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..."
Section #1
ReplyDeleteLHP
4. Pyrrho believe that you could achieve an "inner tranquility" by not worrying about dangers in life. I am not exactly sure that his logic behind the physical harm of things is totally valid (dog is mad, dog has big teeth, dog has bitten other people, dog will probably bite you if you aren't careful-- my reasoning behind it). However, I took his wantonness as not letting misfortunes affect your composure. I am reminded of Marcus Aurelius's "duty" to wake up and go to his job as a human being. Misfortunes can get you down, but if you know that some of them won't affect you in the long run-- perhaps it's best not to fret over them? In this small way, I felt like I related to Pyrrho, especially in this second week of college (and inundated schedule...). I feel like I need to not worry so much about the small things since I know they won't ruin my life or anything. I think that is where I differ with Pyrrho, as he believed that no one knew anything.
Corey Gugino, Section #2
ReplyDeleteLHP 1
They believed that you could not know anything for certain- that even typing this is something I can't be certain I'm doing. Their main teaching was that you couldn't trust your senses to tell the 100% truth, so everything should be scrutinized.
I think that this mindset is "Socratic" in the sense that it acknowledges how little someone might know, and how valuable asking questions is to examine the things around you. However, it doesn't seem like a 1:1 comparison- in the examples we are given for the type of questions Socrates asked, he seemed very focused on "how?" and "why?" and less on whether or not the ground we walk on really exists.
I agree, I think there is an element to skepticism that's very humble and could be considered socratic in nature. It's kind of saying I know nothing so I am open to everything. The part that I feel is not socratic is the application of skepticism, I don't think Socrates ever walked off of a cliff because he was curious about what would happen. Maybe this is the difference in extreme and moderate skepticism. I agree with your last point that Socrates wanted to know how and why instead of questioning the legitimacy of solid things right in front of him.
DeleteCorey Gugino, Section #2
ReplyDeleteLHP 4
I know that someone else answered this question, but I have a bit of a different angle on it. Pyrrho believed that extreme indifference was the key to happiness- if nothing matters, there's nothing to worry about. He said something that I found thought-provoking, which is that unhappiness stems from "not getting what you want."
Is that true? I find it very difficult to argue that point. I think about all my stressors and worries, and really, they're all things that I don't want; things not going my way, things I want but don't have, so on and so forth. But I disagree that dropping these things leads to happiness on it's own, unless we are defining "happiness" as simply a lack of "unhappiness."
I also see where he was going with his mindset of indifference. To worry is to care- it's much easier to replace tough emotions such as sadness or frustration with not caring at all. However, I believe that approaching life with such indifference robs us of the ability to feel the extreme joys of life as well. If nothing matters, sure, my car breaking down is a small blip. But if nothing matters, can I truly enjoy spending time with my friends? Playing a good video game, reading a good book?
I think Pyrrho's view was extreme, but I think the foundation that he sets for further thought is interesting.
That is very interesting, I believe I would be somewhere in between. I would argue that the idea of freedom for worrying can be extremely beneficial, however complete and total indifference is dangerous. Although, I also believe that sometimes worrying is necessary. If one has no worries in the world, they might cease to participate in the important daily parts of life that we must participate in as a society. If I do not worry about being tired, I will not sleep. If I do not worry about being hungry, I will not eat. Both of these things are vital to functioning as a human. I wonder what Pyrrho would have to say about the modern scientific process and the results of experiments. If nothing could ever be totally true, how could we move forward? Although, I do agree that is it best to not care in the context of what people think about you. So maybe I am somewhere in between.
DeleteI would have to agree with you on that. While I understand what Pyrrho was getting at with his idea of skepticism and indifference, I do not think that total indifference is the way to go. As you said, I don't think happiness can be defined as just the lack of distraught or worries. Furthermore, being worried is what often leads me to finding the correct course of action because I am actively trying to avoid something. I don't think Pyrrho would do well in today's scientific world because many things have been proven to be true, but he wanted to question everything. It would be interesting to see how he would react to today's scientific world.
