Remember, we meet in the Library today. Go directly there: Room #264A. But still do the assigned reading, and post your comments.
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?
"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..."
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?
ReplyDeleteAt the core of skepticism is the value to question everything. This led many hardcore skeptics to refuse to hold any notions or beliefs as fact or unquestionable. A very sharp contrast to Aristotle and Plato who held specific ideals to be truth. I feel as though this makes skeptics "Socratic" as they are led to ask "why" and are not afraid to say "I don't know." That said, skepticism can go beyond Socrates philosophy of "only knowing how little he knew," because even the idea of knowing little can be challenged.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
Pyrrho knew his senses were never going to be 100% accurate. At times, they could even mislead him. So, he thought, "why trust them at all?" This way of thinking is, of course, incredibly dangerous. Pyrrho would willing put himself in life-threatening situations all because there was no way to prove what he saw, heard, or felt actually posed a threat to him. Pyrrho's well-being heavily relied on the people around him for they kept him out of danger. When you turn completely against your senses and instincts, you have no way of defending yourself or discerning what could hurt you. The only way to survive a life style under this philosophy is to have care takers or to be unrealistically lucky.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
The origin of Pyrrho's skepticism is often attributed to his visit to India, in which he encountered spiritual teachers who endured physical suffering to achieve inner peace.
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 his skepticism could lead to happiness through the indifference he felt. If there was no way to prove he should be fearful or worried, then he had no reason to be. Everything was simply a matter of opinion in his mind. I believe there are other ways to achieve ataraxia and that would be by accepting things as they are. They may not be how you want them to be or how you expected, but trying to come to terms with that may reduce worry. Whatever happens will happen kind of mentality.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
As touched on previously, extreme skepticism is an ultimately unhealthy and unsustainable philosophy to live by. This is why I think skepticism in moderation is preferred by philosophers.
As you mentioned in Q3 most of Pyrrhos influence was developed by his time spent with skeptics in India. What type of philosopher would he be if he spent his developing years in another country or surrounded by different culture?
DeleteEthan Klein poses a good question, as it is interesting that after spending time in India, Pyrrho adopted their teaching but to much more extremes that he had a team of friends that would help him when he found himself in the way of harm as he couldn't overcome it completely. I think if he went some where else he'd adopt their practices just as extreme.
DeletePyrrho believed senses are deceptive and what we percieve as reality may not be reality at all. The issue with this philosophy is that it leads to irrational decisions. Wisdom allows you to discern between rational and irrational decisions. If one were to truly follow this practice, lack of emotion and sensibility would plague their life.
ReplyDelete3. Pyrrho visited India during his earlier years. Many radical Indian thinker challenged their physical and mental being to achieve inner peace. Pyrrho believed that nothing mattered; therefore, there is no reason to worry, promoting inner peace.
Do you think Pyrrho was truly happy or someone who would be enjoyable to be around?
Personally, I think Pyrrho would be nice to be around due to his calm nature. I like to imagine he would be a fun conversationalist and there could be a lot to learn from him. I think he was happy to the best of his ability because he did not fret over anything.
DeleteHonestly, it would be a pain. Like the text said, his friends supposedly had to keep him out of trouble because he would never believe he was in any danger anyway. The complete lack of awareness or desire to decide anything, I fear, would just be annoying to have to deal with; even more annoying than talking with Socrates.
DeleteI believe it would be fun to have someone who questions even the most basic seen questions, as it kind of forces you to open your mind to things by being around him. It could be a bit tired some at times, but nevertheless a debate a day would be interesting.
DeleteI think he was fun or rather relaxing to be around because of how calm he was, but after a while I think it would become frustrating. Nothing would bother him not really because he was wise but because he stubbornly thought that nothing could really hurt him.
DeleteI believe being around or engaging Pyrrho in debate would be rather frustrating. The description of Pyrrho reminds me a lot of a friend of mine who is a skeptic (in a general sense) and sometimes plays devils advocate to things even when it derails the conversation and frustrates people. Often times this can lead to running in circles in discussions and things being said that don't contribute to the conversation or build it. If you're trying to solve problems, figure things out or gain understanding, throwing out any foundation of what you do know leaves you without grounds to stand on to build from.
DeleteI really agree with this perspective, if you go to far a theory of everything, it truly seems inevitable that everything will ultimately become nothing. Causing these irrational moves.
Delete^^^
DeleteI don't think Pyrrho would be fun to be around as mentioned before, the people around him prevented him from harm a lot of the times. In that regards I think his teachings can kind of be seen as harmful. However being able to detach your self in a way that Pyrrho does is much more interesting.
Delete2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
ReplyDeletePyrrho decided to "never trust his senses" because he believed that sense perception could not be relied upon to accurately reflect 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)?
