No class today, but do read about Pyrrho et al, and post your comments. You can mark the scorecard for this date on Tuesday Sep 8.
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
ReplyDelete1. Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because sometimes they are wrong. For example, if it is dark, what we believe we are seeing might not be what is actually there. This way of thinking often caused Pyrrho to put himself in danger, not believing his eyes that the path actually ended in a cliff. But not even Pyrrho could deny his senses and instincts all the time; one story tells that he flinched away from an aggressive dog. I think it is important to be aware of the fact that what we see or hear might not be accurate, and that we should consider and analyze what our senses tell us before acting based on them (where possible–sometimes there isn’t time for thought, like with Pyrrho and the dog), but I also think our senses are an essential part of how we understand and interact with the world and we shouldn’t intentionally live without them.
2. Pyrrho visited India and likely experienced the teachings of the mystics there, who willingly suffered physically through pain and starvation in order to find inner peace. Pyrrho’s philosophy emphasizes finding peace, and he did so by believing that there is no way to be absolutely sure of anything, therefore, we shouldn’t attach ourselves to any one way of thinking. Everything is a matter of opinion, so stay open-minded and don’t let anything upset you.
3. Pyrrho believed that unhappiness came from having expectations and being disappointed. Having an expectation, wanting one thing above all else, means that you have an opinion, but since we cannot know what is real, you cannot know that that one thing is actually better than all the rest. In order to be happy, we have to stop caring about things, and this lack of care, this inability to be bothered, brings peace. I can understand Pyrrho’s thought process, but I don’t understand how happiness can be the absence of all care and feeling. Life is full of exciting moments, sad moments, scary moments, etc. and trying to deny yourself feelings during those times is deconstructing the human experience. I guess I’m more of an optimist, but I think peace comes from recognizing the circumstances and the possible outcomes, but also trusting that one way or another things will work out.
Hi Rylie, I really liked what you said about accepting and embracing the moments life throws at us rather than becoming indifferent or numb to them. That can be especially hard when life delivers difficult circumstances, but I agree that it’s better to feel those things so you can better understand and navigate them. Trusting the outcome and staying optimistic seems like a rare mindset these days, but it’s one that could benefit a lot of people.
DeleteThe children's author Maurice Sendak, approaching death's door, told interviewer Terry Gross that his advice to young people is: “Live your life, live your life, live your life”... Arguably, Pyrrho did not. Life is ups and downs, joys and disappointments, successes and failures. To live is to risk. It does seem that extreme skepticism is a disingenuous attempt to eliminate risk. But in the process it may very well eliminate the very things that make life worth living.
DeleteLHP 3
ReplyDelete1. How did the most extreme skeptics differ from Plato and Aristotle? What was their main teaching? Do you think they were "Socratic" in this regard?
While Plato and Aristotle focused on observations about the world found through our senses (Plato focusing on observed things in the world of forms), the most extreme skeptics didn’t believe in trusting our senses at all. The skeptics main teaching was that instead of relying on what we believe to be true, we should question everything and keep and open mind. I do think the notion of constantly questioning the things around us is Socratic. However, it seems to me that Socrates was interested in pursuing knowledge that would better him or the people around him. Personally, I don’t know if I see a point in questioning our senses to the point that it puts us in danger or overtakes our ability to function as a human being. The practices of the extreme skeptics seem like they would have no effect on virtue or eudaimonia because it seems to focus more on disbelief than the pursuit of wisdom.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because senses often mislead us. I don’t think Pyrrho’s approach is prudent; he acts with zero regard for his future or safety and seems not to be seeking any kind of improvement for himself or the world around him. Additionally, I’m not sure what knowledge he is intending to seek by ignoring his senses. Simply not believing them doesn’t seem to actually accomplish anything to me. (If anyone thinks it does and would like to explain I would love to know what you think!). I don’t think having complete distrust in our senses is possible; all of us have reflexes and use our senses to interact with the world around us daily. For example, if Pyrrho wakes up in the morning, which is in some way or another the result of his senses, how could he completely be distrusting/ignoring his senses? Furthermore, why would Pyrrho talk to anyone if he was completely distrusting of his senses? He might be able to see and hear his friend, but if he doesn’t trust his senses, how could he be sure that his friend is actually there? If he acknowledges the existence of his friends by talking to them, then it doesn’t make sense to me that he would ignore the existence of a cliff or other dangers unless he was intentionally trying to harm himself or be a nuisance to others.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
Pyrrho visited India as a young man, and it probably inspired his unusual lifestyle. “India has a great tradition of spiritual teachers or gurus putting themselves through extreme and almost unbelievable physical deprivation … to achieve inner stillness,” and I could see how Pyrrho’s ideas mimic that to an extent. However, to me it seems like he’s less intentionally putting himself through things to achieve stillness and is instead letting things happen to him to achieve stillness. Or, alternatively, his inner stillness may come from a lack of consideration of his senses and the world around him as opposed to any of the physical elements that come with that.
"Plato focusing on observed things in the world of forms" - to be clear, Plato did NOT think we observe the eternal Forms. They must be "seen" by the proverbial mind's eye, if at all.
DeletePyrrho would say he neither trusts nor distrusts his senses, but maintains a studied neutrality about them. But that does seem implausible, if not in fact impossible.
4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
ReplyDeletePyrrho thought that freeing himself from desires and not caring about how things turn out led to happiness. I believe there is some truth to this idea; people commonly say to lower expectations so that you won’t be disappointed. I can understand how, in Pyrrho’s view, having no expectation based on what our senses tell us could prevent disappointment from finding that things aren’t true. However, I think a different way to achieve freedom from unhappiness/disappointment is to become okay with things not matching expectations. While a lack of expectation could prevent disappointment, being okay with unmet expectations would also avoid disappointment. Also, optimism (synonym to hopefulness, not philosophical definition) could help achieve freedom from worry. If you believe that everything will resolve, momentary setbacks and challenges shouldn’t worry you.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
Most philosophers have favored a moderate skepticism because it challenges dogma—confidence in knowing the truth. They do this in pursuit of getting closer to the truth and revealing how little we know. Personally, I like this perspective better because it is more clearly in pursuit of something—particularly something that arguably betters the world or the philosophers themselves.
Right. Pyrrho seems to have thought that seeking truth would disrupt his equanimity. But lately we've seen (haven't we?) just how disruptive a disregard for truth can really be.
Delete1. Plato and Aristotle were skeptical in the sense that they were curious about reality. Curiosity requires acknowledging that you do not know everything. The skeptics, however, believed that no one could know anything at all. This differs fundamentally from Aristotle's approach. He believed that metal would fall faster than wood, while a skeptic would argue there's no way of knowing that. Even though Aristotle's assumption about metal and wood would later be proven wrong, he still held beliefs and taught them to his pupils. While Socrates was famously cited as saying "I know nothing," I think he was speaking from a place of humility rather than proposing an absolute framework for viewing reality like the Skeptics did.
ReplyDelete2. Absolute skepticism, assuming nothing and claiming no knowledge, isn't prudent and could lead to death or injury. I appreciate Pyrrho's skeptical approach; questioning our assumptions about reality can reveal new truths and perspectives. However, I also trust my senses in many situations. When I ride my bike, for example, I know that taking a corner too fast will cause me to lose control. If I followed Pyrrho's radical skepticism, I'd take that corner at full speed anyway, since I couldn't claim to know what would happen. I reject absolutist approaches to most things because life requires nuance.