DeletePersonally, I think that Pyrrho's philosipy goes against being human is all about. As humans we are supposed to care about things and feel emotions. We have senses, so we should use them. The whole reason we're in school right now is becasue we care enough about something to pursue it, even if part of the reason is because we want money. Pyrrho sounds like a really exhausting person to be around and I feel like if I knew him today or he was in one of my classes I would do everything in my power to stay away from him.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I would much rather rely on my experiences and emotions to teach about the world instead of assuming that they hold no value whatsoever. If emotions are useless, why are they ingrained in us? However, this is not to say that emotions are always correct. I do believe they can be deceptive. Like most things in life, there is always a middle ground.
DeleteI agree, Abby. The human experience is not supposed to be a neutral thing in my opinion. Balanced, maybe, but there are definitely supposed to be highs and lows. Pyrroh didn't seem to have a zest for life beyond putting himself in bad situations in the name of "not knowing." Honestly I'm skeptical that he really believed in the things he said or if he was just faking invulnerability.
DeletePhilopateer Iskandar section 3
DeleteI believe in that a person should listen to their instinct since they have been put into us so that we may know when a situation is dangerous or safe but when it comes to logistical thinking and not that something is dangerous or not I think then it is alright to question it in order to have a better understanding of this subject.
I agree. Especially when you consider our instincts and senses. Our bodies have learned how to protect us, and ignoring that just seems wrong. Let's take the example of the dog. If that dog looks like it is going to bite you, is acting like it wants to bite you, and is currently charging at you, why wouldn't you think it was going to attack you? Will it, maybe not, but our body has learned to perceive threats, and we should take that seriously. While his approach is honorable, it is not practical.
DeleteBella York, Section #3
ReplyDelete4. Pyrrho visited India and witnessed their religious leaders, also known as gurus, practice extreme self deprivation. They put themselves through this (and still do) in hopes of reaching absolute freedom from desire. Adopting extreme skepticism –to the point of self injury-, Indian beliefs seemed to influence his philosophy to a high degree.
Regarding Sep. 2nd’s discussion, I wonder if Aristotle conflated happiness with success. This could of course be the mistake of Warburton and not Aristotle, since Eudaimonia is regularly defined as “success” or “flourishing.” I don’t understand the view that Eudaimonia is better defined as “happiness.” We discussed how it doesn’t mean simple pleasure, like eating ice cream, and that that Eudaimonia can be affected after one dies. To me, this sounds like a “perfect form” of success, one that is objective and likely impossible to attain fully.
I appreciated when Warburton said philosophers don’t ask difficult questions “just for the sake of being difficult. The point of moderate philosophical scepticism is to get closer to the truth, or at least to reveal how little we know or can know” (Warburton, p. 20). I’ve encountered this personally. When asking why something is or suggesting an alternative, the most common response I receive is defensiveness, confusion, or the response “this is how it has always been.” Why are people so resistant to new ideas? I much better like Socrates’ position of being open to everything or even Pyrrho’s assuming nothing.
Section 2
ReplyDeleteLHP 2
Pyrrho didn't trust his senses because he thought them unreliable and misleading. He makes an example of it by saying that it's easy to make a mistake by looking at something in the dark or hearing something in the wind. However, he does accept that there is a possibility that his senses might be right in some cases and keeps an open mind to it. He is skeptical of his senses to the point of the extreme. He would rather ignore his instincts even when walking towards a cliff because he doesn't know how his senses might be tricking him. I don't think this extreme skepticism towards the senses is prudent because it can lead to problematic situations. I would instead adopt a moderate skepticism such as modern philosophers have done. It's good to question everything like Socrates, and trust your instincts in the world around you like Aristotle.
I agree with you on your evaluation of Phyrrho's prudence and I have to agree with your decision to adopt a moderate amount of skepticism. I also appreciate your callback to Aristotle's philosophy of trusting your instincts, and its inverse with Socrates's philosophy of questioning everything.