Pyrrho thought that suspending judgement on all matters would lead to happiness. I personally think that as humans it is our nature to worry and nothing is wrong with that because it keeps us alive and safe.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
It allows them to openly question ideas without risking safety as well as to continue to learn. Not being skeptical in a way shuts down any added thought or questions one may come up with.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
ReplyDeletePyrrho decided to never trust his sense because he saw how misleading they can be. He saw that sometimes our sense could be telling our brain one thing, when in reality it was the complete opposite. An example he gave was seeing a fox when really it was a cat all along, or hearing a voice when it was really just the wind.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
ReplyDeleteHe visited India. This would have influenced him because a lot of his philosophies seem to be very similar to that of Indian gurus. Depriving one's self of desires to achieve inner peace is the basis of Pyrrho's teachings. You must let go of desire and the care of how things will turn out to be truly happy.
ReplyDelete4. 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 it led to happiness because it freed the soul from worry and wants. He thought that people put a lot of energy into things they couldn't control and by being skeptical you could save yourself for the anxiety of things turning out bad. By being skeptical you were allowing yourself to believe that a situation wasn't bad or could still end up ok despite the current evidence of it not being. I do think there are other ways to be happy and achieve freedom from worry, but I don't think Pyrrho's way is bad. I think it really depends on the person and the values they hold. Not ever philosophy is going to work for the next person, its just about finding one that gets you to a true place of happiness.
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?
ReplyDeleteThe most extreme skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle because they refused to hold firm opinions. They did this because their central teaching is questioning anything and everything for its legitimacy and true meaning. This type of philosophy, I would say, is Socratic because it takes much questioning and inquiring about different things. In fact, I would argue that this type of philosophy takes the most amount of questioning because the idea is to quite literally question everything.
I agree and find that quite true. Even within the span of an entire day, it would be impossible to question every single little thing in life. They could question a tree, but even the tree has apples, and even the apples have seeds. Not only do things constantly change, but every idea has multiple branches, making it nearly impossible to continuously have the same thoughts about something, especially in the cases of Plato and Aristotle.
DeleteWhile technically true, it is good to question things but after a certain point I am not sure how well this would fit into being "Socratic". I agree with everything you are saying though, but maybe he should question how much he questions.
DeleteAlthough I agree, I feel as though Socrates had a reasonable way of questioning everything to gain something from those he questioned. From my point of view, the extreme skeptics questioned everything just to question it, they weren't really seeking an answer.
Delete^Jacoby Meredith
Delete2. 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 claimed that oftentimes, our senses and thoughts of something are usually wrong. This decision is most definitely possible and something that could be good for the human mindset. If one always questions decisions or beliefs they see, it could lead to better decision-making in the future. However, while this can be positive, there are also negative consequences of not trusting your senses. Not only are you not going to be confident in the decisions that you make, but you are going to be unsure of your entire life at all times. For some people, this might be a good philosophy if they lean towards the nihilistic side; however, for someone who wants to find a purpose in life, this is the opposite of what they would like to believe.
3. 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 skepticism led to happiness because if you never know anything, why worry about finding the key to that information? If you believe nothing matters, you won’t have prior expectations of anything going into situations. Therefore, Pyrrho believes this is what makes one happy. Adding to this, yes, I believe there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry. However, if this idea allows Pyrrho and anyone else freedom from anxiety and worry, I would say do whatever makes you happy. Personally, I could find freedom from fear by finding a religion to stick by, developing confidence through exercise or mindful meditation, and even finding someone in my life that I could rely on. There are many more in addition to this, but ultimately, whatever makes one happy is the most crucial part.
I didn't consider your aspect of skepticism making someone entirely happy... I agree with your point that at the end of the day if it works, it works. No need to judge or find flaws in someone's way of thinking if it makes you truly happy. For me, I do not think skepticism would make me anywhere near happy. I get enjoyment from experiencing and feeling my senses. I think if I rejected everything, I felt it would lead to hopelessness and a sense that nothing in life matters.
DeleteI think that the take that if you know nothing there's nothing to worry about since none of it affects you is honestly really true. I don't think its a great way to live and it goes against the other ideas we've read and learned about (Especially Aristotle). However its very true. Ignorance truly is bliss. I think that some people choose to live their lives this way on purpose but for some I think its just the way it crumbles for them. However sometimes I do wish I was just some islander completely cut off from external society. Should would make life easier, and I wouldnt have to do CoPhi discussion posts.
Delete2- Pyrhho decided to never trust his senses because they could SOMETIMES mislead him, therefore could NEVER be trusted. In my opinion this is not prudent. I believe humans have limitations (that is, our senses misleading us from time to time). Depending on how you prefer to live your life (if you prefer to ignore things that COULD put your safety and health in jeopardy) it may be important for you to be aware of these limitations, and for me it is. I prefer to do things that will keep me as safe and as healthy as possible for as long as possible, and in my experience, I can do that by trusting my senses. For example, if I come across a dog that is jumping around and foaming at the mouth, I can rely on previous experience to conclude this dog is rabid, even though I don't know 100% (this is what I mean by limitations), its in my best interest to come to this conclusion.
ReplyDeleteIt really does read as how much someone is willing to put their own world into perspective. So, when this example translates into philosophical means, if you see something bad you have to believe your senses will read it as bad.
Delete***
DeleteWho, according to some early Puritans, were "Satan's soldiers"? DId you know the Puritans vilified the native Americans in this way? Why do you think that wasn't emphasized in your early education?