3. Pyrrho visited India and saw mystics and gurus who practiced extreme deprivation, self torture, and rituals to achieve inner peace. Perhaps witnessing these various attempts to seek tranquility led Pyrrho to conclude that there was no true reality and therefore seeking it would be futile. If I witnessed a man hanging boulders from his testicles, I might come to the same conclusion myself. Pyrrho believed everything was a matter of opinion and that holding firm beliefs was delusion. It wouldn't be surprising if Pyrrho learned from Indian culture and later tried to incorporate their philosophies into his own. However, I do not know enough about Indian philosophy to draw any parallels, only that these practices may have impressed a young Pyrrho.
4. Pyrrho thought that to become free from all worries, a person must accept they will never know what the world is like, free themselves from desires because one thing cannot be better than another, not commit to any particular view, and accept that nothing matters. I think there are different and possibly better ways to manage worry, but I do not believe a person can be entirely free from it. One method I use to manage worry is accepting that life is a wild and untamable experience over which I can exert little influence. Even though my energy is miniscule compared to the forces at play, I do my best to trust that all the moments leading up to the present have prepared me for any obstacle.
Socrates was indeed the quintessentially moderate and humble truth-seeking skeptic, skeptical of all confident claims but eager to interrogate them. Pyrrho was uninterested in inquiry, thinking his peace of mind would be shattered by it. But some of the happiest people in the world are (and have always been) profoundly inquisitive.
DeleteSection H01
ReplyDelete2.) Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because they had a change of being wrong. The author, when describing Pyrrho, gives the example of imagining seeing things in the dark; sometimes, your eyes play tricks on you in low light. Therefore, Pyrrho never trusted his senses. Honestly, I find this decision foolish. While I understand Skepticism and being critical of most things, I believe that if you lived your whole life the way Pyrrho claimed was best, you wouldn't truly be living. Literally, as your blind skepticism of your instincts could lead to you being in serious or even lethal danger, and figuratively in the sense that life (in my opinion) is what you perceive. Life isn't just about being stuck in your own head to me. It's about reading all your favorite books, feeling warm sand between your fingers, hearing the birds chirp and sing in the trees, tasting your favorite pastry, and smelling something nostalgic from a long time ago. If Pyrrho truly couldn't trust any of these sensations, was he even living?
3.) When Pyrrho was younger, he visited India. There, he met with philosophers who inspired his ideas of inner tranquility and skepticism. I believe that this journey further enforced and stabilized his ideas and philosophy on life by providing a more practical lens on them. In India, Pyrrho was able to meet thinkers who had truly lived their lives without worry.
5.) Most philosophers tend to favor a less extreme skepticism on life. This, firstly, could be for practical reasons. If Pyrrho's tales of near-death are to be believed, then it would be incredibly dangerous to follow in his footsteps, especially considering the fact (which is mentioned in the text) that not everyone has friends who are willing and capable to keep saving you from your own situations. Secondly, I believe that many philosophers avoid being extremely one way or the other about anything. Being an extremist in one way of thinking without ever changing or opening up to new ideas can be detrimental to anyone, not just a philosopher.
Adding a note on here, my post makes it seem like I do not understand any of Pyrrho's motivations or believe any of his philosophies, but that isn't true. I think ataraxia or freedom from worry is a very interesting thing to strive for. Having anxiety disorder myself, I think it would be nice, at least for a time, to be completely free from worry. Pyrrho, while a little too narrow-minded in his beliefs (so narrow in fact, that he would walk off a cliff instead of trust his senses) made valid, respectable points throughout his life that I can agree with.
DeleteI have a question or thought about Pyrro's skeptisism.
ReplyDelete1. Does his way of thinking risk the lives of those around him? The reason I am asking this is because if he can not be certain about the truth of the world around him, how can he care about another person's life? Would he save a boy from drowning in a lake? That boy, in his mind, might not be drowning at all, he might not even be in a lake. Would he save a baby from a burning building if he heard a clear cry coming from the scene? There could in fact be no baby and no fire. There might not even be a building. What stops him from running over a person with a car? That person may not even be real. He might not be driving at all and therefore has no reason to change the direction of the car.
I think this way of thinking is dangerous, not only to ourselves but those around us.
Answers to questions:
2. Pyrrho didn't trust his senses because they could be wrong. It is described that you may see something in the dark that is not there or hear a voice in the distance that could be the wind. After pondering the possibility that senses cant be trusted, he decided to not trust anything at all.
5. Most philosophers value moderate skeptisism because full skeptisism is a danger to yourself and others. It is described that Pyrrho had risked his life on multiple occasions and needed to be saved by those who didnt follow his exact philosophy because he couldnt see or trust the truth of the world in front of him. Though it is understood by most philosophers that things may not be what they seem, but like Aristotle, studying and reaserching that thing is a good next step in the skeptic world view.
I find that Pyrrho's philosophical viewpoint, skepticism, has some similarities with a theatre movement that became popular in the 20th century known as the "Theatre of the Absurd." Famous playwrights like Tennessee Williams dominated this landscape of theatre, and it explored ideas of human existence. More specifically, it explored how humans will never truly be able to grasp a complete understanding of their reality nor be able to trust their own senses, so why should life be lived to begin with? It is very much aligned with the ideas of existentialism and nihilism. I think the part of the text that says "distance ourselves from firm beliefs" ties the absurdist movement and skepticism in the Greco-Roman period together for me. In these theatrical productions, the sets were dreamlike and oftentimes minimalistic, and the endings in these productions were left up to interpretation. This reflects the idea of extreme skepticism. No one truly has the answers to why something is the way that it is, and no one even knows if that statement is completely true.
ReplyDelete4. Pyrrho thought his extreme skepticism led to happiness if people had the correct answers to these three questions: 1.) What are things really like? 2.) What attitude should we adopt to them? 3.) What will happen to someone who does not adopt that attitude? Pyrrho believed that the answers to these questions were too much for the human mind to be able to answer, so he mainly said that he recognized that nothing mattered, which led to a indifference to pain or the human experience of danger. I don't really believe that this is the only way to happiness. Sure, some people can just ignore their curiosity about the way our reality functions and just live blissfully. However, we as humans are naturally inclined to be curious and want to know more and venture out and explore their reality as much as they can. I don't necessarily think that thinking about philosophical and "unanswerable" questions leads to worry. It's been shown that having conversations like these deepens your wisdom, satisfaction with life, and stimulates regions of the brain responsible for maintaining your cognitive abilities.
ReplyDelete5. Unlike Pyrrho's extreme level of skepticism, which involved having no trust in the world or our senses, modern skeptics focus on questioning the beliefs of others. This allows for a close examination of the evidence we have that causes us to hold certain beliefs about ourselves or other people. I liked the way the author worded it, which was "get close to the truth or reveal how little we know about the truth" or something along those lines. This allows for more stimulating conversations and actually being able to gain more knowledge. I agree with this modern take on skepticism, as it allows for people to argue and debate with each other similar to how Socrates valued conversations with other people in agoras during ancient Greek civilization.
Section #1
ReplyDelete1) Plato and Aristotle believed that skepticism could lead to genuine knowledge, while extreme skeptics denied that knowledge was attainable at all! They taught suspension of judgment on all beliefs and claims, claiming that true knowledge was, in a sense, unattainable. I don't believe extreme skepticism is Socratic, as Socrates believed that constructive skepticism would ultimately lead to truth.
2) Pyrrho refused to trust his senses because he believed they were unreliable, inconsistent, and, for lack of better terms, useless. I believe this was taking things to an extreme, as our instincts serve us a clear purpose, and I am surprised he didn't see that. I also don't think avoiding your instincts is entirely attainable, for even Pyrrho himself twitched when a dog jumped at him, and even his palms sweat when he was near the edge of a cliff.