Delete4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
ReplyDeletePyrrho believed that his extreme skepticism led to happiness because it reduced everything to mere opinion rather than fact. This mindset, in turn, transformed things we might find terrifying or worrisome into events to which we simply assign value, instead of events with fixed value. I do believe in Pyrrho’s way of achieving ataraxia to an extent; however, I also recognize its pitfalls. It may be true that by being less affected by situations in which urgency and value are determined by us, we can alleviate stress and move closer to freedom from worry. Yet I also believe this approach has logical limits. What I mean is that we can suppress our feelings for as long as our mind allows, but at the end of the day, it is those very emotions that shape our lived experience. To deny them is, in effect, to deny what makes us who we are.
I agree with your take on implementing Pyrrho's methods of achieving ataraxia, suppressing our feelings to such an extent is far easier said than done and in my opinion could easily end up causing more harm than good.
DeleteAddison Mckinney - Section 2
DeleteI love your last line, "To deny them is to deny what makes who we are," as when I was reading I thought the same thing--a life without any cares or values seems to me, pointless and a very sad way to live.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
ReplyDeletePhyrrho decided to never trust his senses because he knew that our minds can often trick us and he believed that the certainty that our mind offered us was merely a fabrication. In my opinion this decision can be described as prudent but the deciding factor is more commonly what each of us as individuals believe. I personally think that this form of skepticism is more detrimental than helpful. I can think of multiple examples in my life where trusting my senses has helped me and not trusting my gut has made me feel better in the moment but has not helped me be prudent.
Following this train of thought, it would also be impossible to not trust the senses. That would imply he never considered what was in front of him to be reality. To walk, interact with his surroundings, and even be aware enough to ask himself these questions, he had to at least consult his senses. The best he could do is feign nonchalance. While he may not care, he wouldn't be able to function without the daily use of the senses.
DeleteIn addition to that, I believe as humans we have to trust our senses. Fear is something that as kept our species alive. Fear is what tells us if we are in a bad situation and that we need to get out. Fear tells us if we are in danger. We cannot ignore that.
DeleteI can understand why Pyrrho decided never to trust his senses, but I disagree with applying that principle to everything. In everyday life, it doesn't make sense to ignore our senses. We have learned how to protect ourselves, and ignoring those instincts is a dangerous move. Not many people would be willing to walk out into oncoming traffic because they don't know for sure if they will get hit by a car. However, I will agree with him that sometimes, you can trust your senses. I'm a pilot, and during training, my flight instructor warned me about trusting my senses in some cases. For example, if you're in a steep turn, stall, etc, it is tough to tell which way you are moving. You might think you're speeding up and climbing, but in all actuality, your crashing towards the ground. This is why, in some cases, it is better to rely on the instruments in the plane. Now Pyrrho probably would have been skeptical about those, too, but you understand my point. There is a middle ground that we need to strive towards where we both use our senses, but have the knowledge to know when we should or shouldn't.
DeleteLHP 3, #5
ReplyDeleteModern philosophers have deemed Pyrrho's skepticism excessive. I believe that the role of philosophy in life should be therapeutic and healing, like it was for the Greeks, which extreme skepticism can often work against. I would argue that that utter refusal to believe anything as fact can easily contribute to anger and bitterness at the world. Questioning is healthy, but refusing to believe objective fact can have horrible effects on one's life. In other words, we are all human and can learn from each other's experiences. This includes the negative ones. Just because something has never happened to you does not mean that it could never happen. I believe modern philosophical skepticism is an excellent way to approach these issues.
Section 1
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Plato and Aristotle both believed that truth and knowledge were attainable through reason and logic. Plato looked truths= in his Theory of Forms, and Aristotle based his knowledge in natural observation. But skeptics argued that certainty was impossible. Their main teaching was the suspension of judgment on all claims. They were “Socratic" in the sense that, like Socrates, they often questioned knowledge claims and admitted ignorance. But unlike Socrates, who thought questioning could bring one closer to truth, skeptics thought that truth could never be reached.
2. Pyrrho observed that the senses often deceive us (e.g., illusions, dreams). Since appearances are unreliable, he though that no sense could guarantee truth. It is definitely possible in a somewhat literal sense as one can go through life without regard for their surroundings (though it would be a short one). But in the most literal sense possible I don't think it would be. For example, how do you have a conversation with someone if you can't trust your senses. For all you know, you could be talking to a chair or the other person could not be talking at all.