ReplyDelete“Satan’s soldiers” were what early settlers called Native Americans of the time. They viewed them as utter savages and not from God. I knew this already, because I am heavily into Native American literature, and I took a Native American Lit. course last semester, where we discussed the topic of discrimination and hatred that white settlers had for Natives. I think it is not emphasized in history books today, because America likes to make themselves the hero in history, even though they completely destroyed a way of life, ruined thousands of homes, and stole away land, resources, and children from an entire community of people. It’s ugly, embarrassing, and disgusting. America still doesn’t want to admit that they based their entire livelihood and being on a graveyard of people’s lives that they murdered senselessly all because they viewed themselves as better and more worthy of America…
On Pyrrho-
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Pyrrho on his principles of philosophy at all, but I do think some things ring true. For example, his ideas that things should be questioned and people shouldn’t automatically assume things are correct, as well as it’s important when living to keep an open mind and be willing to change the beliefs you hold to be true. However, I think it is completely foolish to reject your senses entirely. Questioning your senses, and saying “Why am I afraid? What is making me feel this way? Am I in danger or am I just frightened?” is different from saying, “What I feel is not real… I am projecting this feeling and experience through time and space into my reality, but who knows if I am actually experiencing it right now?” That to me is silly. I think your senses and what you perceive and feel is an important aspect of philosophy, because your senses tell you something about the situation, as well as it reveals your initial position on that matter. This is not to say everything you feel is necessarily real or the hard truth, because it is important to keep an open mind on your initial reactions in situations, but just because your senses can be wrong DOES NOT mean they should be completely ignored/ rejected.
I completely agree! There are a lot of systems biologically and psychologically that occur without any conscious thought or recognition. This goes beyond examples like his cat in the dark scenario. Even in interactions with each other, we view the world through our personally curated reality based on our life experiences. We are naturally designed for pattern recognition and filtering the world through a lens of survival. While we don't have to live in caves, fight in wars, forage for food etc, we still face modern day threats that our subconscious will try to avoid based on its perception. Sometimes that thing that's a huge threat is simply making a phone call, talking to strangers or some other silly thing that we consciously know isn't a threat, but experience anxiety because our subconscious isn't so convinced. This is why we should approach our thoughts, feelings and actions with a curiosity to understand in order to make an informed decision rather than ignoring it or simply telling yourself its wrong and not real.
DeleteI also strongly agree with your statement! I too thought that the idea of rejecting your senses is ridiculous to say the least. Your senses protect you and help to sense things in your everyday life. Though you don't have to always listen to your senses, it is hard not to because it's in our unconscious nature to do so. However, I did agree that we should not go through life thinking that we know everything or could know everything. We should go through life with an open mind.
DeleteI agree with you. I think that senses that we have are there for a reason and even thought it might make you happier in that moment to be ignorant to what we know as a society it defiencly isn't healthy for you. The same way that our bodies can feel heat so that we don't burn our skin off, I think that we can feel pressure from other things to help guide us to make a good decision about something/
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?
ReplyDeleteextreme skeptics differed from Aristotle and Plato because they avoided holding firm opinions on anything and everything. Their main teaching was that nobody knows anything whether they think they do or not. For example, Right now I would say I am laying on my bed doing my philosophy homework. They would say something like, "are you really reading, or are you imagining you are? or are you dreaming?" I would say this is not socratic, because it seems like when one is socratic and asks a bunch of questions to find understanding, they at least at some point do come to a final conclusion. Whereas skepticism I feel like the questions could endlessly go on and never stop.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
ReplyDeletePyrrho decided to never trust his senses because our senses often mislead us. The book gives an example of this- when you walking outside at night, you might see what appears to be a fox and then it's actually a cat. I don't think it is prudent because if one lives this way they aren't concerned with what could happen, even if it could be bad. Also it's not possible because if the world approached life like this, there would be very few of us left. We would have all walked off a cliff or mountain top, or approached a polar bear, or anything that would be an example of when natural human instincts kick in to keep us safe.
^ John Davidson
DeleteWhat country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
ReplyDeletePyrrho visited India as a young man and it might have influenced his philosophy because of Indias spiritual teachers and gurus putting themselves through extreme things to continue their search for inner stillness. They would bury themselves alive and hang weights from there body and go weeks without food. Pyrrho would do things that were on this level of extreme so it makes since to believe that they would have been influenced from his time in India
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
ReplyDeleteMost philosophers choose to adopt more moderate versions of Pyrrho's skepticism because there is no practical nor logical way forward if you do not operate under certain assumptions. The first is that your senses can measure the world around you to a reliable enough degree of accuracy for everyday purposes. The second assumption is that you can act in a self preserving and self benefitting way from the data you receive from your senses. Like if you see an angry dog running in your direction, you should probably trust your senses and your instincts and act in a way so to prevent being mauled by a dog. It's not the dog's fault. The dog is just doing what it thinks it has too. Getting ripped apart by a dog is a horrible way to die so while we are not certain of the dog's intentions; better safe than sorry.
All this to say, while it is useful to scrutinize what things appear to be to make sure there isn't more meaning hidden, we must apply tenative certainty to some facts or else you could never progress to any higher knowledge through reasoning, experimentation and observation. This is why most philosophers will adopt moderate skepticism.