3) As a young man, Pyrrho traveled to India, where he likely encountered Indian traditions that emphasized human detachment from worldly concerns and promoted freedom from suffering through non-attachment. These experiences likely shaped his skepticism, reinforcing his ideas that peace of mind comes not from discovering the truth but from letting go of firm beliefs about reality.
Just out of curiosity, isn’t Pyrrho’s idea that we must let go of firm beliefs itself a belief? Shouldn’t that subject his own idea to skepticism, potentially undermining it?
DeleteI think the tension you’re pointing out is important, because even framing suspension as a way to live might sneak in a belief about what’s rational or preferable-which makes me wonder whether total skepticism is actually possible in practice.
DeleteSection 1
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?
Answer: They did not assert certainty or even claim to know anything. Their main teaching to be open minded to all possibilities, and that by not assuming anything you may eliminate suprise.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
Answer: Pyrrho believed that because he didn't really know anything he could not trust that he was really experiencing any sensory input from the physical world. In my opinion such a decision is excessive especially to be always thinking and functioning without trusting anything and could end up being sort of a hurdle to other experiences.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
Answer: He visited India, where Gurus (spiritual) leaders are a very important and strong cultural tradition. The extreme practices of the Gurus could've influenced his famous personal philosophy of indifference to devastating situations.
4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
Answer: He believed that once you recognized that nothing matters, nothing will be able to impact your inner tranquility and eventually nothing would bother you. In my opinion I don't think it is every truly possible to be free from all worries, because even by trying to let go of all concerns you are concerning yourself with adherence to that way of life.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
Answer: Moderate skepticism is how most philosophers question life's biggest questions and demonstrate the inevitable ignorance of all human beings regardless how much they've learned or how sure they are in their knowledge.
LHP
ReplyDeleteSection #1
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
It is true that most of our sensations are false. We're just a bit of fleshy matter that is reacting to electric pulses after all. Most of this world is the empty space between atoms rather than solid matter. When you break it down, it sounds so ridiculous that its hard to believe, and we've been fantasizing about faking sensations and senses so accurately that we can't tell the difference since VR was first thought of and even before that with the tricks of the fey. Magicians make a living tricking the eye and brain and its surprisingly easy.
Pyrro acknowledges this, and takes it to the extreme. If all our senses can be faked, who's to say any of it is real? Even feeling a bite doesn't mean it will hurt till it does. The cat isn't dead or alive, even if you can hear it meowing. Is such a decision bad for you? Is it imprudent? Only if you put the reality we live in above the truth. If you put determining if the man with the sword is real and is going to stab you above getting out of the way, you are putting the matter of this world over the truth of the mind. If this life doesn't matter, neither does the potential pain in pursuit of the truth.
Of course, everyone has some survival instinct, and it isn't entirely possible to get rid of it (at least that I know of) Even Pyrro was said to flinch from snarling dogs. Even he'd react to stimuli in some way. He didn't ever assume that gravity might fail with his next step or pause to consider what would happen if it did. However, he managed, through his mental training, to determine that it wouldn't exactly matter if it did. He'd make peace with it instead and curiously look forward to what is next.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
India! Lots of teachers live there who put themselves through extreme physical deprivement there so they may have passed on some wisdom on how to reach inner peace through such things to Pyrrho. Does that explain everything about him... no. As far as I know, these teachers aren't the sort to be renown for questioning if Life exists, but they may have suggested to question why it matters if it should stop existing, especially since I believe in buddhist culture reincarnation is a thing?
I can't be certain as I've never been to India or learned about their religion or philosophies.
4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)
If you are extremely skeptic, Pyrrho believed your mental house will be built with brick instead of straw and the first Wolf to come by won't be able to blow it away with a bit of evidence that would disprove your believes and inflict mental pain through cognitive dissonance. You don't believe anything necessarily, so you don't hold anything too close and allow yourself the pain of losing it. But you leave yourself open to being convinced if the wolf has a good argument. The wolf can become a friendly puppy if you don't see it as the enemy and you're simply willing to talk with it as a neighbor. This can be good, but it also can mean that you end up walking off of cliffs if someone has a good argument as to why the fall wouldn't be so bad. So if you care about life, maybe not do that...
Now, there are other ways of achieving peace with the world and being free from worries. Some are similarly okay, and some are pretty dang bad. One of the bad ones: Don't care about anyone. At all. All that matters is you. Their opinions don't matter. Their lives don't matter. Your life matters only as much as you say it does. The world isn't against you unless you say it is. It just happens to spin the wrong way sometimes, and there's nothing you can do to change it. All you have to do is live life as you see fit and determine it is good.
DeleteAnother bad way? You have no impact on anything, so why does anything matter? Why try to enact change when you can't do anything alone? Why even bother educating yourself and voting? Best to simply live and get it over with. Those outside of your shrinking sphere can deal with themselves. I call this the baby perspective, because once you can't see it, when you aren't staring it in the eyes, it's gone. Peek a boo! Can't hurt you.
Better ways to dispell worry and achieve piece is questioning what makes life good? What makes a worthy life? What makes life worth living, and what makes it not? If Life is real, (better presume it is and struggle fruitlessly than assume it isn't and fail) then how do we go about making it pleasant for as many as possible? It starts with aknowledging a few things: Most people's time is limited, based on the numbers, ours likely is too. What will we do with the time given to us? What sort of information do we have about this life, what is the likelyhood of certain things based on what other people (who sure, fine, might not be real, but again, best to assume they are so as not to offend) have claimed to experience? What is the point of worry: biologically, psychologically, emotionally? What do we worry about? What are those worries based in? Can we put mind over matter, and soothe ourselves that they might not matter and then address them, so far as we can in this life? What is the ramification if we don't?
Often, it's just waking up everyday and saying, before one has even opened their eyes, "I'm/we're going to have a good day today" whatever that means. I suggest smiling. Smiling makes you happier according to studies (who sure may have been faked), but who's to say they're not real either? Best to try it and see.
Verdammten Schildkröten! Too long again.
This above reply was also written by Sarah Holzmann of #1 by the way.
Delete2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible? Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because he says our senses often mislead us. I don't think Pyrrho's decision is prudent, as he seems to literally be acting without care and with no thought for the future. For example, when he was on the cliff side and would've continued walking off the edge if it wasn't for his friends stopping him.
ReplyDelete3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy? Pyrrho visited India when he was a young man. This visit probably inspired his unusual lifestyle, as the book describes him seeing "spiritual teachers or gurus putting themselves through extreme and almost unbelievable physical deprivation." These gurus were putting themselves through this torture to find inner peace, which is also what Pyrrho emphasizes in his philosophy.
- "Any extreme sceptic needs the support of less sceptical people, or very good luck, to survive for long." This quote really stood out to me for some reason. I like how it basically boils down to almost all people needing the support of other people to live, and without other people, Pyrrho would be dead.