4. Pyrrho argued that by refusing to make judgments about truth or what is better, one could avoid all frustration. There are others ways to achieve ataraxia, however, such as: Stoic acceptance of fate, Hedonistic pursuit of simple pleasures and avoidance of pain, or even religious faith.
Section #1
DeleteConnor, I liked what you said in response to question 4. Some people are fine with indulging in shallow pleasures and might even experience a happy life, (as happiness, I think, is relative from person to person). Pyrrho, I suppose, believed that not worrying, or ataraxia, would lead people into an equivalent of eudaimonia-- basically. And with the religious faith point-- sure, many religions look towards an authority that encourages them to take heart and not to worry about their lives, but it doesn't go nearly as far as Pyrrho's disregard for the consequences of his actions or of the environment around him.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteHWT
2. The Law of Excluded Middle is a theorem that means that a "proposition is either true or false." I think it is important to follow proven rules such as this one because it can lead to assessing the truth quicker. Thinking of this from a more journalistic perspective (as you need logic and systems of gathering information in journalistic endeavors), getting to the root of a question and extracting the facts for a story or point of view is the most important task. This also goes with the concept of "believing what you think." If you get the "yes" or "no" from a proposition, then you don't have to believe anything. One of them is the answer.
LHP 5
ReplyDeleteThe lean toward moderate skepticism is likely due to an innate desire to understand without the danger of “giving up”. Power is so often seen as something that is sought out by many, regardless of who they are. With power, comes the often-forgotten control, which, in turn, offers security. To live without acknowledging consequences is to open yourself up and release whatever control you did have over your fate. It is a far scarier undertaking than simply questioning and gathering information.
Addison Mckinney - Section 2
DeleteI think what you have to say about the relinquishing of control through skepticism is really interesting, I never thought about it like that. I agree that most people don't live this extreme of a lifestyle due to fear, but I also think it's partially because to "give up" also means to give up caring, which to me is an essential part of philosophy. Without caring about our lives and others, it makes questioning life and people uninteresting.
Quoting How the World Thinks, “Logic is simply the systematic working through of the implications of true statements”. I am hesitant to put myself on one side or the other when it comes to calling myself logical. I often strive to make logical decisions, especially in professional settings, but occasionally the heart acts before the mind and impulsivity is unavoidable. I believe anyone who claims to be fully rational or irrational hasn’t taken the time to fully consider the different scenarios they could encounter.
ReplyDeleteI like this a lot. Maybe human nature does not exist within the realm of rationality or irrationality. In my personal experience, it seems like I often times bounce between both ends. Sometimes, I do things for the sake of progression or passion. Other times, I feel fully spontaneous in the way that I operate.
DeleteMackenzie Harris, Section 2:
ReplyDeleteLittle History of Philosophy
2. Pyrrho decided not to trust his instincts because sometimes they mislead us, however, I do not believe it is entirely possible to ignore your instincts because for example if a baseball was coming at your face, and you see that it is then you are not going to stand there and let it hit you. You would more than likely get out of the way, maybe shield your face, or even scream.
3. As a young man Pyrrho visited India. This visit could have influenced his way of philosophy because in India the people are very spiritually connected and maybe he saw their peace and wanted it for himself.
5. Some philosophers liked a more moderate approach to skepticism through looking at evidence instead of ignoring natural instincts and living somewhat dangerously.
Malcolm Ashley Section 3
Delete2. Honestly the analogy of the baseball makes me debate about what Pyrrho would think. He makes bold claims such as its indifferent if he falls off a cliff or not, so maybe he wouldn't move out the way? It reminds me of a popular quote that goes like "Its different being in the water with the shark". That basically means its different just speaking on what you'd do in a situation vs how you'd actually react when your emotions are involved.