2- Pyhrro traveled to India as a young man. In India, people would put themselves through "extreme and almost unbelievable physical deprivation" to achieve "inner-stillness" as stated in the text. I believe as Pyhrro saw people letting go of their fears and worries to achieve "happiness", he realized he was willing to do something similar.
ReplyDelete1. Pyhrro decided to never trusted his senses because he believed they were never 100% right. I don't believe it is possible for someone to NEVER trust their senses.
ReplyDelete2. Pyhrro visited India as a young man. I believe this led to his philosophy because of the harsh things he had to witness people go through.
3.Pyhrro believed by suspending judgments on all matters was the way to happiness. I think there are many ways of achieving some sense of freedom over worry. Worrying is not all bad, but removing it completely can be dangerous in a way.
I think that's a good point. I also cannot imagine completely ignoring one's senses, but only for one. Pyrrho demonstrates how we do not know that what we see, hear, smell, taste, and feel by the sense alone is what is real. How can we tell that we aren't dreaming? That the salt we taste is actual salt? That a smell isn't coming from you but someone else? These are valid questions, however. The one sense that I don't believe you can ignore as easily though would be instinct, should you think instinct as a sort of 6th sense. It's the general idea of what you feel is right without reason, which is the direct opposite of Pyrrho's lessons.
DeleteI agree. While he questions everything what reason has he to believe his senses are also wrong? To resist such a natural response seems more like stubbornness than anything else.
Delete1.The extreme skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle through their rejection of the existence of any form of fact/truth. Extreme skeptics taught that one should not form firm opinions on any matter. I don't think these skeptics are truly "Socratic" even though they overlap at times. However, Socrates used his methods of asking questions to get closer to the facts/truth of life and reality. I think the best way to describe the differences between Socrates and the skeptics is by saying Socrates spent is life searching for truth whilst the skeptics spent their lives denying the existence of truth
ReplyDelete4.Pyrrho believed that his extreme skepticism led to whoever followed it would be freed from all worry and therefore nothing could affect their inner tranquility. I think that there are an infinite number of ways to achieve freedom from worry. I think this is because every person is different and one person's way of achieving complete freedom from worry might not work for another person.
5.Most philosophers favor moderate skepticism over Pyrrhonic skepticism because they'd likely be dead if they followed Pyrrho's form of extreme skepticism. Moderate skepticism is also more in line with the spirit of philosophy which is the search for wisdom and understanding by asking questions.
1.) The most extreme Sceptics differed from Aristotle and Plato because they believed in avoiding holding firm opinions on anything. Their main teaching was to basically keep an open mind on everything and don't only settle on what you believe to be true. Your thoughts can always be expanded on. I would say that it is similar to Socratic thinking.
ReplyDelete2.) Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because he thought that our senses can be misleading and make you susceptible to mistakes. I don't really believe that one can never trust their senses as they are commonly out of our control on a regular basis.
3.) Pyrrho visited India as a young man, and this affected his philosophy because India has a tradition of putting themselves through extreme and almost unbelievable physical control over their psyche and body. Many people probably considered this mad and considered Pyrrho mad as well.
4.) Pyrrho thought that Skepticism led to happiness because the foundations of your thinking are not guaranteed to get you what you want so in order to be happy you should free yourself from desires and not care about if things don't work out.
It depends on the person, but ways you can free yourself from worry is to plan things out, give yourself grace and times, and take breaks and care for yourself.
5.) Most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism because they always looked at evidence for what they believed instead of just believing that everything is a doubtful truth. They wanted to get closer to the truth.
1.) Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because he took the notion "you can't know anything," too literally, even to the extreme. This decision is the complete opposite of prudent and shows he does not care for a single thing that he ever sees or touches.
ReplyDelete2.) Philosophers have favored moderate skepticism because we should always question things and try to get to the bottom of what we're being told. We shouldn't believe anything and everything that we see or are told about. Definitely shouldn't be as extreme as Pyrrho, but it's always good to check and make sure yourself that something is completely as it seems.
3.) As said in How the World Works, on page 54, "Logic is simply the systematic working through of the implications of true statements." I believe that I am logical. I can make my own decisions on what I do throughout the day, how I schedule the things I do, and I also have a process that I go through to remember things. This all is only a portion of what shows that I am logical.
In response to your question 1, I see how you are thinking, but I wouldn't say that Pyrrho didn't care about anything he sees or touches, he just has a hands-off approach to information around him. Basically, he held the thought that we shouldn't worry so much about what we don't know and just continue to expand on what we could know.
Delete1. Extreme skeptics like Pyrrho were different than Aristotle and Plato. Pyrrho avoids having firm opinions on anything. He believed that everything is a matter of opinion. I feel like this goes against what I have learned about philosophy so far. Philosophy is about wisdom and learning the truth. If Pyrrho does not have any strong opinions or beliefs, how is he a true philosopher?
ReplyDelete2. Pyrrho did not trust his senses because he said they can be misleading. Although that is true, I believe that we have senses for a reason and should put them to use. I do not think it is fully possible to not trust your senses. If I was Pyrrho I would be questioning my decisions a lot.