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 believed that certain knowledge is impossible. While Plato believed we could know truth through reason and Forms, and Aristotle believed we could know truth through observation and experience, the skeptics argued that we can never be fully sure of anything. Their main teaching was that we should suspend judgment and avoid making firm claims about what is true or false. This, they believed, would lead to peace of mind. In some ways, they were Socratic because Socrates also questioned claims of knowledge and exposed false certainty. However, unlike Socrates, the skeptics did not believe questioning would eventually lead us closer to the truth; they believed it should lead us to withhold belief altogether.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
Pyrrho decided never to fully trust his senses because he believed they constantly deceive us. According to him, our senses give us conflicting information, and since we can’t be sure which perceptions are true, the safest response is to suspend judgment altogether. I don’t think this decision is fully possible or practical. In everyday life, we rely on our senses automatically and instinctively. For example, I was literally jump-scared by a dog yesterday; my reaction happened before I could question whether my senses were reliable or not. This shows that even if we try to doubt our senses philosophically, we still depend on them to navigate the world.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
Pyrrho visited India as a young man while traveling with Alexander the Great. During this time, he likely encountered Indian philosophers who practiced extreme forms of detachment and skepticism, including questioning the reliability of the senses and withdrawing from strong beliefs. These ideas may have influenced Pyrrho’s philosophy, especially his belief that certainty is impossible and that suspending judgment leads to peace of mind.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism because complete doubt is not practical for everyday life. While extreme skepticism questions everything, moderate skepticism allows people to doubt carefully while still trusting reason and experience enough to make decisions. This approach makes it possible to learn, act, and live in the world without being paralyzed by uncertainty. Most philosophers recognize that while absolute certainty may be impossible, some beliefs are still reliable enough to guide action.
One of my first thoughts while reading this chapter was how much I hate when people talk about "how do you know you aren't fake? how do you know you're real". I understand the point, but I think it's annoying. It aggravates me because the only answer I can give is that I just know!
ReplyDeletePyrrho never trusted his senses on the off chance that he was wrong. I totally understand that, and I think it's right to question things I think that trusting your senses is part of life. One of the most popular phrases ever being, 'trust your gut'. I think it just takes it too far, and it somewhat dumbs down philosophy. Not everything needs a why, I know I'm not falling off my bed right now and I trust my senses.
"Recognize that nothing matters, that way nothing will change that way nothing will affect your state of mind, which will be one of inner tranquillity." I think different things matter to different people, and thats what makes life what life is. Everything matters in the same way that nothing matters. MY question is are you at peace if nothing matters or are you bored?
Thanks for staying engaged during this Big Chill, all. Hope you're warm, wherever you are. My neighborhood remains without power. Looking forward to getting back to something more like normal next week. For now, though, just stayin' alive and recalling the importance of never taking "normal" for granted.
ReplyDeleteNatalie Moreno #03
ReplyDeleteHow did Pyrrha think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)? Pyrrha was able to release himself from worry by rejecting the reality of worries and fears. Pyrrha questioned the legitimacy of his fears by reasoning that he didn’t know if dangerous situations would really result in pain, death, or misfortune. If he couldn’t be sure that bad things could be the result, he could reject worry and embrace peace and happiness. When caught in a dangerous storm at sea, Pyrrha was calmer than anyone else on the ship because he reasoned there was nothing to worry about, as it was not confirmed their predicament would lead to imminent danger. Questioning fear allowed him to leave a more peaceful, and ultimately happier life. While this method might have worked for Pyrrha, I believe there are other ways to live a worry-free life. Extreme skepticism can be dangerous if you don’t practice any form of judgement in your actions and rely on luck to survive. Challenging your perspective on worries can lead people to better cope with fear and reach ataraxia. Where Pyrrha denied any judgement, some philosophers embrace a redirection of focus on outside conditions to internal reactions. Instead of denying the potential consequences of a situation, a person can choose to accept the situation with peace, once they’ve done all they could do.
What extraordinary form of evidence was allowed at the Salen witch trials? What does Andersen think Arthur Miller's The Crucible got wrong about Salem? Cotton Mather believed it was completely reasonable to allow “spectral evidence”, or testimonies about dreams and “natural visions” of the accused as witches. When Anderson further discusses our understanding of the Salem witch trials, he mentions Artuher Miller’s play, The Crucible, specifically noting his disproval of the portrayal. While the play serves as an allegory of the “Red Scare”, depicting the trials as a sham to gain power in the mass hysteria, Anderson believes that it was all real. He felt that the puritans passionately believed in the trials, and it was not a power-hungry scheme all along.
Who, according to some early Puritans, were "Satan's soldiers"? Did you know the Puritans vilified the native Americans in this way? Why do you think that wasn't emphasized in your early education? Andeson describes that some Puritans considered Native Americans to be “Satan's soldiers”. Looking back at my early education, I think teachers were motivated to tell a story about how we came together happily. The older I got, the darker the history got as the truth was revealed about the colonizer’s relationship with Native Americans. While I understand the concepts may be mature for young children, being truthful and transparent about the abuse and mistreatment is critical to understanding our country’s history.
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 main teaching of the skeptics was that human beings could not possess knowledge of what is objectively true about the world. Everything that any person perceives is a matter of opinion and their own subjective experience. I do think the skeptics were Socratic in this regard, because they encouraged people to actively question everything around them. However, they took this to such an extreme that they taught that nothing that can be perceived is real, rather than merely pushing people to realize that their perception of the world may not be objectively correct. The skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle in that they believed that humans cannot truly understand the world. Plato and Aristotle generally both believed through their theories of Forms and eudaimonia that humans can understand and affect the world around them through observation and through their actions.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
Pyrrho decided never to trust his senses because he realized that sometimes his emotions and instincts assumed things about the world, like the existence of danger and pain. He noticed that sometimes these assumptions were wrong, and decided that he would treat them as if they were always wrong. If they were always wrong, then nothing was guaranteed to be real, including things like danger and pain. I do not believe such a decision is prudent in any way, but I do believe it could be possible. I know that there are people who do not fear death at all, and it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch for a person to lose their fear of pain altogether.
4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
Pyrrho believed that his extreme skepticism led to happiness because he thought that adopting the mindset that nothing is real leads a person to abandon all concerns and cares for life. If a person believes that nothing is real, then they have nothing to worry about under any circumstance. I do believe that there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry. An example that I can think of is a person believing that things and events in the world do matter, but that a God or other higher being is watching over them and protecting them from any significant danger.
Section #3
ReplyDelete2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
Pyrrho didn't trust his senses because he was worried that they would mislead him. I don't believe this kind of lifestyle is actually possible. Pyrrho, for instance, only survived this mindset because he had friends who protected him from injury.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
As a young man, Pyrrho visited India, and his views may have been influenced by mysticism that was common there.
section #2
ReplyDeleteWhen Pyrrho doubted that his senses were reality it made me think of anxiety. For example, when people think other people are always mad at them it's their brain telling this instead of it actually happening. Therefore showing that our senses aren't always correct.However, Pyrrho took it a little far when he came close to danger.
1.Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible? He decided that nothing can be trusted, not even his senses, and as discussed in the same chapter, it would be impossible to live in such a way without people looking out for you, because even if you can't be sure that a speeding car will kill you when it hits you, you will still die.
ReplyDelete2. Logic is simply what? Do you consider yourself logical (rational)? I would consider myself a somewhat logical person, but a purely logical person would be immensely immoral. I would define logic and the most efficient way to do something, which would be the most logical way; however, it may not be, and almost always isn't the most ethical way.
3. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why? Most modern philosophers know that to not trust anything is no way of thinking. It is surely a fine idea to ponder, but if you live your life not trusting anything, you simply exist and then stop. No joy or sadness amounted from your life you simply were and now are not. It destroys the point of looking for any sort of meaning because it essentially points to the idea that nothing is real.
Section #1
ReplyDelete2.) He decided not to trust our sense because they often mislead us. I find fault in this. Your senses can do you good sometimes. For example, your sense of smell. If you smell dog crap, a dog likely crapped around you, no? Some things you can question, and sometimes sense can mislead us, but not all senses have faults in them.