4. According to secular reason, the mind works without what? Are you a secularist? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteSecular reasoning is when the mind works without relying on a higher power or divine guiding. To be honest i wouldnt call myself a secularist, but im not too religous. I believe that someone shouldnt rely too much on a higher power to live their life because i think that to come to an understanding of the world we can use human reason and evidence by relying on observation, logic, and critical thinking. But i think that can only take you so far, so i understand why people dedicate their life to religion to in turn get a sense of guidance.
Elijah Cummings, Section 2
ReplyDeleteI find it quite funny that I had unintentionally already spoken on the topic of skepticism on the prior discussion board, but I do think it is very core to my current philosophy on anything. Am I a moderate skeptic, then? I suppose, though I do think in some aspects I actually align with Pyrrho’s approach. That is to say, I do think there is merit and intrigue in always pushing against the validity of any fact, whether you personally experience it or have been told it secondhand. I see it as the ultimate form of open-mindedness and it simply makes the most sense to me. My point of contention, however, with Pyrrho’s view, is the reaction to such skepticism; instead of seeing a lack of certainty as a means to grow numb and indifferent to the world, it excites me greatly and pushes me to explore further. Where we would likely agree is the matter of what to question, which to him was supposedly everything. One of the most exciting things, in my opinion, to be skeptical about is our own logic. We often operate under the notion that logic makes sense because it is just that, sensible, accurate to the universe, etc., but I love prodding even at this construct. Even assuming that an extent of the universe and especially biology is accurate to any degree yields the question of whether our minds process things because that is how the universe works or because evolution, in its infinite disregard, happened to find a system based on imaginary, nonsensical rules that now convinces us that 2 and 2 SHOULD be 4. The most interesting part of this is that we probably won’t discover otherwise, given the paradox of using a flawed machine (our minds) to detect its own flaws, which said flaw inhibits it from detecting. Though, even this thought assumes truths, which gets me even more excited to break down subjects like the validity of the universe, biology, and especially the idea that there even exists external logic at all, that there are even rules outside of our minds, if there are, but perhaps they contain seeming paradoxes such as 2 plus 2 equalling 4, but also 6, or even (as I love to think to myself when pondering subjects such as this) some other option fully beyond my comprehension. My enthusiasm, however, isn’t the only divergence between me and Pyrrho, as I also must admit (and not out of defeat, mind you) that I am still very much beholden to a worldview. Sure, that worldview is more of a soup than a solid structure and I find great joy in watching it change, but nevertheless, at any given time, I am likely to have a stance on the “true” nature of most things, This doesn’t stop me from pushing against my own beliefs, but I also don’t believe it is possible to feign genuine ideological changes (which is an interesting sentence, given I’ve just established clearly at least one thing I am relatively “certain” of). For example, I do not know whether 2 plus 2 is certainly 4, that it is always 4, that numbers are even applicable in the universe at all, or some extra option, but I can see what I believe to be two pairs of objects, and I can count them, and the answer has always been four. Whether this is deceit is yet to be determined, but regardless it seems a barrier of thought for me; I can entertain the idea but not fully experience it. As for the philosopher’s supposed cliffside walks, this is another such instance where my own perception is a barrier. I cannot fathom death, I have never leapt from a cliff, and, most importantly, I have a survival compulsion not to attempt such an act. Are all of these statements beliefs that one could then question, I believe so, but I also believe them too elementary to allow myself to ignore them.
Pyrroh's skepticism, while it fulfilled him, is not as revolutionary as he thought it was. In aviation there are phenomena that we're warned about from day one—hazardous attitudes. The principle behind them is this: possessing a natural tendency towards one or multiple hazardous attitudes can be silent killers because they attack a pilot's intrinsic decision making. LHP's description of Pyrroh immediately reminded me of two of the five; impulsivity and invulnerability. Impulsivity says "do this now, don't think just do" and invulnerability says "bad things won't happen to me, I can take this risk." As aviators these can lead to massive misjudgments when making decisions before and during flight. Remaining logical about personal limits and aircraft limits is what keeps people safe while flying. Point being... Pyrroh would not have been a good pilot in my humble opinion.