3. Pyrrho believed that in order to be happy you must free yourself from desires and not worry about the outcome of things. It can lead to disappointment of what you don't have, so it is better to enjoy the things you do have. Therefore, nothing can affect your mood and eventually you'll be free of worry.
4. Since Pyrrho does not trust his senses, it is almost like he has no fear. The example used in the book was that he could feel his body tilting if he was standing on the edge of a cliff but he would not step back because he does not trust his senses. If that is true I feel like he would fear everything. Our senses are there to help us, but Pyrrho's was useless in his aspect of life.
I believe that Pyrrho is just as much a philosopher as Socrates. He admits that he knows nothing, but that he also doesn't WANT to know anything. He questions *why* we pick beliefs the way that we do, and it that sense, he questions the ideas of believing as a whole. His wisdom comes from his experience and his mindset of challenging decision.
DeleteAs far as I've read and understood about Pyrrho, he doesnt seek to find out "why" to anything. Instead, he appears to believe that even if something is staring him blatantly in the face, he cannot trust that he truly knows or can define what it is in front of him. With this being the case, it would be useless to ask questions like "why do we choose to believe, behave or think a certain way" because how could he know that his deduction, observation or even the other persons account is true.
Delete1. 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?
ReplyDeleteBecause for Plato and Aristotle there were some things that were unquestionable and seem like facts, however skeptics never assume anything. Yes I do think they were Socratic just an extreme form of it.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
He thought senses can deceive us and so he never fully trusted them, I think this can be true however again I think this is very extreme to live by.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
He visited India, giving him a sense of eastern religion and a focus on spirituality.
1. These extreme skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle in the fact that they affirmed neither rejected a position and claim that nothing in reality can be known or understood. They were far from Socratic as they did not desire to seek "truth" as Socrates was.
ReplyDelete2. He never trusted his senses because they were not always reliable. I think this is foolish because our senses has proven to help us in many situations such as danger.
3. Pyrrho visited India. His interactions with the mystics and teachers of the Hindu religion may have influenced him to live his ascetic lifestyle as that of the eastern peoples.
4. Pyrrho believed his lifestyle can lead to happiness because it encourages you to let go of desires and beliefs that can affect your mood, especially if you do not have them. I believe that striving towards those goals and living out our convictions can also lead us to a happy life.
5. I would say that modern philosophers are moderate skeptics because it still encourages them to seek out and determine what is true and false, unlike extreme skeptics.
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?
ReplyDeleteTheir main difference in ideology was the fact that skeptics believed that true knowledge is impossible to claim. They believed that we cannot know everything and therefore we should not cast judgement on others. Socrates believed that you could discover knowledge entirely.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?'
ReplyDeleteI believe that Pyrrho didn't trust his senses because of the possibility of them being wrong. In the chapter it is mentioned that an example of your senses being wrong is that you imagine someone saying your name which often happens to me. However, I believe that everybody follows their senses as they are there for a reason and are need for survival. Animals use them a lot more than we do and are necessary to find food and survive, but that does not mean that isn't the case for us. If you were to follow Pyrrho's behavior, you would break it because if you were to see something potentially dangerous while walking alone, your first instinct would be to move with caution or run and another example is if you smell something very bad, you'll immediately start to gag and would instinctually cover your nose and move away from the smell.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
ReplyDeletePyrho believed that we could not trust the senses. They could be too easily altered under certain conditions. People also have different sensory levels meaning they may perceive the same things differently. Humans often rely understand themselves including understanding what one is feeling.
4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
ReplyDeleteHe believe that because by following extreme skepticism, you would no longer need to make calls or judgement with your life as choosing options can be stressful and can have repercussions after making a call. I guess one way you can achieve ataraxia is by isolating yourself from society. Although that isn't ideal, it can definitely work as interacting with others could lead to many tough decisions that can make your life stressful.
I see your point, but I also don't think you would entirely stop worrying about anything and everything. I feel as though it also might add on more stress when you have nothing to release that emotion into.
Delete3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
ReplyDeleteHe visited India which is where he met people who managed to endure tough situations for days or even weeks which possibly allowed him to not take any threat or decision seriously as he questioned whether he could go through said situation with sheer resilience or through chance.
4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
ReplyDeleteIt allowed him to detach from his emotions. He would no longer be burden by the weight of his feelings. By not taking anything seriously nothing could affect him. He accepted life as is and was no longer worried about uncertainty.
ReplyDelete1. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
The nonexistent chance of finding truth led him to disregard worry. To some level I don’t think there is. Liberation from worry requires one to let go, so maybe Pyrrho’s intensity was extreme but he’s on to something.
2. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
Modern skepticism is interested in challenging thought and belief for the sake of getting closer to truth. Opposed to Pyrrho’s disregard for seeking truth due to the inability to attain it. But, 99% still has value in my eyes.
Pyrrho said that unhappiness results from not getting what you want. Thus, his extreme skepticism, supposedly, makes him happy. So then what is happiness in his eyes? Is it the satisfaction of not having to decide or feel a certain way that causes comfort? In a way, there can be a lot of parallels drawn to laziness and the phrase "ignorance is bliss" that may have arrived out of this skepticism.
