SKEPTICISM

Pyrrho (c.360-270 B.C.) was a Greek philosopher, a native of Elis, regarded as the father of skepticism. After accompanying Alexander the Great to Asia, he enjoyed great respect at Elis and Athens.

The main principle of Pyrrho's thought is expressed by the word acatalepsia, which connotes the ability to withhold assent from doctrines regarding the truth of things in their own nature. [For example, someone may say that God really talked to Moses; well, according to skepticism, I should permanently withhold (or suspend) judgment (or belief) because there is no way that I can verify it’s truth or falsity. Moses may have been delirious or delusional and truly thought he was talking to God, but I shouldn’t believe such an unsubstantiated claim. Similarly, I shouldn’t believe that Cinderella really had a fairy godmother or even that Cinderella really existed. In regards to belief, however, Pyrrho’s skepticism does not teach you to believe that such things existed nor does it teach you to believe that such things didn’t exist; it merely teaches you to suspend judgment as to whether it is true or false. But, for me (as a modern skeptic), rather than using terms like true or false to describe my judgment about claims like these, I would use the words likely and unlikely.

Thus, in view of the fact that against every statement its contradiction may be advanced with equal justification, it is intellectually necessary to preserve an attitude of intellectual suspense, or, as Timon (a student of Pyrrho) expressed it, “no assertion can be known to be better than another.”

Pyrrho, however, applied these results to life in general, concluding that, since nothing can be known, the only proper attitude is ataraxia, "freedom from worry". He said, "By suspending judgment, by confining oneself to phenomena or objects as they appear, and by asserting nothing definite as to how they really are, one can escape the perplexities of life and attain an imperturbable peace of mind."

“The proper course of the sage,” said Pyrrho, “is to ask himself three questions:

1. Firstly we must ask what things are and how they are constituted.

2. Secondly, we ask how we are related to these things.

3. Thirdly, we ask what ought to be our attitude towards them.”

Pyrrho's answer was that things are indistinguishable, unmeasurable, undecidable, and no more this than that, or both this and that and neither this nor that.

He concluded that human senses neither transmit truths nor lie. Humanity cannot know the inner substance of things, only how things appear.

Because our minds can be delusional, and because even what we think we see (hear, taste, touch or smell) can be an illusion, the impossibility of really knowing anything, even in regard to our own ignorance or doubt, should induce the wise man to withdraw into himself, avoiding the stress and emotion which belong to the contest of vain imaginings. This theory asserts that certainty is really impossible. Its ethical implications may be compared with the ideal tranquility of the Stoics and the Epicureans. In other words, since you can’t be certain about anything anyway, then don’t worry about anything.

In brief, Pyrrho taught that nothing can be known, because the contradiction to every statement can be maintained with equal plausibility. Hence his philosophic attitude is one of suspended judgment and imperturbability.

To suspend judgment is to delay deciding the truth or falsity of a statement until sufficient facts have been ascertained to support the respective statement.

To be Imperturbable is to be unshakably calm and collected.

Pyrrho’s attitude was, of course, extreme; however, people in Europe reviewed his ideas along with other “classical” ideas of Ancient Greece and were enlightened by them. The research and reading of Ancient Greek ideas by Europeans during the so-called Dark Ages led to what has been called the Renaissance (the “rebirth” from the "intellectual death" of the Western civilization). During the so-called Dark Ages, the intellectuals of the Western Civilization were so dominated by Christianity that intellectual growth and development was “dead”—that is, relatively nonexistent.

Thus, you can imagine how the revival of Pyrrho’s ideas—even though they were extreme—helped loosen the extreme grip that Christianity held on the minds of the people in Europe at that time.

The “Renaissance” occurred approximately from the 14th through the 16th centuries; however, I can see how the “Renaissance” led to the so-called “Age of Enlightenment,” which also occurred in the Western Civilization.

The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment) is the era in Western philosophy and intellectual, scientific, and cultural life, centered upon the 18th century, in which reason was advocated as the primary source for legitimacy and authority.

In other words, during the Enlightenment, a scientific attitude (which included skepticism—although a softer, less extreme, version than Pyrrho’s) dominated the Western Civilization. The scientific attitude is an approach to investigations that benefits from the following traits:

1. curiosity or inquisitiveness in a search for facts

2. objectivity and a habit of looking for true cause-and-effect relationships

3. reasonableness

4. open-mindedness

5. respect for evidence

6. critical mindedness

7. suspended judgment (until sufficient evidence has been obtained)

8. A steady persistence in pursuit of accurate knowledge, technology, and skill

9. intellectual honesty and a persistent pursuit of accuracy

10. an ability to accept failure or admit inaccuracies and to change ones opinion and course of action in light of contradictory evidence

11. aversion to superstitions

12. a willingness to accept reality and truth

Scientific attitude is really a composite of these mental habits, or of tendencies to react consistently in certain ways to a novel or problematic situation. It is a cognitive concept; scientific attitudes are normally associated with the mental processes of scientists; however, these attitudes and habits are important in the everyday life and thinking, not only of the scientist, but of everyone. Moreover, scientific attitudes possess attributes thought to be either true or false and do not express an evaluative quality (such as “good” or “bad”). To lessen the semantic confusion, scientific attitudes may be better labeled as "scientific attributes".

