior. There are things that need to be questioned, as if they are not, they could easily conquer human thinking and limit pluralism. Philosophers see the progressive appeal of skepticism and question that which is widely accepted to challenge paradigms and inspire original thought.
#H1 - Zoe Kuhn
ReplyDeleteFL - #1
Anne Hutchinson felt a truth in her gut that told her she was Heaven-bound. This gut feeling also ties into what makes her “so American”. She was described as “so American” because her beliefs and the immense amount of faith she had were so confident and right in her head. After all, they were hers. Hutchinson was so sure of herself and grounded in her faith and belief in the Bible that what made them true for her was because of her undeniable confidence.
FL - #2
Hutchinson and Roger Williams helped invent American Individualism. Roger Williams advocated for people to have the right to believe what they want, freedom of speech, and to say what they wish to while Hutchinson was a real-life example of what Williams stood for. Hutchinson also believed she should believe what she wanted to and ramble about those beliefs.
HWT - #1
Logic as defined in HWT, is simply the systematic working through of the implications of true statements. I would consider myself logical/rational but only when I feel it's necessary and definitely not all the time. Not every situation needs to be thought about logically and while being logical makes the most sense, sometimes I find myself acting on things more emotionally rather than logically. I do like thinking logically/rationally sometimes but I don’t think I should consider myself fully logical.
#H1- 9/5/24
ReplyDeleteLHP 2) Pyrrho followed the philosophy of Skepticism throughout his life which meant he avoided having firm opinions on anything whatsoever. Pyrrho believed the senses were misleading and unreliable, so he did not trust his own senses. Firstly, I feel bad for Pyrrho's friends. If I had a friend that consistently put themselves in dangerous scenarios due to there aversion to the human senses, I would probably have premature grey hairs from stress. Secondly, avoiding your senses would be very unwise and maybe not entirely possible. The human senses are important for survival. They allow us react to our environment and interact with others around us. To forgo all trust in human senses would be suicidal. Sure, optical illusions exist, but that does not mean you should deem all senses unreliable due to temporary unreliability. I also believe the human body fights against the unuse of the senses due to the underlining goal for survival. This philosophy of total indifference sounds unplausible to me, but Pyrrho suggests otherwise.
LHP 3) As a young man, Pyrrho visited India which I then believe contributed to his actions/philosophy further on in life. India had traditions were spiritual teachers/gurus would put themselves through extreme physical deprivation, such as: being buried alive, hanging weights from sensitive parts of their bodies, or living for weeks without food. The goal of practicing these exercises was to achieve inner stillness, which was similar to Pyrrho's approach to philosophy. While we do not know what techniques he actually used, it is possible he incorporated similar beliefs of the Indian teachers to his own philosophy.
LHP 4) Pyrrho and his extreme skepticism believed that no one will ever know about the ultimate nature of reality, and as a result, we should not commit to any view because we can not know anything for sure. This would lead to happiness according to Pyrrho, but I do not agree with this thinking. I think because people have beliefs, passions, and desires, we have something to live for and be happy because of. We might not always get what we want but that does not determine our overall happiness. I believe that even if we fulfill our desires, that will not make us truly happy, that is temporary happiness. If we believe/recognize that nothing matters, like Pyrrho, what would be the purpose of living anymore? Why breathe anymore knowing there is no purpose to your existence other than inner tranquility? Pyrrho kind of sounds like a mindless zombie. I think the human species will always worry about something in someway, some more than others, but I think a little worry is good for us. I think true freedom from worry would be worse than actual worry. Worrying can be motivational and helps us prepare and appreciate, so it is not entirely evil. Living in the moment can be a good tool to combat feelings of worry.
2 - Pyrrho never trusted his senses because he essentially argued that if your senses can be wrong sometimes, then you can never trust them because you cannot tell when they are wrong or not. This famously got him into a lot of trouble and I feel that skepticism to that level cannot be prudent.
ReplyDelete3 - Pyrrho visited India as a young man, this may have contributed to his skeptical beliefs. Indian philosophers were known for doing extreme feats to test their mental and physical limits.
5 - Modern skeptics are lean more moderate when compated to Pyrrho because of how extreme he was. Pyrrho was a skeptic who would sometimes put himself in harms way because he couldn't be sure the danger detected by his senses was true.
John Pardue ^ H01
DeleteH01- amelie oakes
ReplyDeleteLHP Qs 1-4
Q1: The extreme skeptics (I’m biased towards the American spelling probably it’s what I’m used to but, it also visually is more balanced) took no sensory information for its face value. Which is partially a good skill because often our senses can be fooled but only in minor ways. These philosophers, mainly Pyrrho, were so committed to their skepticism to the point of foolishness, so unlike Aristotle (who said he knows little) Pyrrho said he knows nothing and he cannot even be certain of knowing nothing. Which is not a very strong point to stand on.
