Hellenistic Skepticism: Pyrrhonian vs Academic Philosophy

[00:00:08]hi there you're listening to the hellenistic age podcast episode 46 hellenistic philosophy peronean and academic skepticism [Music] i think therefore i am this is perhaps one of the most well-known phrases in all of philosophy put forth by the 17th century french philosopher rene descartes as a way to answer the perennial question of how do i know what is reality or what is truth or knowledge which is variously manifested as the evil genius fallibility of the senses or more recently a computer simulation the discussion of existence and perception was no stranger to the hellenistic philosophers and the school that provided one of the most radical interpretations belong to those known as the skeptics the school of skepticism derived from the greek word skepsis meaning inquiry or investigation argues that our abilities to perceive and determine the truth of matters are prone to error the two competing skeptic branches the pyronians and academics agreed on this matter but the former was concerned with using skepticism to achieve inner tranquility while the latter bent on applying it to approach closer to the truth in this episode we'll be comparing and contrasting the pyronian and academic skeptic schools of philosophy that emerged during the early hellenistic period in order to see if we could truly say that we know anything at all while it became more concrete and systematized during the hellenistic period the problems and paradoxes of knowledge were well known to earlier greek philosophers famously in the apology socrates argued that he was probably the wisest man simply because he admitted that he truly didn't know anything besides the fact that he knew nothing the limitations of human perception were apparent if he followed the beliefs of democritus whose notions of imperceptible atoms were essential to his conceptions of the universe many have provided their own explanations and solutions to such problems plato argued that knowledge is a matter of recollection the stoics believe that observations are to be trusted with a degree of rational deduction and the epicureans radically suggested that all observations are valid but by no extent was there a sense of a systematic and institutionalized form of skeptic belief designed with skepticism at its core philosophy yet in the late 4th early 3rd century bc the two main branches of hellenistic skepticism emerged almost independently an instance of convergent evolution the first individual is known as pirro or piron an elysian painter turned philosopher who studied under anak sarkis a himself a democratic philosopher who had become part of alexander the great's inner circle accompanying him throughout his asian campaigns according to the biographer diogenes laertes piro had joined his mentor on the expedition and during their time in india piro apparently had something of a revelation while engaging discussion with the so-called gymnosophists the naked philosophers that alexander had met during his stay in takshila from that point on pierre lived according to the maxim of suspending all judgments and living a life free of worry and strain allegedly indifferent to his senses to the point where he was only kept alive by a group of followers who prevented piro from being run over by oncoming carts or bitten by rabid dogs though it seems more like a parody of the man than what actually happened the one brief reference we have to pirro studying with the indian aesthetics has sparked a flurry of research articles and books discussing the possibility that greek skepticism was inspired by the teachings of the buddha we didn't talk much about the gymnosophists when we covered alexander's indian campaigns almost two years ago but they spare a striking resemblance to the modern sadhus who seek to achieve enlightenment through ascetic lifestyles and lack of personal possessions most prominently clothing the sadhu's religious notions lie within the broader sphere of hinduism but early buddhism was prominent in northwestern india during the time and many of the arguments employed by skeptics resemble the basic elements of buddhist philosophy such as the emphasis on the fallibility of perception and indifference in order to escape suffering certainly there were later greek converts to buddhism the most famous being the indo-greek ruler of the mid-2nd century bc menander the first but there are many parallels between greek and indian philosophies even before the time of alexander the great both having rich tradition stretching back centuries now as interesting of an idea that it may be we unfortunately just don't have much to go on and i'm not an expert in buddhism either so i can't speak with authority on the exact one-to-one parallels of early buddhist thought to skeptical philosophy but i've included a couple books on this very topic in my bibliography for this episode which will be linked in the podcast description or my website www.helens regardless of its buddhist origins or not piro returned to greece following the death of alexander and continued to practice and preach his philosophy living on little in the way of food and material goods and sometimes giving lectures where nobody was there to listen he did have a band of followers though and one student timon was the only one to ever record his teachings much like socrates piro never wrote anything down on his own accord and trying to determine what were the actual beliefs of piro versus what was later developed by timon is like trying to piece together what socrates believed by exclusively using fragments of plato it's a near-fruitless effort but tradition holds that both were incredibly important to the movement the existence of the peronean school as a whole is a mystery to us barring some names of the skull arcs we know little about how it functioned or its methodology but we have an indication that it had a bit of a revival in the first century bc under anisodemus during the final years of the hellenistic age and the last great pyronian skeptic would not be until the late 2nd century a.d with the roman writer sextus empiricus during the turn of the fourth century bc a young man named archelaus had just arrived in the city of athens after emigrating from asia minor seeking to further his education by studying under one of the great philosophical schools of the city he had found himself drawn to the academy of plato and was considerably talented enough to become its head by the year 268.