4.) Pyrrho’s skepticism helped him develop the “nothing really matters, just don’t think about it”, and that led to him being happy. This is helpful, if you can manage to not think about things. However, people with anxiety or any neurological disorder can’t help worrying about everything. This may work for people that do not have trouble easing their mind, but a person who is worried about any and everything most definitely will have trouble “not worrying about it!”
Question of my own:
Because we can’t be sure we aren’t hallucinating, what are ways to tell that we are alive? Especially for people that struggle with depersonalization/derealization, how is it possible to prove to them that we are, in fact, alive?
Section #1
ReplyDelete1. Unlike Plato and Aristotle, extreme skeptics avoid holding firm opinions on anything. I don't think Plato would be considered a skeptic because, for example, his theory of forms is the opposite of Pyrro's idea that none of us will truly know about the ultimate nature of the world.
3.
Pyrrho visited India. Spiritual teachers in India would would put themselves through extreme physical tortures like being buried alive and starving themselves to achieve inner peace. This must've inspired Pyrrho to do crazy things like walk on the edge of a cliff because he believed nothing truly mattered.
5.
Pyrrho was more extreme and believed we cannot trust our senses. Most philosophers who follow modern skeptisms believe you should ask more questions in order to get to the truth. Pyrrho believed we will never understand the truth so there is no point in caring.
Just a reminder: no need to repeat the same factually-correct responses to these questions, after they've already been answered once. Just go ahead and tell us YOUR perspective on the issues and the philosophers we're considering.
ReplyDeleteJohn Aduroja #2
ReplyDeletePyrrho is an interesting character who highlights and embodies what it means to ask questions and does not take every belief, norm, and lifestyle hook, line, and sinker. However, he does take it to another extreme, which is the philosophy of scepticism. It was pretty bold and outrageous to me to see Pyrrho challenging whether the bottom of a cliff is truly one or if he crosses the road with indifference, the certainty of an accident occurring, and him losing his life. I believe Pyrrho has things that should all be embodied in the prospect of challenging what we see as norms, and if truly they are what we should base our lives upon. However, he also has certain attributes and extremes I wouldn't recommend for anyone.
(section 1)
ReplyDelete1: Pyrrho Did not trust his senses and believed that questioning everything was the way to find the truth of everything.
2: Pyrrho ended up doing this pretty successfully by overcoming fear in a lot of tense and horrifying situations.
3: I think that Pyrrho's views can be useful and reasonable to a degree but ultimately are mostly useless, yes i would never know if a car would hit me if i crossed the road without looking, or if it would hurt, but common sense tells me from others past experiences that i would end up severely injured. i feel like his philosophy takes out others perspectives which are some of the most important pieces of understanding our world.
1.) Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
ReplyDeletePyrrho did not trust his senses because he believed the senses and human perception is subjective, fluid, and contradictory. I believe skepticism of some of your senses is a valuable trait to carry and often beneficial. For example, understanding intense emotion or fear due to a learnt trauma response can rewire your nervous system to not interpret the stimulus as a threat. However, paying attention to your senses is necessary for a significant portion of living. As a person living with chronic illness, thus chronic pain, I have undergone treatment where ignoring severe physical pain was encouraged in hopes to outwit the brain to stop sending pain signals. This was futile, considering the brain’s incentive to avoid interpreted harm or death is likely the most powerful biological mechanism we contain. Not only that, but I have a condition which does harm my body, and one that does not actively harm, but still harbors abnormal neural activity that produces pain. All this to say, many human senses are wired to be listened to for your own good. Another example, falling in love requires attunement to your senses and your body’s chosen attraction. Varying forms of sexuality, attraction, and partnership would not exist if love did not require listening to the senses, because we could match with anyone. To conclude, senses should be listened to; thoughts and interpretations of them are what we ought to be skeptical about. We can listen to our senses and not believe what at times, is a faulty conclusion.
2.) According to secular reason, the mind works without what? Are you a secularist? Why or why not?
According to secular reason, the mind works without divinity or a soul separate from consciousness generated by biological activities. I am not a secularist. Science is the basis for a significant portion of our understanding of life, existence, and nature but I believe for some areas of life the poets, the great writers, and artists are who we should seek understanding from. You will learn a lot more about love by reading Dante, Anne Carson, or Virginia Woolf than you will speaking to a psychologist. At least, that is my experience. While I do not believe in a God with a likening to our seeable human forms, like William James and Plato, I believe there is a mysterious vastness unknowable to us while alive. I believe in mysteries beyond our reach and the wonders of our limitations. However, unlike William James, I do not think there are human experiences untransmutable into language. We created language. There is a significant portion of human experience the vast majority cannot accurately transcribe into language in a way that evokes the same emotion of the experience itself. That is what true poets achieve. This is why they are exceptionally rare, and why they are valued centuries after their deaths, even indefinitely. Poets have an ear and an eye for the unseeable, which due to its greatness, is not always available to them, or even entirely comprehended, only felt and transmuted.
3.) How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism left to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry? (Ataraxia)
He believed extreme skepticism led to happiness because existence itself holds no absolutes. There are other ways to reach ataraxia. Extreme skepticism and a lack of skepticism can both equally based on uses lead to unhappiness.
The last sentence you wrote for #3 makes me wonder how skeptics stayed skeptical while believing the idea that nothing is true or completely false simultaneously. I think skeptics really hated polarity and wanted to exist in the in between always. Part of the human experience is wanting to know what is right and what is wrong (truth vs falsity). Even the sentiment that nothing is either completely true or false is still asserting itself as a truth, which is contradictory to the skeptic belief.
DeleteQuestions: Section #2
ReplyDelete1: Sceptics did not hold firm opinions on anything. The sceptics differed from Plato and Aristotle in the because they denied any true sense of knowledge. I believe that sceptics were Socratic to an extent because they agreed with the premise of nobody holding the ultimate form of knowledge.
2: Pyrrho did not trust his senses because he believed that senses are misleading. I do not think that such a decision is prudent or even possible. We as people must be able to trust our decisions to live life at all. If we do not trust our decision to breathe, then how can we maintain life? Additionally, our body innately has a fight or flight response that makes it impossible for us to not react in certain ways to avoid harm. The example in LHP of Pyrro shying away from a dog is a good illustration of my point.
3: Pyrro visited India as a young man. India has a long tradition of people who are considered to be wise putting themselves through tough physical deprivation to achieve a form of spiritual stillness. Pyrro was said to have a calmness that was similar to those wise men in India.
It is interesting to hear Pyrrho echo similar ideas of earlier philosophies such as those that emerged from the Upanishads and Asia as a whole. The quote "we cannot completely trust the senses, sometimes they mislead us" struck me as the most interesting from this chapter because of how agreeable I found the sentiment to be. In Tuesday's lecture, we talked about the limitations of words. I find this discussion and this quote to go hand in hand as just like words, our senses can only explain so many things in the material world. Attempting to explain human problems with an extension of the human body (the mind) only creates a paradox.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to add that I reject the claim that skeptics were just nihilists in disguise. I think to be a skeptic is to realize that humans are everything and nothing simultaneously. Truth is a manmade concept that coddles the mind when it becomes frustrated with the unknown. Skeptics recognize this and refuse to deem the unknown as something that needs to be tamed. I do not think this is inherently nihilistic as it depends on how the skeptic interprets this idea. Sure, some skeptics may use this to justify the belief that nothing matters, however other skeptics may use this philosophy to cope with unpleasant human emotions / situations that occur in every day life.