Q2: Pyrrho never trusted his senses in case they were mistaken (which can happen) but he was so far into his untrust that he came into physical danger. His unwillingness to believe also has to be a position of privilege, because he had friends (non-skeptics) that protected him from danger when he acted out of skepticism, like walking into on coming traffic.
Q3: The philosophy Pyrrho practiced is thought to stem from his time in India experiencing early Buddhism. Many of his ideas, like freedom from personal desires, worries, cares. He thought by questioning everything and toppling off cliff sides he would eliminate fears and desirres to reach his inner tranquility. Which again has to be coming from a place of privilege because not everyone in ancient Greece could just stop being afraid, but because he was in a position of power he could afford to leave worry and reason behind.
Q4: Pyrho thought ataraxia could be reached by controlling natural fears, because those fears only come from the perceptions that perhaps were wrong. For example the parable of him on the boat, he wasn’t afraid because he didn’t necessarily know if he would come to harm or not therefore he didn’t need to be afraid. Again borrowing from his time in India, he believe you could reach ataraxia by freeing yourself from unhappiness.
#H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
1: Pyrrho and the skeptics did not hold a firm belief in anything whatsoever, but this was very different than socrates because while socrates denied that he knew anything , but he would always ask questions about topics and try to get an answer and even though he constantly gave questions saying that people never truly knew what they were talking about he didn't seem to believe that everything could not be trusted.
2: Pyrrho never trusted his senses because he believed that everything was simply a matter of opinion and since the truth was impossible to reach there was no point in ever worrying. This manner of thinking is not for everyone but assuming that by some miracle a person practicing this manages to stay alive (due to the help of others) it would be great for a person's health, I mean look at Pyrrho he died at ninety! Most people likely won't reach that age though and will probably end up winning a Darwin Award.
5: Modern skeptics are moderate compared to Pyrrho because there is a fundamental difference in their beliefs. The modern skeptics wish to get closer to the truth by doubting what we know while Pyrrho believed the truth was simply impossible to get to and instead doubted everything and remained calm at all times.
#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because he was skeptical of even himself; Therefore, he believed that if he were to be skeptical of everything, it would include his own senses. I don't exactly think it's possible to just "turn off" your senses, but I do believe you can learn to ignore them if you practice and try hard enough.
4. Pyrrho truly believed happiness could be achieved by indifference to anything. Unhappiness in his eyes was gained from not achieving what you want, so through not wanting anything then you could be fully satisfied with your life. While I don't think this is exactly achievable, I think it can create a nice sense of ignorance. But it seems more like suppression than anything; Humans at the end of the day always want something. I think true happiness is recognizing that and finding closure in whichever way it goes, not just through being uncaring about it.
5. Pyrrho's skepticism is quite unattainable, because it requires no strong opinions on anything and also requires an almost religious way of living, depriving yourself of wants and needs. Most philosophers have very strong opinions, so this lifestyle wasn't exactly easy to maintain. it wasn't for the weak.
(This was Faith Carbonari)
DeleteH03
ReplyDelete(LHP, Question 5)
1. Although Pyrrho's philosophy of skepticism prods the mind and raises good points, the (potentially) extreme lengths he went to in practicing it are somewhat impractical for most people. Maintaining a healthy amount of skepticism in regards to philosophy, tradition, our instinctual reactions to things, and more is great, but there needs to be a cutoff at some point.
Take the famous saying of, 'if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.' While there is absolutely a possibility that it is, in fact, not a duck, I think following that line of questioning too far can become unproductive. The only thing I can use to perceive reality is my senses, and that is all that I'll ever have. If it is true that reality is in some way different to the way I see it through perception, I will never know it. For me, at least, it is absolutely helpful to keep in mind that things may not always be as they seem on their face, but spending excessive amounts of time and effort attempting to answer such questions is wasteful.
(LHP, Question 3)
2. As a young man, Pyrrho visited India and was maybe influenced by the spiritual teachers and gurus there who intentionally put themselves through intense physical deprivation in order to achieve inner peace or stillness. This recontextualization of pain and discomfort as an opportunity for one to learn and strengthen their resolve is in some ways similar to the incredible stories of Pyrrho's uncaring attitude towards situations that seem (or were) dangerous. Since the only thing he was sure of was that nothing was for sure, he approached things that would normally be seen as unpleasant or undesirable with an attitude of curiosity and experimentation, no matter how treacherous on their face.