ReplyDeleteCorbin Medley - Section 3
DeleteI think its fascinating that you correlating the philosophical outlook of Pyrroh to aviation. I also completely agree with your rationality of his skepticism. An attitude of indifference alongside a doubt of every last aspect of reality is both dangerous and ridiculous. As you said, personal limits even in skepticism must be established.
Makenzie Collins Section 1
ReplyDelete2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
I believe Pyrrho did not trust his senses because he believed that everything in this world is indefinite. He believed that you should explore everything to test it, but even then, you can't trust the effect that that experience has on you. I think it is possible to not trust your senses but I think it will lead to a life of confusion and unrest. If you can't trust atleast yourself and what you believe or feel, then how can you ever have peace?
Corbin Medley - Section 3
DeleteI think you have an interesting perspective on the kind of life skepticism would provide. I think I agree it would lead to a life of confusion and uncertainty, which makes me question how Pyrroh claimed to be at peace. Additionally, a life of indifference to me is not one of happiness or of quality. I think to care for human life and life in general is what brings happiness to it, and I think the same goes for wonder and truth/knowledge.
Anderson Ritzhaupt Section #1
ReplyDelete2. Pyrroh never trusted his senses because they were never 100% accurate. He believed that because his senses were not always correct, he could not trust them. For example, our senses to see in the dark can mislead us to believe we see something that is not there. Pyrroh took this to the extreme and thought that if our senses could mislead us a small percentage of the time, he could never trust them. This led him to live a very care free lifestyle because he never believed what was in front him could potentially harm him. I believe this philosophy sounds good on paper but in reality it is very poor. The philosophy sounds like it promotes living an anxiety free lifestyle, however, our sense of fear as humans is something that has kept our species alive.
Anderson Ritzhaupt Section #1
ReplyDelete3. Pyrroh visited India as a young man. India's spiritualistic culture influenced his philosophy heavily. India was known to put people through unimaginable physical pain and they would come out alive. Pyrroh noticed this and applied it to his philosophy, which created his calm mind. He realized that people could go through high levels of pain and survive so he believed that it did not matter. Everything was an opinion.
1. Aristotle and Plato both created their own beliefs that they preached were right to their followers, meanwhile extreme skeptics such as Phrryo believed that nothing could be proven even certain that even our senses were something to deceive us and not lead us. In this regard I do believe extreme skepctics were socratic as they believed that no one truly could know anything that they may think they know.
ReplyDelete2. He decided to not trust his senses because he believed nothing was ever certain and he believed our senses may be deceiving us from seeing the true reality of things. I don't believe Pyrrhos decision were prudent, thinking that your senses are deceiving all the time will get you in dangerous situations because as humans we can realize that most of the time our mind and senses try to protect from dangerous situations instead of trying to put us in them.
3. He visited India, I believe this might have influenced his philosophy as he saw the extreme measure many of the spiritual teachers or gurus would take. He probably was influenced to have more extreme views by this. Although uncertain as many of the stories of Pyrrho were unknown as he was a philosopher who did not keep written accounts if what has be told for centuries is true than his philosophy of extreme skepticism could have derived from being familiarized with it as a young child and over time his beliefs just grew stronger and stronger creating his reputation throughout his time.
4. He believed that if you have no care for what happens and you don't desire anything that you may think can bring you happiness then you can be happy , If you recognize that nothing matters then you will be at peace because your state of mind won't be affected by the possibilities of bad events occurring. I believe that one can still be free even if they worry, I feel like worry is crucial to not getting into bad situations maybe not being hypervigilant all the time but to know when and where to be careful will allow you to not get stuck in bad situations all the time.
LHP Chapter 3
ReplyDeleteThe most extreme skeptics did not hold any opinions, whereas Socrates and Plato held many. Their main teaching was to keep an open mind, and not rely on what you believe to be true.
The senses can mislead you, so you shouldn't trust them. This decision is impossible, as you have to feel things or eat things to survive, you have to be at least partially aware of the world.
India influenced Pyrrho’s philosophy through the study of trying to achieve inner stillness.
To be happy, you should free yourself from desires, and not care about the outcome. If you do not believe that anything is better than anything else, if there is no judgement, you can achieve happiness. I think meditation is one way to achieve freedom from worry.