Section 2
ReplyDelete1. Skeptics varied in their beliefs from Plato and Aristotle because they lacked trust in anything big or small, and didn't hold an opinion on any concepts. I find this to be very interesting because I think you are choosing to be a skeptic, there are reflexes within us that are triggered from the world we live in and to deny some of those is a choice, and I guess I would categorize this as an opinion as well. So to me I think there are a lot of holes in the extreme skepticism point of view.
2. Pyrrho didn't trust his sense because he thought that they were misleading and therefore one can not believe anything. I really do not think that this is possible. It leads me to a question in regards to "why"? Just because your senses are being "misleading" I don't understand the relevance of downright ignoring them. If happiness is the goal and you can only achieve that from not having desires, I don't think its necessary the lengths Pyrrho went to from a "no desires" standpoint.
3. Clearly modern skepticism is less obscure and intense compared to Pyrrho's take on it. I can understand where people have questions of the aspects of existence so I think it has become more positive to ask questions but understanding when it might be taken too far.
Section 2
ReplyDeleteLHP Chapter 3
1. How did the most extreme skeptics (or sceptics, if you prefer the British spelling) differ from Plato and Aristotle? What was their main teaching? Do you think they were "Socratic" in this regard?
The most extreme skeptics avoided holding firm opinions on anything, believing that you shouldn’t rely on what you think to be true, as you could always be mistaken. Though Socrates was skeptical of what people think to be true, he questioned it in order to discover the bigger picture of life, and based on his inquiries of others, he developed understanding of the universe.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
Pyrrho believed that our senses could be misleading us, so he decided to never trust them. This way of life is dangerous and also, in my opinion, not truly skeptical. Though he claims to keep an open mind about his senses, not trusting them at all is a firm opinion.
5. In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
I think that most philosophers only adopt moderate skepticism because extreme skepticism is not only dangerous, but it tends to make life pointless. Without trusting anything or anyone, a life is nothing more than time passing. Moderate skepticism, on the other hand, is necessary to philosophy, as it allows people to identify and strengthen their beliefs.
Section #2
ReplyDelete1.) Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because he knew that sometimes senses can be misleading, like when you think you see or hear something that wasn't actually there. I feel like this decision is technically possible but hard to comprehend. Technically you can refuse to trust your senses, but we use our senses for everything. We hear people talking to us so we respond by talking back, we feel the sensations of things that we touch, we can taste and smell things, and we respond to our environment using our sight. It confuses me how someone could refuse to trust the very things that allow us to live and interact with the world. In my opinion, just because your senses mislead you sometimes doesn't mean you shouldn't ever trust them. I do think it's very interesting to think about whether we should trust our senses or not, however.
2.) Pyrrho believed that his skepticism led to happiness and that others could do the same if they stopped trying to understand the nature of reality, freed themselves from desires, and stopped caring about how things turned out. In my opinion, I don't think someone can completely overcome worry, but I do believe you can worry much less without going to the same extremes as Pyrrho. I have always been someone who worried a lot about many things, and some things that have helped me reduce my worries are to think about things rationally, talk to others, and try to relax and relieve stress. I feel like you can always find something to worry about, especially if you're going through a tough time in your life, but the goal is to just try to stay positive.
3.) I wanted to point out a couple things about Pyrrho's way of thinking. First of all, the book mentions how he was constantly skeptical about things that people knew to be dangerous, like walking off a cliff or walking into traffic. He claimed that we don't actually know if those things could hurt us. My question is, how could you think they wouldn't hurt us? You can clearly see that if somebody walks into traffic and gets run over, they will be in pain. They might be bleeding, have broken bones, or even die. How could you look at that and still be skeptical about if walking into traffic is dangerous and would hurt us? I just feel like the level of skepticism Pyrrho had was him just ignoring things like that that we already know. The second thing I want to point out is how Pyrrho says that in order to be happy, we have to stop caring about how things turn out. I can understand applying that to certain situations, but there are many situations in which one can't help but care about how it'll turn out. For example, if you lose your job and you become homeless, how could you not care about that? Would you really just say "guess I'm homeless now" and not try to make your life better? As another example, what if your loved one is in the hospital and might not live? Would you not care if they live or die? I just don't understand how ceasing to care about how things turn out would make everyone in all situations happier. You can achieve happiness by still caring about what happens in your life.
Section 2:
ReplyDelete1. What made Pyrrho different from philosophers like Aristotle or Plato is that he refused to hold opinions over anything. Philosophers are sceptical about what is declared to be truth so they hope to uncover what lies behind the veil; however, Pyrrho believes that even after questioning it, the opinion you reach is nothing more than another opinion. Pyrrho believes there is no way of knowing what you found to be the true reality.
2. Pyrrho believed you should never trust your senses because they can be misleading. When out in the darkness, you may convince yourself a wolf is heading your way because of what your eyes tell you. You run away in fear to later find out it was a puppy. Your senses may not give fully accurate information; however, it would be prudent never to listen to them, as senses are part of the survival instinct that keeps humans alive. It can be wise not to fully trust these senses but unrealistic to abandon them altogether. The decision to abandon your senses completely may not even be possible because Warburton references a time when Pyrrho reflexively flinches when a dog lunges at him.
4. To reach a state of happiness, free from worries Pyrrho describes the process of abandoning desires because we can't know what to be good or bad. He also describes not caring about how things turn out because once again, none of us can say for certain if the outcome is a pleasant one or dreaded. If unhappiness comes from not getting what you want, then want nothing, and you should be happy from Pyrrho's perspective.
5. Seemingly all philosophers are sceptics, as they don't simply accept the reality that the masses follow. Socrates was heavily sceptical, as he would take his questions to the professionals who should have the best answer, where he would get results showing we do not know as much as we think we know or in hopes of getting closer to what the truth would be. This moderate skepticism is important because it is not fueled by doubts or distrust that keep us static rather, they push us to further thought and imagination. Drawing us closer to the possibility of realizing the truth.
2. Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because they can be deceiving. He wouldn't trust that he was falling off a cliff even if he was tipping over the edge. I think this take is somewhat ignorant. While we do get deceived by our senses, we are born with these innate senses because they serve a survival purpose to us. We need the senses we have to be able to defer danger to the best of our abilities.
ReplyDelete3. Pyrrho visited India when he was younger. India is known to have gurus that live after these extreme lifestyles to chase indifference. Going here probably planted the seed in his head, and being in a time where philosophers were such a prevalent part of the community his ideas were magnified.
5. Most philosophers prefer moderate skepticism because it allows them to still question how much they actually know but not live it out in their day to day life. It's a lifestyle that is more curious than distrusting.
Hey Camryn, I agree with you that we need our senses because the entire reason we have them is for the purpose of survival.
DeleteSection H03
ReplyDelete1. How did the most extreme skeptics (or sceptics, if you prefer the British spelling) differ from Plato and Aristotle? What was their main teaching? Do you think they were "Socratic" in this regard?
Skeptics did not hold firm opinions. I believe they were Socratic because Socrates was always asking questions, even of those people that had firm opinions. Pyrrho never trusted his senses. Sceptics taught to keep an open mind, to not commit, so as to not be disappointed.
\
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible? Pyrrho said the senses mislead. I don’t believe it is prudent. Senses are our best source of data for some things.
3. What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy? Pyrrho visited India and his philosophy has similarities to mystics.