(LHP, Question 4)
3. Pyrrho thought his philosophy led to happiness because it freed him from worry, since how could he be concerned about his current situation or desire something else if he couldn't know for sure that what he was experiencing was objectively bad or unpleasant. While I think his conclusion has merit, the idea that happiness is achieved through a peace that comes from within, the specifics of what that peace is and how to get there are specific from person to person (as evidenced by the fact that many different philosophies can reach similar conclusions through almost opposing methods).
H03
DeleteI like the example you use to get your point across in LHP1, if it looks, sounds and acts like something, then it is most likely just that. Furthermore, I agree with how you said that our senses are what allow us to perceive the world. Without our senses what else do we have to perceive reality? While it holds some merit to question things, we have to be careful to not be consumed by persistent questioning of what we might or might not be sensing. The amount of time that we would end up wasting on questioning if it was, following the saying, a duck or not, could led one to sit there all day if they constantly questioned if they actually knew what a duck looked like, sounded like, etc. it is all just counter-productive when taken too far.
#H2 Alan Hernandez
ReplyDeleteLHP
#1 - Most extreme skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle by never holding any strong beliefs or opinions on any topic. The teachings of skeptics involve keeping an open mind and to doubt everything, as they believe every question can be doubted. I do believe that this is somewhat "Socratic" because they believe they don't know anything, just like Socrates would. The main difference is that they would heavily lean on the idea that we as people don't understand anything, so they were never looking for answers like Socrates or Plato would. The line of questioning would likely never end.
#2 - Pyrrho believed that senses mislead people so often that ones senses are not to be trusted. It is very true that senses can mislead, you might see things in the dark that appear one way but are truly another. Cyanide, one of the most deadly poisons, can smell like almonds, something far more enticing. However, this way of thinking can be quite foolish when distinguishingly obvious danger is ignored for the belief that your senses are deceiving you. Often times, for safety's sake, it is better to avoid obvious physical risks.
#3 - Pyrrho visited India, a place where in spiritual tradition, they must endure extreme physical tasks to reach inner peace. This tradition definitely influenced Pyrrho almost uncaring approach to his philosophy. It is possible that he got his belief of doubting his senses from the idea that someone can take such extreme action on their body and still find calmness. If there is something to be gained by constantly being in the brink of death, it is not hard to see why someone would question everything they do on a daily basis.
H03 - Quinny VDS
ReplyDeleteLHP 1-
Extreme skeptics were constantly questioning what they knew, didn’t know, why or what they were doing. They questioned every moment that they lived, they doubted every moment and piece of knowledge they had. Nothing they knew could ever be set in stone, as they do not believe that anything is certain. Plato and Aristotle both strived to know things for what they were or seemed to be, one from a wider stance another through experience, both observed and gained knowledge. While they differed in how to observe, what to do and what they learned from it, it can be said that they felt certain about some of their knowledge at the least. Skeptics main teaching was that everything can be questioned and doubted, that nothing was for certain for how could we know? To be “Socratic” they need to question everything and everyone, they certainly have that part down. Socrates wanted to push others into seeing how little they know, however, he seemed to see that they had some grasp on their knowledge, just that it did not go as far or in depth as they thought, that they only saw the surface and did not truly understand. Socratic is one word for a skeptic, especially when it comes to their main teaching, that nobody knows anything.
LHP 2-
Pyrrho decided that he could never trust his sense as they could occasionally mislead him, that they could lead to mistakes occurring. Senses can be misleading at times and trip one up, he based his way of life on this, and due to that his friends had to be there to protect him from his own skepticism. While he did acknowledge that he couldn’t completely dismiss the idea that they can be giving true information, he believed he still had to keep an open mind to that. To never trust one's sense does not seem prudent, while they can mislead us, sometimes this can inadvertently save our life in that moment. For example, one might believe they are being watched, and even if there is a possibility that it isn’t true, or there was no ill will behind the one watching, acting on that feeling can be crucial to some. The same could be said about an off taste or smell, especially when it comes to gasses or chemicals, knowing that something might smell off could be the difference in a life and death for fires, allergies or C02 poisoning. It is possible to live a life ignoring and never trusting one's senses but it can cause so much more harm then making some mistakes, every sense is important and happens for a reason.
LHP 4-
By freeing oneself from desires and no longer caring about what if situations, happiness would come. Tossing aside the certainty and doubts of what could come from a situation allows people to become happy as there is no need to worry about that anxiety anymore. I believe another way to relieve oneself from worry would be to observe first, have trust in your sense and those around you that are known. For example, if you have a job interview and are worrying about looking bad, too casual or unusual, there are others around you that can reassure you. Even if you end up doing one of those, there are more options and chances to come, as another can reassure and give examples of how that happened to them. Being able to see and hear that your worries are for nothings or that even if they were true you can have more choices after and it isn’t the end.