More modern philosophers favor moderate instead of extreme skepticism because it calls you to ask questions and not believe everything right away, but it doesn’t take away desires and carelessness.
I agree with your point on if you start not caring about the outcome, you will be on the path to happiness. But I dont agree with the point of "freeing yourself from desires" as it's way easier said than done. If humans could just free themselves from their nature, alot of problems could be solved.
DeleteMatthew Kulik, Section 3
ReplyDelete1. While I do believe that the skeptics like Pyrrho were Socratic in the sense that they were challenging human assumption and sough to differentiate what we do and do not know, they take it to a somewhat ridiculous and nonsensical extent. Just because there exists doubt in something does not mean that we should disregard it as untrue. This is especially shown in the example of the senses. While they are not correct every time, I would wager that they lead us to the correct course of action far more often than they lead us to a harmful course of action. Thus, I think the idea of disregarding knowledge or assumption just because a shred of doubt can be cast upon it is rather pointless.
2. Continuing on the point of trusting the senses, I do not believe it is remotely possible to completely disconnect from the senses and override them. Our bodies make far more automatic actions to maintain homeostasis and keep us alive than we can easily wrap our heads around. For example, if our bodies sense that we are too warm we begin to sweat in response. You may be able to question whether the body is correct and if the response is warranted, but you cannot override this response. Beyond this there are so many more similar examples but I chose a rather simple and surface-level one. So while you can choose to distrust your senses from a mental standpoint, your body will trust your senses regardless. Therefore, I believe it impossible to totally distrust your senses.
Corbin Medley - Section 3
DeleteI completely agree with your perspective of question one. It is only Socratic to a certain extent before extreme skepticism becomes a nonsensical and illogical path through life. You cannot disregard everything, context clues should be taken into consideration at the VERY LEAST if you are not trusting of your environment.
Corbin Medley - Section 3
ReplyDelete1. How did the most extreme skeptics (or sceptics, if you prefer the British spelling) differ from Plato and Aristotle? What was their main teaching? Do you think they were "Socratic" in this regard?
They questioned everything similarly to Socrates, unlike Plato and Aristotle who were a bit more confident in their beliefs. I believe they took this way too far to the point the philosophy comes off as unreliable or even unreasonable to approach life with.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
Because they can mislead us. This decision is not only impossible, but, to me, is kind of ridiculous. How are you ever meant to accomplish or commit to anything if you decide that every facet of existence is unreliable and cannot be trusted? How can you confidently act with safety in regards to dangerous environments if you doubt the environment itself is dangerous?
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
India, which may have influenced his philosophy as their culture and tradition of extreme spiritual leaders who follow Hindu and Buddhist (or other similar belief systems) placed emphasis on moving away from earthly desires and passions. This focus on indifference and inner tranquility is clearly seen in Pyrrho's philosophy.
4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
I do believe that this skepticism led to happiness for him, because he did not care about anything. I would not call this a positive, but if that is what made him happy then who can judge? I do not believe there are other ways of finding a lack of worry without sacrificing your compassion or care for other things. To care for others is to worry. Worry for their well-being, their safety, their behavior, etc. Worry is not inherently a bad thing as it is a manifestation of feeling and having human connection.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
Because questioning every single aspect of life regardless of context clues is a dangerous and reckless form of living, nor does it get you very far scientifically/intellectually. If you never believe anything you are not intellectually growing, and if you question everything even if there are contextual hints towards the reality of it, then you may put yourself or others in danger. Additionally, a perspective of indifference is an inhumane one that people cannot afford to have when caring for one another is what leads to the advancement of the well-being of humanity.
Addison Mckinney - Section 2
ReplyDelete2. Phyrrho decided to never trust his senses because he believed that he could never fully know if they were accurate, so he treated them as if they were always misleading. Such a decision isn't fully possible, as every human being has an instinctive reaction to danger (flinching, freeze or flight, etc.) but it is possible to an extent, if you push past these responses and decide to continue towards the danger anyways.