Pyrrho’s view on happiness is not aligned with my views. I don’t think I can separate myself from my needs and wants, nor do I think I can convince myself that nothing matters. I feel like I align more with Aristotle that happiness is a flower that needs to be watered and that to achieve Eudaimonia we need to develop our character and part of doing that seems to rely on things actually mattering. I don’t think I could be indifferent and still develop my character. They seem intertwined.
Hello Amanda, I agree that skeptics were Socratic because they always kept wondering about things and never truly settled for any normal answers.
DeleteSection 3
ReplyDelete1. The most extreme skeptics differed very strongly from Plato and Aristotle since they believed they knew nothing. Plato thought that through understanding perfect forms of things you could gain insight, yet skeptics believed you could never do that because senses are deceiving. Their main teaching was to question everything, far past the point of being Socratic and almost to the point of stupidity. They believed in knowing nothing and questioning everything.
2. Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because he believed that they were unreliable and could deceive you, meaning that to him he could never trust them. This decision is inherently impossible, even for Pyrrho, such as with the story of him instinctively moving his hand away from the snapping maw of a dog.
3. Pyrrho visited India, which has a cultural tradition that consists of putting one through intense hardships to gain an internal calmness. From visiting he may have taken an inspiration and gained his calm demeanor from these men who had seemingly overcome their own bodies.
Hey Spencer, I also think he went to India to learn how to reach calmness without relying on senses.
DeleteSection 3
ReplyDelete1.
Plato and Aristotle did hold firm views on some things. Extreme Skeptics believed you never could truly know anything, so you should never align yourself with a belief 100 percent. I think in a way this is certainly Socratic. It’s just an extreme form of questioning everything, and Socrates loved nothing more than to ask people questions.
2.
Pyrrho believed that your senses can mislead you. For example, you may mistakenly hear something that was actually something else. Therefore, he believed you could never rely on them. In my opinion, the tales they tell about Pyrrho not being scared about falling off cliffs because his senses may be wrong are definitely a little strange. While it is true that you can never trust your senses or the probability of anything 100 percent, senses are physical adaptations for survival and are meant to be used. Without them, you would not at all be grounded in physical reality.
3. Pyrrho visited India as a young man, where they meditate, derive their senses, and sometimes did what may seem to us like physically torture themselves to achieve a true calm sense of mind away from physical reality. Since Pyrrho had this experience of deriving his senses, he may have discovered that his senses were not needed to be calm. One of my favorite singers, George Harrison’s music, was also very inspired by Indian Culture. He fully believed that the calm state of mind achieved by the meditation techniques in India changed his view on God, reality, and spirituality, so I definitely think there is something to be said about what happens to a human brain when it puts itself into that state.
4.
Pyrrho believed that unhappiness was a result of not getting what you want, and what you want comes from the belief that getting that thing will bring you to a more desirable state. But if you know that nothing is certain, then you can detach from those wants. Therefore, you should stop having desires as a whole. I think that this is good advice to an extent. Our brains respond to getting what we want with chemicals like dopamine, and there is a biological reason for that. Our bodies want us to like getting shelter and food and acquaintances for survival. I do believe, however, that it is great advice to not base your happiness on getting material objects or other superficial things. It is entirely possible to still be happy without your dream career, dream house, dream car, etc- and you will likely lead a more fulfilled life if you realize that.
5.Pyrrho was very extreme. Other philosophers would likely argue that it’s silly to let yourself fall off a cliff just because you don’t know for certain if it will hurt you, because you know from past events in physical reality that it probably will. But since we know that he lived to 90, he must have had some caution in his daily life even if he preached not caring about his senses. Moderate skepticism is a foundation in philosophy. To ask a good question, you must be skeptical of something. All philosophers ponder things because they genuinely want to find an answer.
Overall, I do align myself a bit with Pyrrho’s points of views. I take comfort in the fact that life may essentially be meaningless- in the sense that if it is, I should do what makes me happy and pursue my goals without hesitation. Although Pyrrho obviously would say that desires shouldn’t matter either, I do resonate with his skepticism on what we know about this earth and his view on reality being something we simply can’t be sure about.
Section H01:
ReplyDelete2. Pyrrho did not fully trust his senses because he believed they could be misleading and could not provide knowledge. Some skepticism is prudent, but completely refusing to trust our senses is probably impossible for almost everyone in this life.
3. Pyrrho visited India as a young man. I think he may have been influenced by Indian thinkers who emphasized detachment from worldly concerns and inner peace. The people in India seem to do extreme things to their bodies to achieve inner peace and Pyrrho probably thought he did not need his senses to have peace of mind.
4. Pyrrho believed that not making strong judgments and connections about things would help people worry less and feel more at peace. Other ways to feel less worried include meditation, accepting things we cannot control, and focusing on the present instead of constantly worrying about the future and what could be.
Section 3
ReplyDeleteWhy did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
He believed that senses can mislead us and can be unreliable. Simply because we feel or observe something does not necessarily make it the truth. However, the idea that someone could never trust their senses is impossible. Even in the decision to not trust your senses, you are still assuming that you are alive and have a brain enough to make this decision. The fact that he lived at all proves that he trusted his senses to a certain degree, though I recognize that his friends did assist in getting him out of dangerous situations. If he ever had a meal when he was hungry or sat up in the morning, he is trusting his senses.
What country did Pyrrho visit as a young man, and how might it have influenced his philosophy?
Pyrrho visited India as a young man. In India, they have spiritual traditions of depriving themselves of a lot of things, including senses. They would put their bodies through great harm and deprivation in the hopes of gaining inner stillness. Although Pyrrho's belief might not have instilled this strongly into how he treated himself, I can definitely see an influence. Especially with the idea that doing things to your body despite what your immediate emotion is can help reach true happiness.
In contrast to Pyrrho, most philosophers have favored a more moderate skepticism. Why?
Most of philosophy is asking questions, so most philosophers are skeptics to a certain degree. But they much favored moderate skepticism. It seems closer to the idea of questioning assumptions and further examining the evidence. But Pyrrho questions the evidence.
1. Extreme skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle because they never held any firm opinions. Their main teaching was not to rely on anything, question everything, and don’t commit. They weren’t Socratic in the sense that they denied anything really mattered while however they did question everything which is in line with the Socratic method.
ReplyDelete4. He believed that unhappiness arises from not getting what you want, so then by not caring you’re freed. I think there are other ways to be free from worry besides not caring about anything like acknowledging that things do matter, but not so much that you are harming yourself mentally to achieve goals.
5. Most Philosophers favored a more moderate skepticism because instead of just doubting everything, they ask questions and find evidence of why people believe what they do. It’s also less dangerous than putting yourself in bodily harm.
Section H03
ReplyDelete1. Extreme skeptics believed that, because every "answer" had a perfectly-rounded counter-argument, then a person can't dwell on one belief with absolute certainty. This differs from Plato who believed only true philosophers could grasp the concept of absolute perfection and truth by showing how even the strongest belief could have an equally strong exception. It also goes against Socrates who sought knowledge by eliminating answers by the common person, preffering to simply not search any answer at all. Even if it doesn't seem so in the beginning, I believe pyrrhonists are Socratic simply by going back-and-fourth using these counter arguments to beliefs that were considered strong.
2. Pyrrho decided to never trust his senses because he found that they lie to you on some occasions. I do think it could be possible to not trust your senses, but it wouldn't be very prudent nor healthy. To live in fear of what you say, think, do, and feel is ever wrong would drive me crazy!
3. Pyrrho visited India where he studied how Gurus carry out their traditions, including their intense training sessions that most often physically exhausted them in an effort to achieve total calmness. Because Pyrrho decided to stop trusting his senses and pushed the belief to never stay on one belief for too long, he may have taken this idea from the Gurus and spent his days mistrusting his senses to achieve some form of peace of mind.