ReplyDeleteLaziness was something I thought about through this -
DeleteLike, Why worry about something when there are others around who could take care of what needed to be done?
They differ by not holding any firm opinions on anything whatsoever, a teaching that did not care to figure out the understanding of life but just there to question others with the sole purpose of disagreeing. I do not believe they were Socratic, being Socratic was a means of getting people to question what they knew and to go deeper, while skeptics could not care what you gained from questioning.
ReplyDeleteHe decided to never trust his senses because there were times where senses had tricked him into believing what was not actually true. He kept this ideology even if most the time his senses were right. I think it is very possible, humans are very capable of these decisions, but I do find it very foolish even if I do admire his determination.
He visited India, this might have affected his views as Gurus put themselves through insanely unbearable situations, this which could have inspired his way of thinking.
1. Aristotle and Plato held very solid opinions on things with little to no wavering whatsoever. This goes against a skeptic's view that you never truly know what's going on, and that anything could happen any way, a very impartial take on life. The skeptics also taught that forming these strong opinions is not exactly useful due to their ambivalence. I would consider these opinions not "Socratic", because while Socrates always preached about always asking questions, he usually did this so he COULD form opinions.
ReplyDelete2. Pyrrho decided to not trust his senses because he deemed them "unreliable". The concept of not believing anything to such an extent meant that he could be hallucinating or dreaming of any of these senses, and that they were not even real or perhaps didn't cause the feelings/turmoil that something like a dog attack might lead to. I would consider this not wise as I personally have an interest in living for as long as I can manage, but I suppose if you were not too sure on if you were really even living or if death was something that could truly affect you, then one might call this a form of wisdom.
3. Pyrrho visited the country of India when he was younger. The affluential gurus and wisemen of the country were very much in tune with nature and feeling connected to the earth. Their ideologies were vague and peaceful enough to coincide with Pyrrho's beliefs (he may argue that they are not even beliefs). The concept of horrible situations not phasing a person came from this visit.
4. I believe Pyrrho achieved happiness because his actions and thought-patterns led to a life where he eliminated anxiety for himself entirely. Maybe this is a form of nihilism in a way as he did not truly believe in anything, and thus was unable to be phased by the harsh realities of life that most others are subject to. I do think you can achieve a form of freedom of worry via introspection. I tend to think about what worries me and why, and come to realize that sometimes there's nothing I can do about these sorts of things and that they're not exactly worth worrying about because of this. The things I mostly worry about now are situations I can alter and if I will be able to fulfill my part in them so that my life can go as well as possible when it comes to my desires.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
ReplyDeleteBecause our senses can sometimes mislead us - while in some cases it may be good to question our perception, other cases could yield death if you do not heed the warning from your senses.
Charles Myint
ReplyDelete5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
DeleteBecause the idea of philosophy is to seek truth and question someone’s understanding - not push the limits to risk life and limb, especially when a situation could obviously result in something harmful.
Question 1: How did the most extreme skeptics (or skeptics, if you prefer the British spelling) differ from Plato and Aristotle? What was their main teaching? Do you think they were "Socratic" in this regard?
ReplyDeleteResponse 1: The extreme skeptics, the Pyrrhonists, differed from Plato and Aristotle in that they believed that certain knowledge is impossible. While Plato and Aristotle sought objective truths—through his theory of ideal forms for Plato, and through empirical observation for Aristotle—skeptics counter that since all beliefs are always companionable by plausible arguments, we should suspend judgment (epoche) and seek mental tranquility. Where there is a clear resemblance to Socrates' method of questioning, the skeptics have gone further, to an outright denial of the possibility of true knowledge. Where Plato and Aristotle sought to discover certain truths, the skeptics have emphasized the limitations of human understanding as their goal.
Question 2:What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
Response 2: Being young, Pyrrho travelled to India and thus, most probably, during the period of Alexander the Great’s military expeditions. During his journey he met Indian philosophers especially those who were skeptical or ascetic in their nature, such as the Gymnosophists and possibly even the early Buddhist philosophers. It is possible that the emphasis on the detachment from beliefs and desires, and on the criticism of sensory perception and knowledge, which characterizes the early Greek skepticism, was also shared by Pyrrho. The above ideas may have helped to develop the concept of radical skepticism which is attributed to Pyrrho who stated that there is no way of knowing what is true and what is false and therefore one should deny knowledge to attain ataraxia or mental peace.
Question 3: Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
Response 3: Having found that his senses were unreliable and deceptive, Pyrrho decided not to trust them at all. He pointed out that sensory experiences were contradictory and inconsistent and that one could not rely on them for certain knowledge because they differed from person to person and from moment to moment. In order to achieve tranquillity, he took a radical skeptical stance and suspended judgement. Whether this decision is prudent or possible to implement is not quite clear. while it is wise to know the limitations of our senses, it may be impractical to reject them completely, as sensory data are necessary for us to move around and interact with the world. Since we have to use perception for basic survival, it is an extreme and probably an impossible one to abandon in the daily life.