5. Most philosophers favor a more moderate skepticism because, frankly, this extreme of skepticism is kind of stupid (to me.) Philosophy is all about the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom, and asking questions in order to understand our lives as fully as possible. This extreme skepticism takes all of that and makes it obsolete, which makes philosophy obsolete, which is boring and unhelpful. You have to assume you don't know anything/be skeptical always in order to be a good philosopher, but if you care about nothing it takes the point away of questioning and learning.
2. Pyrrho seemed to be convinced that nothing could be known for certain. I think his ideas, especially the parts that resemble the socratic argument, are very intriguing. I find some aspects of his character to be borderline comical. I think most people would characterize his behaviors as ignorance. Specifically, the event in which he almost walked off of a cliff because he claimed to have no way of knowing what would happen. While I wouldn't be so hasty to label his extremism as ignorance, I am interested in what his opinion of science was. The reason that falling off of cliffs is commonly associated with death or serious injury, is generally known as the law of gravity. It seemed that Pyrrho did not differentiate between his philosophy and science. I am very curious as to how the "less extreme" skeptics approach science and whether or not they incorporate it in their philosophy.
ReplyDeletesection 3
ReplyDelete1. they never took anything in face value and wouldn't even listen to the bodies reaction of danger they would go so far as to lean down a cliff just to see if the fall would hurt or not and would need to be saved by their friends.
2. He believed that in order to truly understand anything you had to truly ask the question and then find the answer and not just listen to the first answer you get.
3. He visited India it helped show him that other would take extreme measures like himself to find their answers but for the Indians it was a higher state of mind.
4. He believed if you questioned everything like if this event would truly be bad for me and if you don't think that something is going to cause you harm that it would allow you to not worry about anything.
5. The wouldn't be a skeptic as Pyrrho because they still listen to the bodies natural reaction and would and if they viewed something as harmful or bad they would think just that, this object or event is bad for me.
Section #3
ReplyDelete5. Most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism because they choose to question assumptions and think critically about life’s questions/dilemmas and their resolutions/answers. This allows them to not live a life where they can look closely at the beliefs we hold and get closer to the truth without having to live life doubtful of everything around them.
Replying to myself.
DeleteAs I was walking in the rain to get to class, it made me think: "Would Pyrrho think it was raining? Is it actually raining or is it my senses making me believe that it's raining?" I saw the rain, I certainly felt the chill of the rain, however, how did I actually know that it's raining? I guess I tried my hand at skepticism today?
Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams helped shape the early ideas of religious freedom in America. Roger Williams founded Rhode Island after being banished from Massachusetts, where he promoted the separation of church and state and freedom of conscience. Anne Hutchinson challenged Puritan leaders by holding meetings and teaching that people could interpret scripture for themselves, which pushed back against strict religious authority. Together, they laid the foundation for religious liberty and individual rights that would later influence American democracy.
ReplyDeleteI feel as Pyrrho's Ideology is another form of depression. Hopelessness is a condition of depression and it is categorized as "a feeling of despair and loss of hope for the future". Pyrrho shows this when he makes claims such as theres no difference if he falls of a cliff or not.
ReplyDelete1. Anne Hutchinson feels her connection with God and is exiled due to "craziness" since she claimed she was hearing God's voice.
ReplyDelete2. Anne Hutchinson helped roger williams invent Rhode Island.
3. Logic is the thought that precedes and rationalizes actions of an individual. I consider myself logical because I overthink the consequences that would effect those around me before I commit an action.
-Katelyn Butler
Delete2.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Pyrrho felt a need for his skepticism beyond just curiosity. I have personally dealt with varying degrees of OCD. Perhaps Pyrrho forced himself to challenge this by convincing himself that nothing was absolutely sure. It was mentioned that through Pyrrho's skepticism, he felt peace. Could it be that Pyrrho used his skepticism as a coping mechanism to deal with his obsessive and compulsive nature? Instead of worrying, he would question the validity of what was causing him to be worried or stressed. Although it is an interesting concept, I don't fully believe this could be lived out. As previously stated, it is apparent that the body has innate responses to danger. I don't see how this could have been overridden. Though I can see how this carefree way of living would have been sought.