[00:06:42]the teachings of the academy were relatively flexible and though plato was an advocate for his theory of the forms he nevertheless believed that open dialogue and discussion with other philosophical schools was tolerable if not outright promoted because it allowed the students to more easily approach true knowledge and wisdom this is what largely attracted our castelius in the first place and during his time as the head of the academy he began to take it into a new phase often called the middle academy which also began the movement known as academic skepticism our kessiles had taken inspiration from socrates's prodding and dialectic inquiries and took it to its logical conclusion placing an emphasis on constantly seeking a state of questioning and searching for the truth against any and all positions put forth also like socrates he did not write down any of his findings and it would be left to later students to outline his teachings it is very possible that he observed and was influenced by the hermit-like behavior of pirro since they were both in athens at the same time for many years and some claim that archelaus was a pyronian in all but name however there is a key difference between the end goals of pirro and our kessileus the former believed that a suspension of judgment would result in the state of tranquility while the latter believed that the suspension of judgment is what aids us to reaching closer to the truth i'll elaborate on these differences further on in the episode but just understand that academics and pyronians are similar in practice but different emotives following our kessileus the next great academic skeptic was carniedes of cairini in the mid-second century who was also one of the philosopher envoys sent to rome in 156 and the originator of the new academy carney 80s made his name by strengthening the methodology of archelaus and was famous for his attacks on the stoics some of these arguments made their way into the last episode when i addressed the criticisms of stoic doctrine but he also attacked the epicureans and virtually every theory of ethics at the time his tendencies to nitpick and inquire about everything also immensely annoyed cato the elder who was furious at the potential corruption of the youth when carneides had dissected the concept of justice during the ambassadorial mission to rome and was promptly kicked out of the city shortly thereafter after carne 80s we have little information about the academy as the whole but there is an indication that skepticism had been falling out of favor within the school but like the other major institutions at the time sola's sack of athens in 86 bc had scattered its members across the mediterranean the academy would reform itself gradually and cast off its skeptic ideas and develop arguments more in line with the original philosophies espoused by plato and it would be under the forms of middle and neoplatonism that the academy would continue to survive throughout late antiquity despite its rocky introduction to rome in the 150s and the greater popularity of stoicism in the republican empire academic skepticism had found one of its greatest champions in cicero the philosophically minded roman politician and orator he was highly attracted to the concept of looking at two sides of an argument to try and reach the closest approximation of the truth and his works provide us an invaluable look in academic methodology and history of course he probably wasn't a strict skeptic but a passionate admirer who still managed to record much of it for posterity and try living somewhat along with its ideals but enough of the history lesson will now turn our attention to the finer details of skepticism espoused by the pyranists and the academics [Music] tired of learning about the past by only reading long textbooks no problem i'm here to help you ether artist on youtube will make your learning experience fun by combining knowledge and humor with a fresh and joyful approach search eater artist on youtube and enjoy your weekly intake of fun history learning as a bit of a clarification before we begin the next few minutes will have me moving between both branches of hellenistic skepticism intermittently while both sides have different ends in their pursuit of a skeptical lifestyle it is almost impossible to separate the arguments into two different parts each camp relies on a very similar methodology and if i were to break it up it would appear disjointed and incoherent so for the convenience of flow i will attempt to integrate it into one cohesive discussion but i will also bring it to your attention where the skeptic camps diverge considerably for our previous episodes on the epicureans and stoics we spent a considerable amount of time discussing the process by which we analyze what knowledge is and how it is gained referred to as epistemology contrary to those schools which developed extensive arguments as to why knowledge is something that can be acquired through experience and perception the skeptics doubted the possibility of true knowledge existing at all one important ground rule to lay out is the concept of belief because the exact meaning of it is integral to understanding the philosophies of both academic and peyronian skeptics and we can sort of move around the inevitable semantics of how can you believe in a lack of belief the pyramidist laid out the idea that there are two types of belief dogma in the greek the first type is what is known as dogmatic belief which is a firm or concrete acceptance of the way things are the second is non-dogmatic belief which is an acceptance on the way things appear to be for the pyranists the latter is what can be deemed as a acceptable belief to have as a skeptic because while the former ascents without questioning the possibility that it