The most extreme skeptics believed it was best to not hold any firm opinions whatsoever, which is really silly and quite frankly, stupid in my opinion. This is different from other philosophers because many of them at least held some kind of opinions, such as Aristotle's idea of obtaining virtues and eudaimonia. The main teaching and idea of the skeptics is that we really know nothing at all. A skeptic would question whether or not I'm really typing on my laptop right now or just imagining that I am doing so. Really, it's dumb.
ReplyDelete- Mac McDaries
DeleteI think opinions are un avoidable. Everyone has a opinion whether you want to have one or not.
DeleteI agree, even when we aren't trying, we are still forming opinions about things.
DeleteMost philosophers have probably favored a more moderate form of skepticism than Phyrro's because Phyrro's ideology was dumb and stupid and could get you hurt. Like what... genuinely why would anyone think it makes sense to not trust your senses? Yes, be Socratic and question everything, but don't be stupid and reckless in the name of not trusting anything.
ReplyDeleteHe decided to never trust his senses because if he was to follow his own philosophy, not even the most natural and basic instinct could be trusted. However having this kind of way of thinking seems very paradoxical, because how can he trust that this is the way to think without questioning the fact that he is questioning everything, and if everything needs to be questioned?
ReplyDeleteI think the way he was thinking was very counter intuitive. He does not trust anything, so how can he trust his own questioning. If that makes sense.
Delete1. 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?
ReplyDelete-They differed because they did not have real opinions on matters, they simply wanted to question everything. I believe this is Socratic due to its inquisitive nature.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
ReplyDelete-He believed senses mislead and misguide us. Ignoring senses 100% of the time is possible, but those who do this will die far sooner than others, whether by animal mauling, touching something hot, falling in a deep hole, drowning, etc.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
ReplyDelete-Pyrrho visited India as a young man and saw how their people endured struggle and pain, yet still achieved spiritual fulfillment. This gave Pyrrho a sense of inspiration that led to his philosophies of strength and resilience.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
ReplyDeletePyrrho visited India and saw how many would put themselves through extreme situations where they endured significant pain which likely influenced his calm state of mind when going about life.
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?
ReplyDeleteThey differ because they believe that there is no way to ever retain a solid amount of knowledge. They almost believe that knowledge is bad because you can rely on it, and there is nothing we should be relying on. Socrates for example believed that there is a lot of knowledge that can be gained just from asking questions and getting different perspectives, but extreme skeptics would say this is not good because you shouldn't even think about relying on their opinions
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
Phyrro thought that no matter how clear something may be because of your sense, you cannot rely that it is true/real because it could just be some sort of hallucination. The book tells us how he did react to a dog bite and pulled back from it. I don't think its even possible to live in this way. I think this takes away from us being real at all.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
Phyrrho visited India as a young man and I think this simply just pushed his radical skeptical beliefs to a whole new level. He met and talked with a bunch of groups of skepticists just like him
Henry Hamlin 006
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?
ReplyDelete* They avoid holding firm opinions on anything.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
* He chose to not trust his senses because they can be misleading. An example given was that we may believe we see a fox while we are looking in the dark, but reeky it is just a cat. I don’t believe this can be even possible, because our senses are a part of not only our conscious, but also our subconscious. I dob’t believe we can truly ignore them. The book mentioned that there was word that even Pyrrho himself flinched when a dog had nipped at him.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
* He visited India, and that might have influenced him because of the great tradition of spiritual teachers and gurus who put themselves through enormous amounts of physical deprivation. This might have led him to be as extreme as he was.
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 our foundations of thought wasn’t as strong as we wanted to believe, thus making it unlikely that they would make us happy. He also said we shouldn’t commit to any view because if we can’t know for sure, we should “suspend all judgement and live our lives in an uncommitted way.” He says unhappiness comes from not getting what we want, and that we can’t know if one thing is better than another. “To be happy you should free yourself from desires and not care about how things turn out.” I personally don’t believe we can truly do this, seeing as we subconsciously care about things. It’s a human instinct that I don’t think we can just bypass because we want to.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
* They want to get closer to the truth. They want to reveal what we truly know or don’t know.
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?
ReplyDeleteWell I think that pyrrho was doubt heavy, he preached not being trusting of much whilst also suspending our judgement onto others. They were kind of socratic because of their seeking of knowledge.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
ReplyDeleteHe visited India as a young man. This likely introduced him to Buddhism which is a prominent world religion even today, I don't think this gave him his skepticism but it likely gave him the idea of suspending judgement to achieve "tranquility"
4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
ReplyDeleteI believe it gave him the ability to observe the world fully, and think independently in all situations. It let him accept things as they truly are.
2. Pyrrho chose not to trust his sense because he believed in skepticism. He believed that one should never blindly accept things as they appear but instead assume that nothing can be known with certainty. However, the extent that he took it almost feels impossible. He was described as reckless and constantly putting himself in danger because of how extreme his skepticism was.
ReplyDelete4. Pyrrho believed extreme skepticism led to happiness because you dont have to care or think much about anything. If you just accepted things as they are and didnt bother, you will not feel worried or anxious about it. He was very indifferent and nonchalant about everything. I think along with this approach, there are certainly other ways of achieving freedom from worry. For example, focusing on hobbies or distractions can be a way of not thinking so much about worries.