(I accidentally put H02 instead of H03)
Section 3
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. Pyrrho distrusted the senses because they can deceive us. For example, a straight stick can appear bent when placed in water. Total distrust is probably not practical or fully possible, since we must rely on perception to live.
3. Pyrrho visited India as a young man. He may have encountered Indian ascetics who practiced detachment and indifference, influencing his philosophy.
4. Pyrrho believed suspending judgment eliminated arguments, dogmatism, and anxiety, leading to happiness and ataraxia—freedom from worry. Other paths include Stoic acceptance, Epicurean moderation, meditation, and learning to distinguish what we can and cannot control.
Tyler Scherr - Section H02
ReplyDelete2. He chose not to trust his senses because he believed they could deceive you, and as such if you don't, you can't have your perception changed because you avoided such perceptions in the first place. I believe it is possible but not prudent because avoiding your sense is a good way to ignore the instincts that developed over time to help you survive.
4. He believed that by not having any expectations or perception, there are no assumptions and assumptions create beliefs that can be changed and that will not lead to happiness, happiness can come from the lack of worry he gained from not having to create a view on everything, just letting things happen as they would. It was said that "suspension of judgement produces ataraxia" by Sextus. I think his view has some merit and seems to me to have played a part in current day radical acceptance which is a way to achieve peace after something happens, but I think this may be the easiest way to because most other philosophies rely on some form of reason for acceptance which would complicate the idea of being free from worry as compared to the idea of being free from worry because you are free of any reason to cause it like he proposed.
5. They favor this view because they can question everything in the pursuit of furthering their understanding of their view of the world and life, which wasn't the original reason for extreme skepticism so it evolved to fit the needs of the practitioners.
2. Pyrrho believed that the senses mislead and lie. He did not want to trust his senses even though they could be accurate. I think that ignoring the senses is a mix of both prudence and ignorance. It is good to think twice in certain circumstances but to purposefully ignore your senses if you were facing danger is too far.
ReplyDelete3. Pyrrho visited India as a young man. This may have influenced him towards finding his way of reaching inner peace. He saw gurus and spiritual teachers reaching extremes to reach this inner peace. Maybe he saw these as delusions, and therefore, to reach inner peace, one should view everything as a matter of opinion and hold no firm beliefs.
5. It is in the heart of philosophy to ask questions. A healthy level of skepticism is necessary to keep philosophy alive. Moderate skepticism is a mean to get closer to the truth and to reveal how little is known and can be known without risking one's life.
Also I am in section #2 (1pm).
DeleteSection #3 (2:40 PM)
ReplyDelete1. Plato and Aristotle believed that the truth could be obtained through reason or empirical observation, whereas extreme skeptics like Pyrrho argued that truth cannot be found by the human mind, meaning they were not Socratic in a traditional sense.
2. Pyrrho observed that the senses were constantly deceptive and subjective, varying from person to person, making them untrustworthy. It is prudent because it does prevent you from being tricked by optical illusions, but it is impossible to live without your senses.
3. Pyrrho traveled to India, taking part in Alexander the Great's conquering expedition. In India, he encountered philosophers called "Gymnosophists," who's teachings were based on ascetic detachment, shedding worldly desire, and reaching a state of internal peace, which shaped his own concept of finding peace through the suspension of intellectual judgement.
1. How did the most extreme skeptics differ from Plato and Aristotle? What was their main teaching? Do you think they were "Socratic" in this regard?
ReplyDeletePlato and Aristotle both believed that there was knowledge to be found, even if they disagreed about where that knowledge came from. The extreme skeptics took this much further and basically believed that we can't know anything for certain. Their main teaching was to question everything and avoid committing to any particular belief because we can never be completely sure that we are right. I do think this is somewhat Socratic because Socrates was constantly questioning people's beliefs and admitting that he didn't know everything. However, I think there is a pretty important difference between questioning something because you want to understand it better and deciding that it is impossible to know anything at all. I personally find the first approach much more useful. I think questioning what we believe can help us learn, but if we assume that nothing can ever be known, I'm not sure where that leaves us.
2. Why did Pyrrho decide never to trust his senses? Is such a decision prudent or even possible?
Pyrrho decided not to trust his senses because they can sometimes deceive us. Something can look one way but actually be completely different, especially depending on things like distance, lighting, or perspective. I understand his reasoning, but I don't think completely refusing to trust your senses is either practical or possible. We rely on our senses constantly just to function. If I see a car coming toward me while I'm crossing the street, I'm probably going to trust my eyes and move instead of stopping to wonder whether the car actually exists. Pyrrho apparently took his skepticism far enough that he would walk toward dangerous things because he didn't trust what he was seeing, which seems less like gaining wisdom and more like putting yourself in unnecessary danger. I think it's good to remember that our senses aren't always reliable, but that doesn't mean we should completely ignore them. We can question what we perceive while still using the information our senses give us.
4. How did Pyrrho think his extreme skepticism led to happiness? Do you think there are other ways of achieving freedom from worry (ataraxia)?
Pyrrho thought that if you stopped believing that you knew what was true, you could also stop caring so much about whether things went the way you wanted them to. Since you can't know for certain that one thing is better or worse than another, there isn't much reason to have strong desires or expectations. By getting rid of those desires and expectations, you also get rid of a lot of the disappointment and worry that comes from them, which leads to ataraxia, or freedom from worry. I can understand the logic behind this, but I don't think completely detaching yourself from everything is the only way to find peace. I think another way is learning to accept that things won't always go the way you want them to. You can still care about things and have hopes for the future without letting yourself fall apart when they don't happen exactly how you expected. Personally, I think being able to accept uncertainty is probably a healthier way of finding peace than trying to stop caring about everything.
Section 3:
ReplyDelete1. The most extreme skeptics differed from Plato and Aristotle because they didn't necessarily believe in a higher way of thinking, or in seeing whats in front of us, but instead question everything, and believe nothing. They were socratic in a way of thinking beyond everyone else, however it is not the same socratic way of thinking as Plato or Aristotle.
2. He decided to never trust his senses, and to question everything. He felt that anything could be an illusion and could misguide him, even his own instinct.
5. Extreme skepticism can be dangerous, not believing a swarm of bees will attack, or vicious dogs will bite. Not believing that the cliff with rocks at the bottom will lead to a dangerous fall, why can't the fall be nice and cushioned? Questioning instinct can lead to danger and possibly death, most preferred not to live such a dangerous life.
Section 2
ReplyDelete1. Extreme skeptics believed you shouldn't rely solely on what you believe to be true, but question everything and keep an open mind. Their main teaching was to "not commit, therefore you won't be disappointed". Basically saying to not expect anything to happen, so you are not underwhelmed by the outcome. I do think they were "Socratic" because Socrates embraced ignorance in the way he believed that people should question aspects of their lives to achieve a meaningful existence.
2. Pyrrho visited India as a young man. India is known fro its many gurus and spiritual leaders who practice their teachings by putting themselves in dangerous positions to achieve a sense of inner-peace. Pyrrho's approach was similar in the way that he remains cal in situations that may scare other people. For example, there is a story told of a time Pyrrho was on a ship with very dangerous winds, and he was the only one who remained calmed, not even the sailors o the ship could hide their fear.
3. Most philosophers favor moderate skepticism because it leads you closer to an answer without having to actually risk your life. Moderate philosophy also connects modern and past philosophers beliefs. For example, questioning that results in critical thinking versus personal, physical harm.