could be wrong or inaccurate the latter is non-committal for the academics carneides outlined skeptical beliefs which occur when we ascend to any sort of impression but under the supposition that the individual is constantly in a state of inquiry and is fully self-aware that what they are assenting to might be incorrect both of these are very similar outlining how although their belief in non-belief may sound contradictory they themselves advocate that they may indeed be wrong but they never profess to being correct either and are fully at peace with that possibility which makes a large degree of difference with that out of the way let's start with the school of pirro unfortunately the material of the pyronian skeptics is poorly preserved and fragmentary and only paraphrases and reinterpretations by later authors can give us some level of insight the most important of these was sexist empiricus writing during the 2nd century a.d laying out the overall belief structure in his outlines of piranism what doesn't help is that the greek is very difficult to translate so this is my approximate summation of the most commonly accepted viewpoint according to tradition pirro is to have said that quote things are equally undifferentiable and unmeasurable and undecidable because of this neither are perceptions nor opinions tell the truth or lie because of this then we must not trust them but we must be without opinions and lean to neither side and remain unwavering end quote let's break this down piece by piece with the first criteria undifferentiable this refers to the notion that we are incapable of properly differentiating one thing from another if we judge things and hold opinions based upon our perceptions and sensations a problem develops say if i were to claim that fire is hot anyone who has accidentally licked their fingers with the flames of a cooking element would certainly agree with this however in piro's opinion this statement is neither true nor false because while fire is hot to some people making my claim true it also could be rendered a false claim because it could be considered not hot by other people's perceptions or by its position on some sort of qualitative spectrum like comparing a campfire to and the explosion of an atomic bomb the term unmeasurable has also been translated as unstable referring to how the properties of objects constantly change and so we cannot affix static unchanging features onto them as expressed by the famous pre-socratic philosopher heraclitus quote just as the river where i step is not the same and is so i am as i am not can it be said that a tree is the same from one period to the next whose leaves are never quite in the same position who has different scars upon its bark and different insects and animals dwelling within over many years to the pureness no you can't so if we cannot claim any object properties or values are stable then our senses once again tell us nothing the last undecidable brings us to what sextus empiricus calls equipolents a situation that arises when there are equally strong arguments on both sides which leads to a state where we are simply impotent and cannot properly judge any sort of sensation these arguments arise because our senses are fallible and can't properly differentiate because objects are constantly changing and so we cannot get a firm grasp of what they actually are this leads to the state of equipolens and so according to pirro we know nothing it must be clarified that even the most extreme skeptic does not deny the existence of the universe natural world or whatever you would classify the external plane of reality we dwell within this would be referred to as negative dogmatism a belief in disbelief rather they posit that given that all of the limitations of our senses we can't determine any of the characteristics of said external world additionally it's not a matter of the senses leading to false opinions or beliefs it's the principle that we cannot discover the truth that matters consistently with absolute certainty every time we feel or perceive a good analogy would be a thermometer if i somehow discovered that 3 out of 10 times i read the thermometer it provides an incorrect temperature it doesn't necessarily mean that the other seven times are invalid in of themselves but the problem is how can i be sure if this instrument is reading right at any one time the seeds of doubt lead us to the state of distress as i cannot trust i am given either the correct answer or the wrong answer and so when this carries over to our senses we should say that there is no such thing as tangible knowledge certainly this can be problematic and the question goes from is there such a thing of knowledge to how do i live well in absence of knowledge the strain of coming to the conclusion of such a revelation can put immense pressure and stress on the individual who is at least somewhat cognizant of this idea however there is a degree of hope and for pirro there are ways to cope with it piro advocates a two-step policy of aphasia and ataraxia aphasia is the greek word which is difficult to translate properly meaning roughly a lack of assertion or even speechlessness and it has been argued that aphasia is a transcription error and should be amended to apothea meaning indifference because we are something of a crossroads when we are trying to determine the truth of natural states we are caught in a bit of an internal maelstrom pirro argues that instead of bothering to try and pontificate on whether something is true or not the best thing to do is just not even bother in the first place by holding no opinions and entering into a state of perpetual indifference by acting with indifference we achieve ataraxia a state of tranquility so as to not be bothered by ideas like death sickness or other supposed