Andrew Griffith (#3)
ReplyDeleteLHP2- Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses. I believe this to be prudent. It's defiantly a risky decision based on health. However, I think that it's definitely an idea to consider. Can we truly trust our senses? We are animals afterall, and we're effected by the same hormones as the rest. Adrenaline is produced to help us survive but does it really? Some would suggest it could hinder motor skills and clear thought. So how do we know we can actually trust them?
LHP3 As a child Pyrrho went to India. Some people think this is what inspired him to partake in his unusual way of life. In India there are people known as "Gurus" who put themselves through horrible and almost impossible conditions to achieve personal stillness.
LHP5-Many people prefer a modern form of skeptisism because if Pyhrro didn't hand a band of friends he would have certainly gotten himself hurt. It's an interesting philosphy but certainly is not realistic.
H02 Nick Luse
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Extreme Skeptics are constantly questioning everything. Skeptics main teaching was that everything can be questioned. To be Socratic Means to be Skeptical, and to push the agenda that nobody knows everything
HWT
1. Logic is thinking with Reasoning and Morals, I consider myself a rational thinker. I try to put aside my own emotional reasoning aside whenever i can and try to think for the greater good. I think It's good to think with your head and not your heart because you can end up saving yourself a lot of trouble.
Gavin Cooley (#2)
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Extreme skeptics were unsure about everything, and as stated in the book, "avoided holding firm opinions on anything whatsoever" (15). Skeptics taught that we can never be sure of anything. This as a concept is similar to Socratic teaching. The idea of challenging seemingly foundational or "common sense" ideals is a take on the Socratic teachings of questioning everything.
2. Pyrrho concluded that his senses were not always right and could even be attempting to mislead him. While attempting to live life in this way is interesting in concept, it is not possible in real life. Your senses are there for a multitude of reasons, with the primary one being to keep you alive. Thus, it is a reasonable assumption that is not a good idea to ignore them.
4. Extreme skepticism frees people from worrying about how things turn out. If nothing matters and you don't care about anything that happens, your happiness comes from not having to worry. There are many other ways to free yourself from worry. The best one, in my opinion, is to actually do something about whatever it is you are worried about. Action is the only real way to deal with problems, and if you think there's nothing you can do about an issue, you're wrong.
H02
ReplyDelete1. Pyrrho questioned everything and never settled or thought he had the answer as he believed he would never discover the truth since he thought he could never trust his senses to help him perceive the world. I would say this is very much like Plato, who would say his senses could not perceive the true form of all things. Socrates would also say to question how things we perceive through are senses could be true, but I think even he would find even him getting a headache from Pyrro. He was not 'Socratic' in this way due to their nature of never accepting any evidence.
2. Pyrrho did not trust his senses because he believed they could be deceiving him. There is an argument to be made that our senses can deceive us, but that we are being deceived all the time is highly unlikely. Such a decision is likely to drive one off a cliff, so I would not recommend it.
3. Pyrrho visited India when he was a young man. That potentially influenced his philosophy by showing him how it is possible to go through extreme stress (real or perceived) while keeping a still mind via the mystics ang gurus of India.
4. Pyrrho thought that because everything was simply a matter of opinion, that there was no need to fret or worry about them. This was due to him arguing that we cannot discover the truth of any matter, so we should not worry about them. His thought process was much like the stoic but taken to an extreme and strange direction: If I cannot do anything about it, I should not worry. If I cannot conceive thoughts about the world around me that are accurate, then I should not worry about the world. And if my thoughts are getting in the way of my happiness, then I should change them. Stoicism is a wonderful way to achieve freedom from worry, since it is much easier to live life if you only worry about the things you can change. I do like the idea of being pragmatic and first looking for what you can change (being pragmatic about your situation) and then worrying about the things that it makes sense to worry about.
5. Life is much easier when it matters. And philosophy requires a healthy dose of skeptics.
Section: H03
ReplyDeleteLHP Q2: Pyrrho was a brave thinker with deep rooted trust issues. Pyrrho decided to ditch his natural instincts and live life without a care in the world. Pyrrho decided that no one will completely understand what the world is, so why bother with processing such wasteful ideas. He forgot all about the unknown and focused on what was real. What he knew was truth and for that was nothing. He said free yourself from desire that tethers you to your emotions and just live without fear. That was exactly what Prryho did, he disconnected his emotions and set forth to just live.
