2. Historical Picture of Skepticism
Socrates
“About myself I knew that I know
nothing”
Pyrrho
“about each single thing that it no
more is than is not or both is and is
not or neither is nor is not”
Kant
“Experience without theory is blind, but
theory without experience is mere
intellectual play.”
3. Pyrrho of Elis
Lived around 300 BCE
Pyrrhonism
Western Philosophy’s first
formalized approach to Skepticism
Acatalepsia
withhold judgement on truth
There’s always an alternative
explanation.
Not this Kind of Pyro
4. “
”
Neither our sense-perceptions nor our theories, tell us the
truth or lie; so we certainly should not rely on them. Rather, we
should be without views, uninclined toward this side or that,
and unwavering in our refusal to choose, saying about every
single one that it no more is than it is not or it both is and is
not or it neither is nor is not.
SOMETHING PYRRHO OF ELIS MAY HAVE SAID
Audio from the podcast:
Philosophize This! Episode 13 – The Hellenistic Age Pt. 4
http://philosophizethis.org/hellenistic-age-3-skepticism/
5. “
”
Ancient debates address questions that today we associate with
epistemology and philosophy of language, as well as with theory
of action, rather than specifically with the contemporary topic of
skepticism. They focus on the nature of belief, the way in which
belief figures in our mental lives, and the relationship of belief to
speech and action.
STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY: ANCIENT SKEPTICISM
HTTPS://PLATO.STANFORD.EDU/ENTRIES/SKEPTICISM-ANCIENT/
6. Comparison to Modern Skepticism
Ancient Skepticism
Belief
Suspension of Judgement
Criterion of Truth
Appearances
Investigation
Modern Skepticism
Knowledge
Certainty
Justified Belief
Doubt
7. Knowledge as Justified True Belief
Truth
• One can only know things that
are true.
• Just because something is true,
doesn’t mean that anyone
knows it is true.
• It’s metaphysical, not
epistemological. Truth is a
matter of how things are, not
how they can be shown to be.
Belief
You can only know what you believe.
You can know without believing.
• You’re asked “What’s the capital
city of Ohio?” on a test where
you’re penalized for wrong
answers.
• You know that Columbus is the
capital of Ohio — which is true.
• You aren’t confident in your
answer — you don’t believe.
• You leave the question blank
because, while you are know,
you don’t believe.
Justified
• You can believe true things for
the wrong reason
• What is true is what can be
shown
• Repeatable, Demonstrable,
Empirical
8. Practical Example
Assent
• There is an odd number of Jelly
Beans
• We live in the real world.
• There is a god.
Descent
• There is an even number of
Jelly Beans.
• We live in the Matrix.
• There is no god.
Skeptic
• I don’t know.
• I don’t know.
• I don’t know.
9. Philosophical Skepticism
We should not believe things until there is sufficient evidence
for them.
A mechanism by which we can establish the truth of claims to
the best of our ability.
Scientific Skepticism
https://youtu.be/m_tgO-xXrwI?t=1866
Editor's Notes
Skepticism is a post-Socratic philosophy.
Socrates:
In the west, the first skeptic was Pyrrho.
He lived in Elis Greece, around 360 BCE, and died around 270 BCE
Post Socrates (469-399 BCE)
Elements of Skepticism existed in Greek philosophy earlier, but Pyrrho was the first to formalize skeptic ideas into a school of philosophy.
In spite of this, his influence on contemporary philosophers was minimal. He was essentially rediscovered in modern times.
Transcript of Audio <http://philosophizethis.org/skeptics-episode-13-transcript/>:
This is probably a good time to talk about the man who is widely considered the first skeptic in the history of the world, Pyrrho of Elis. I’m starting to notice a pattern here…if you’re a figurehead for a particular movement…if you’re one of the founding fathers of something and you lived during a time when historical details are scarce…you instantly inherit a sort of mystical, legendary status where stories are told about you exhibiting EXTREME behaviors in line with your movement.
Pyrrho was really skeptical. He didn’t believe anything. There are stories of him getting surgery in 300 BC and despite being completely awake…he was unaffected. He lied in silence without so much as a twitch of his face as someone dug into his body…because he wasn’t under the delusion like everyone else that pain was a bad thing necessarily. There’s another story of his good friend falling into a hole and he’s unable to get out…Pyrrho comes across him…sees him in the hole…and just leaves him there. And his friend wasn’t even mad at him…he was just impressed…he deeply respected his ability to be so skeptical.
There are stories of Pyrrho walking around with complete skepticism of everything around him…he was like an elderly woman…he would walk into people…in front of wagons…apparently his friends would have to save him from the brink of walking into his certain death all the time. And despite all these stories…he lived to the very old age of 90.
Well these stories are obviously fiction, but they do illustrate an extreme version of Pyrrho’s line of skeptical thinking. It probably isn’t a shock that Pyrrho didn’t believe in writing things down either…so one of his lead disciples Timon wrote about his beliefs and a later philosopher talks about them here:
“According to Timon, Pyrrho declared that things are equally indifferent, unmeasurable and inarbitrable. For this reason neither our sensations nor our opinions tell us truths or falsehoods. Therefore, for this reason we should not put our trust in them one bit, but we should be unopinionated, uncommitted and unwavering, saying concerning each individual thing that it no more is than is not, or it both is and is not, or it neither is nor is not. The outcome for those who actually adopt this attitude, says Timon, will be first speechlessness, and then freedom from disturbance”
Source <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/>
It is a core ancient intuition that, if we cannot identify an impression as true, we should hold back from making a truth-claim, from believing anything, on the basis of it. The skeptics and their opponents discuss how one recognizes a true impression as true. Is there anything about impressions of truths that marks them as true? Are there some evident things (some kind of impressions), which can be used as standards or criteria, so that nothing is to be accepted as true if it is not in agreement with these evident things?
It’s not enough just to believe it—we don’t know the things we’re wrong about.
Knowledge seems to be more like a way of getting at the truth.
The analysis of knowledge concerns the attempt to articulate in what exactly this kind of “getting at the truth” consists.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#KnowJustTrueBeli
Epistemology: the study of knowledge and justified belief.
Empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
Assent that we can have knowledge of EI-type propositions.
Assent that we cannot have knowledge of EI-type propositions. (That is, deny that we can have knowledge of EI-type propositions.)
Withhold assent to both the proposition that we can have knowledge of EI-type propositions and withhold assent to the proposition that we cannot have such knowledge.