evils but if we are to understand that we aren't able to ascribe any sort of value judgment why should we believe that ataraxia is a good to the pyranists anorexia in of itself is not a good but it is a starting point and certainly bears the connotations of a good it is more preferable than the state of apraxia inactivity brought about by the daunting number of equally likely and equally unlikely judgments or arguments with the understanding that tranquility is at least something we should be inclined to how do we reach the state given the earlier problem of how being confronted with indecision can lead to the state of apraxia an individual must take care to avoid such a pitfall the most important term used by both the pyronian and academics is epoquy which means suspension of judgment and should be constantly sought out by the skeptic to either achieve tranquility or come closer to the truth in an effort to systematically maintain epikey and avoid the pitfalls of becoming a dogmatist the piranus developed what are called the modes 15 in number these were composed in the first century by anes and demus and a shadowy figure named agrippa and are essentially arguments that are designed to demonstrate equipolens the undecidability between two competing points we won't go over all of them but let's just focus on the first one for example which is arguments concerning oppositions based on the differences between kinds of animals by looking to the natural world we can see that animals have evolved similar yet different responses to shared problems for instance sensory organs that aid in visual perception simply known as the eye have emerged in several evolutionary groups our eyes are usually white with colored irises and circular pupils but those of a cat are yellow or blue with vertical slits for pupils at least when they're angry assuming the absence of modern understanding of the inner workings of the eye it stands to reason that is very possible that cats perceive things differently than we do and we cannot try to comprehend how they see the world anyways by this assumption our perception of how things are is no more valid or invalid than that of a cats or any other animal since they seem to succeed at the same task as much as we do this demonstrates that there are no true perceptions because different creatures appear to perceive the same thing in a different way which each of those perceptions being equally valid and invalid creating a state of equipolents and therefore leading to epikey ultimately each of these modes reinforces the idea of variability and relativity when it comes to perception to be used as a reminder for the practicing skeptic that there are numerous examples that go counter against dogmatism of all types sure being inclined to not trust in anything sounds easy on paper but what happens when it comes to being able to interact with society at large which has laws customs and various complicated elements which require some degree of belief or complicit agreement more importantly how can we sustain ourselves under the presumption that we must always suspend judgment when it becomes to basic tasks or day-to-day requirements like food or drink because of this some ancient critics of skeptics above all the stoics argue that epikey makes life unlivable given that a suspension of judgment would likely lead to an inability to decide on any course of action the academic pioneer carne eides provides us with a detailed response to this counterclaim the first is his clarification on ascent and as a reminder when we use the term ascent in the context of epistemology it means you are agreeing with a proposition usually in the form of a perception known as an impression for example do i assent to the impression of my water bottle sitting on my desk i explained earlier about the difference between dogmatic and skeptical belief and so this follows along a similar pattern strong or dogmatic extent is taking a proposition at face value and believing it to be true while skeptical ascent is being presented with an impression being generally inclined to agree with it or prove it but still maintaining the possibility at all times that it might be incorrect the latter still allows you to suspend judgment on ideas decisions or actions but still be inclined enough to follow through with them for instance i am inclined to the idea of consuming food because i'm inclined to agree that is necessary for me to function but i will never agree that is a hundred percent true the food metaphor may not even be completely accurate since according to sexist empiricus such base actions are a result of reflex rather than belief akin to a dog trying to remove a thorn from its paw in order for someone to skeptically ascend to any sort of proposition or impression there has to be a degree of believability to its explicit or implicit claims while we can't say it's definitively true an impression can have a higher probability of being true by being critically assessed and scrutinized carney 80s posits different degrees of scrutiny depending on the task at hand the first level is what i would call casual or indifferent scrutiny where you are faced with the mundane or impressions that don't really matter if they are true or false so you apply a bare minimum effort in examining them for instance i don't think many people would have their lives ruined if they misjudged the color of the door on the 52nd house that they passed while driving to work the second level is a bit more complex and requires more contextual scrutiny with the associated impressions that come along with the original one using houses again let's say you need to pick up a friend from their home which happens to be that 52nd house the car in the driveway the house number and even the presence of your friend would