LHP Q4: Pyrrho thought ditching your emotions led to a fulfilled life. Is this even possible? Can one just disregard emotion? This is a reality for some, nonetheless not to this extent. Suppressing emotions is possible for humans. Humans can go numb and turn off feelings for a while. Although with this ideology comes side effects. He explains how unhappiness is not getting what you want, and turning emotions off can enviably lead to happiness. However, I disagree with this hypothesis, eliminating some emotion destroys them all. It is an all-in or all out situation. You either feel them all or none. You can never be truly happy living as though you have no care. You can act fearless but be unbelievably depressed even if you feel nothing at all.
LHP Q5: Pyrrho’s philosophy closely led to his death time and time again. His beliefs led him into unique, deathly situations. Without fear one is simply a robot on autopilot. He lived his days to gain human experience. If all philosophers contributed to this philosophy, there would not be many of them remaining. This ideology is dangerous and only leads to death. The absence of emotions such as fear, anxiety, sympathy, etc. concludes a life not fit for living.
LHP:
ReplyDelete5. As Denis Diderot wrote: “Skepticism is the first step towards truth”. If you blindly accept everything that you hear or see, you are bound to find yourself tied up in a web of misinformation. However, Pyrrho took his skepticism to a point of near insanity. When you don’t take anything as truth, the world becomes a terrifying place. Nothing is right. Nothing is safe. So, modern philosophers took a middle ground: Always be a little skeptical of everything, as you never know what might be true or not, but don’t forget to learn to trust, as it is a vital part of maintaining strong relationships.
FL:
1. Hutchinson felt she was destined for Heaven and could determine who wasn’t. Through her belief in her “powers”, she established the precedent of determining her own beliefs and being “so American”. While this practice is surely a cornerstone of American patriotism, it’s important to realize the danger that comes with it. When you can believe anything, what’s stopping you from hurting yourself or those around you? If Hutchinson really couldn’t deduce a person’s acceptance into Heaven, how much misguided faith could she have spread?
3. Freedom of thought in 17th century America was expressed in a drastically different way compared to England due to America’s founding principle of freedom of speech and self-expression. You could believe whatever you deemed appropriate. For instance - As seen with Hutchinson and Williams - if you weren’t accepted in one town, you could simply create your own. In England, the practice of conformed belief led to continuous developments. In America, there were continuous schisms and fractures.
LHP Q2: Pyrrho never trusted his senses because, to him, the simple fact that they could be misled or tricked at all meant that they should never be trusted at all. I think this is an impossible thing to do, just in order to form the thought, "I know nothing" requires a knowledge of language to form which had to be learned when you were a child from your senses indicating there is some amount of trust that you must put on them just on the basis of being capable of complex thought.
ReplyDeleteH#3
ReplyDelete1. Most extreme skeptics during this time kept an open mind and avoided holding firm opinions. In this regard I do think they were Socratic.
2. Pyrrho believed that the senses were misleading and that was his main reason to not trust them. To do so in my opinion is not possible because your senses are directly connected to the messages sent to your brain of the world going on, so someone could truly drive themselves crazy trying to do so.
3. As a young man we know that Pyrrho visited India and its possible it influenced his lifestyle as the country had great traditions of spiritual teachers and gurus putting themselves through crazy amounts of physical deprivation.
H03
ReplyDeleteFL 5-
Cotton Mather had declared that spectral evidence would be allowed at the Salem Witch Trials, even with how tricky it was. However, after the first witch was hanged due to the evidence, Mather said they still needed to be careful when using it as evidence. This did not stop them from using it as prime evidence in the trials to come. Anderson thinks that The Crucible by Arthur Miller, got the depth in which Americans believed magic to be truly mad correct. Instead Miller had focused on how people exercised their power during the trials selfishly as they used witchcraft to spur them along in power.
Bobby Goodroe H03
ReplyDeleteLHP 1: The extreme skeptics differed from both Plato and Aristotle in the way they thought we should interact with the world around us. Where Plato thought we shouldn't concern ourselves with the physical reality and instead focus on forms and Aristotle thought we should exclusively concern ourselves with the physical reality, the skeptics thought that we could not trust our senses concerning the physical reality, but also that we couldn't use reason to achieve a higher or deeper knowledge.
LHP 4: Pyrrho thought his version of skepticism would lead to happiness because once one stopped being concerned with their senses, they could let go of worry. I think one could still be concerned with physical reality and still achieve freedom from worry.
FL 1: Anne Hutchinson felt in her gut that God had selected her to go to heaven. What makes her so American is how strongly she believed she was right.