5. Most philosophers have adopted a moderate form of skepticism because the idea itself leads to questioning things and seeking deeper answers or getting closer to the truth. It provides useful to them. However, an extreme form of it felt excessive and even dangerous or illogical.
The most extreme skeptics differed from Aristotle and Plato in that they avoided holding opinions on anything whatsoever. Their main teaching was to keep an open mind and not to hold any beliefs with absolute certainty. They were "Socratic" but much more extremely so than Socrates himself.
ReplyDeletePyrrho decided not to trust his senses because he felt there was no way to be certain they weren't deceiving him. This does not seem very prudent, but it does seem possible. At least in part. You would probably need a lot of help to live even a somewhat normal life.
ReplyDelete^Nate Griffin
DeletePyrrho visited India and was exposed to gurus and spiritual teachers who went to extreme lengths to find inner peace. This may have been a source of inspiration for his later extreme philosophy. Perhaps he was curious about the inner peace the gurus and spiritual teachers sought after. It must have seemed very valuable if someone was willing to be buried alive or go on a prolonged fast, several weeks in duration, in order to attain it.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great explanation as to where he traveled as a young man as well as how he came about his own philosophy
Delete1. 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?
ReplyDeleteThey don't believe in forming opinions on things. I think this is similar to Socrates in the sense that he encouraged asking questions; however, it isn't necessarily Socratic because Socrates sought the truth.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
Because he believed that they can be misleading. Although I can understand this belief, I dont think its wise to live your life never trusting your senses. From personal experience, there are times where you should trust your gut or listen to your emotions.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
He visited India as a young man. His philosophy may have been influenced due to the gurus he encountered that pushed their physical and mental being in order to achieve inner peace.
1. I believe most skeptics were not Socratic in he way they trust no ones but their own judgements, whilst Socrates asked question and tried to gain information from whomever he asked.
ReplyDelete2. He believed that the senses could be wrong or misguided in. In personal experience I do not fully agree with this sense some choices have to be rational while others emotional.
3. Pyrrho visited India and learned from gurus on finding inner peace which could have shaped his own beliefs.
2. He believed that they were unreliable and deceptive hence skepticism.
ReplyDelete3. He traveled to India, so his exposure to the Eastern Philosophies/ traditions probably influenced his personal philosophy.
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?
ReplyDeleteExtreme skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle because they avoided holding firm opinions on topics and are open to the idea of questioning everyone and everything around them.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
Pyrrho never trusted his senses because he thought they could be misleading. I think this is impossible because we learn everything through our senses, and it would be impossible to continue learning without listening to your senses and instincts.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
Pyrroh visited India as a young man, I believe it influenced his philosophy because of the cultural differences and the way people behave and the mannerisms are completely different which may have impacted his philosophy and way of thinking.
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 his extreme skepticism led to happiness because it led to a state of mental tranquility (or ataraxia). I definitely think there are other ways to achieve ataraxia and I believe it changed among people based on their characteristics.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
Most philosophers favor a moderate skepticism because they believe it’s good to question life and what occurs but not to the point of not believing or trusting in anything.
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?
ReplyDeletePhyrrho and his followers took doubt to the extreme, Plato and Aristotle who were more focused on discovering truth through reason and observation. Socrates questioned everything and he sought wisdom, and extremists believed that true knowledge was impossible.
2. Why did Phyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
Phyrrho felt as if he trusted within himself, and his own feelings would mislead him. Seeing how finnicky humans are and we grow and adapt, he did not see how we would have knowledge in that regard thus ignoring his senses.
3. What country did Phyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy? He went to India where he inverted philosophies like Buddhism and they helped his radical skepticism and focus on inner peace.
4. How did Phyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
He believed that constant search and worry for truth and knowledge will stress you out. I find my foundation in faith alone, so I do not seek anything outside of what I inquire from God or what is already written in his word
5. In contrast to Phyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why? Extreme doubt makes life really difficult. We can still reason science to make reliable decisions, so completely disregard it would not be helpful in everyday life.
Q1 - Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
ReplyDeleteA1 - Pyrrho decided that his senses were unreliable and resulted in a deception of the true state of reality therefore leaving him lacking trust in those senses. He was also plagued with skepticism, stating we can never be certain about what is real and that we should suspend all judgment and embrace a state of tranquility or "ataraxia". Unfortunately, this idea/experience of his is neither practical or possible after all is said and done we rely on our senses to survive.
Q2 - What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
A2 - The country that he visited as a young man was India. I can only assume he encountered Indian philosophical traditions, particularly those associated with Buddhism. This early exposure might have further shaped his skepticism and the belief that detaching judgement is the goal to gain peace of mind
Fantasy Land
Q3 - What did Hutchinson and Roger Williams help invent?
A3 - These two helped invent the idea of religious freedom & the separation of church and state.
How The World Thinks
Q4 - According to secular reason, the mind works without what? Are you a secularist? Why or why not?
A4 - According to secular reason, the mind works without supernatural or divine influence leaving the mind to operate through other processes like observation, reason, and logic. I would consider myself a secularist as my minds first operations are logic based and not divine or supernatural based.