all be factors that we would check against in order to be more certain that this is indeed their residency the third level requires the highest degree of scrutiny as it relates to matters of utmost importance such as what affects our happiness or well-being a doctor attempting to perform surgery is going to have to engage in intensive analysis of all aspects of the situation whether in regards to the tools that they are using the diagnosis of the patient and being aware of their own abilities and state while actually conducting the operation all in all carney 80s pointed out that we prioritize when it comes to testing the verifiability of claims and impressions much like how we don't or can't fixate and all the things in our lives with equal focus by being able to be more confident in the plausibility of truth for more important matters while accepting the fallibility of the smaller details we demonstrate that living in a state of epikey while maintaining an ordinary life is indeed certainly possible this argument is also one of the clearest examples of the difference between the academic and peyronian skeptics since the latter would not accept the possibility that some impressions are more truthful than others when it comes to acting ethically the skeptics appear to be less inclined towards setting out how to live an ethical life and instead are more focused on dismantling the ethical systems proposed by the other existing schools of philosophy to be sure they were not advocating that virtue or virtuous people did not exist they just wanted to see if the proposed systems were able to hold themselves up to intensive scrutiny i have explained many of the specific arguments against the stoics epicureans in the previous two episodes but both theories proposed to some extent that virtue required an understanding or knowledge and after saying that i'm pretty sure you know where this one is going carney 80s was the most methodical in dissecting the various ethical theories into their components and argue that the three base categories of all ethical pursuits fall into either pleasure absence of pain or seeking primary goods like wealth intelligence and virtue in the eyes of carniedis no system of ethics passed his test in being able to conclusively demonstrate that they were 100 correct in their assumption that their particular end goal was the right outcome with the transition away from skepticism to neoplatonism within the academy and the general lack of writings espousing the beliefs of pirro barring sexist empiricus the skeptic movement had largely fallen out of favor though pockets continued to survive after its heyday like the other schools of epicureanism and stoicism the skeptics were left behind by the rise of christianity which had wholeheartedly embraced neoplatonic thought in the byzantine and arabic worlds where greek literature was better preserved there are more references to the skeptic philosophers of old though there were admirers of the skeptic's dialectical skills critics were none too fond of the theological implications that questioning the existence of a god might bring and one 6th century writer attributed as david the philosopher dryly commented quote the pyronians attempt to ruin everything the lack of skeptic sources in the latin west barring some surviving manuscripts of cicero resulted in little familiarity with the academics and the peyronians but thanks to the reintroduction of sextus empiricus and other greek works by the 14th century hellenistic skepticism once again found itself in a debate to the time curiously it was weaponized by both humanists and religious conservatives during the renaissance the 17th century french intellect blaise pascal believed piranism to be the stuff of madmen while the earlier michel de montaigne openly adopted several of its ideas perhaps the greatest inheritor of the skeptic mantle would emerge during the 18th century in the form of the scottish philosopher david hume who ensured that skepticism was no longer seen as a dialectical exercise separate from all future philosophical discussions but rather that we should quote take to be an integral part of it with that we can conclude our episode on the last major school of hellenistic philosophy of course there were other movements during the period as well that aren't as well known such as the aristotelian peripherics and the cynics now for the sake of the show i really wanted to focus on the big three and give each its own in-depth treatment but it has proven to be a challenging task compared to my normal narrative or special topic episodes however it would be something of an injustice to not at the very least give a brief account of the other schools and the peripatetics in particular are extremely important in relation to my eventual discussion on the developments in science during the hellenistic period so to compromise i will dedicate one final episode that will act as a brief round tour of some of the other remaining schools and following that we'll be back to our normal programming and believe me it won't take nearly as long as what had happened between episode 45 and this one so apologies for that in the meanwhile if you've enjoying what you've been listening to and want to support the show consider leaving a review or donating by either my coffee page or the show's book wishlist and you can support the show and pick up some ancient history themed bookmarks for yourself or others by checking out my etsy page you can also still send in questions for the show's q a episode by my email at hellenistic agepodcast gmail.com or through any of my social media accounts all of these links will be provided in the show notes on my website and in the podcast description so until next time you've been listening to the hellenistic age podcast [Music] you