Even though Pyrrhonism’s principle of suspended judgment eventually became a part of modern scientific thinking in the Western Civilization, Pyrrhonists of Ancient Greece found Pyrrhonism useful because Pyrrhonism (like stoicism and Epicureanism) helped them to have a more peaceful state of mind. According to the Pyrrhonists, it is our opinions or unwarranted judgments about things which turn them into desires, painful effort, and disappointment. A person can thus avoid all of this by being nonjudgmental in regards to anything being inherently “good” or “bad.” I imagine that a skeptic, if pressed to decide whether something is good or bad, would ask: Good for what? or Bad for what? In other words, things are neither good nor bad in and of themselves; everything just is or isn’t. If anything is “good” or “bad,” then it is only good or bad for something or to someone. So, while retaining his or her consciousness of the uncertainty of everything in life (as well as in death), the skeptic might follow social customs or natural laws in order to cause the most favorable consequences for doing so. The reason for doing so may simply be stated in the following way: Since the only certainty in life is that I exist as a thinking being, I had better use my thinking to think and do what would probably causes me the most favorable consequences. “Right” or “wrong” is, of course, relative; however, what other people think is right or wrong may have favorable or unfavorable consequences for or against me. Therefore, I should take into consideration what other people may think about what I say or do because of the consequences that I might have to endure in regards to their opinions.

EPICURUS AND ZENO

Epicurus (341–270 B.C.) founded a “philosophy” for plain people. His aim was to help people bear the hardships and changes in life. He also sought to help people to stop unnecessary suffering. He knew that much of the mental suffering that most people have is unnecessary; to this extent, he felt that a philosophy was needed to help people overcome such unnecessary suffering.

“Vain is the word of a philosopher which does not heal any suffering of man. For just as there is no profit in medicine if it does not expel the diseases of the body, so there is no profit in philosophy either if it does not expel the suffering of the mind.” — Epicurus

According to Epicurus, the greatest of the unnecessary mental suffering was caused by fear, especially fear of the gods and of death. He sought to alleviate the former not by denying the existence of the gods but by insisting that they were not interested in human affairs and therefore did not interfere in them, either favorably or unfavorably.

And, he wanted to cure the fear of death by his famous argument, “As long as we are, death is not; and when death is, we are not,” so that there is no reason to be concerned with it or to be afraid of it.

Through a misunderstanding of his teaching that we must not avoid pleasure, the term “epicurean” became synonymous with a person who seeks sensual pleasures of all kinds. This was not Epicurus’ intention, for he sought moderation in everything. The ideal to strive for, according to him, was that of “ataraxia”—peace of mind.

As is shown by his emphasis on fear (or, as we would say today, anxiety, since the fears of which Epicurus was speaking were, according to him, fears of imaginary dangers), Epicurus was trying to make his philosophy fulfill the function which today is served by psychotherapy, particularly psychoanalysis.

While Epicureanism appealed to ordinary people, another philosophy became the dominant one of the intellectual elite of ancient times. It was founded by Zeno of Citium (335-265 B.C.). Also unlike Epicureanism, it did not derive its name from that of its founder but from the place where it was taught. This was the “Stoa Poikile” or “Painted Porch” at Athens, and thus the name “Stoicism.”

Stoicism was a much more elaborate and comprehensive philosophical system than that of Epicurus.

Epicurus saw nature as chaotic and basically hostile to people.


Stoicism, on the contrary, saw nature as a wonderfully ordered whole and humans as an integral part of it. Therefore, everything that was “according to nature” was of necessity good. Even death was not to be feared, because, like birth, it was “according to nature.”


But this view did not exclude the use of reason to find out what was “according to nature” and to help in mastering one’s emotions and desires.


“All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature; the individual life is good when it is in harmony with Nature.” (Zeno, 4th Century B.C.)

Stoicism teaches:

1. Live in accord with Nature; worldly Nature and human nature.

2. There is a Unity of All; all gods; all substance; all virtue; all mankind.

3. The external world is maintained by the natural interchange of opposites (poioun / yin, paskhon / yang).

4. Everyone has a personal, individual connection to All; a god within.

5. Every soul has Free Will to act and the action of the soul is opinion.

6. Live simply through moderation and frugality.

7. Spiritual growth comes from seeking the good.

8. Regard Virtue as the only good, Vice the sole evil, and everything else as neither good nor evil.

9. The Cardinal Virtues are Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance.

10. The path to personal happiness and inner peace is through the extinguishing of all desire to have or to affect things beyond ones control and through living for the present without hope for or fear of the future; beyond the power of opinion.

11. The sequential reabsorption and recreation of the Universe by the Central Fire; the Conflagration.

The Stoic ideal of “apatheia” (apathy)—total imperviousness to the blows of misfortune—was even more difficult to attain than the peace of mind of the Epicureans.

When Rome became the dominant world power, Stoicism became its leading philosophy. Its best-known representatives were significantly a slave, Epictetus (A.D. 60-117), and an emperor, Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 121-180). The Discourses of Epictetus and the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius are the best-known expositions of Roman Stoicism, with its consoling message that nothing, not even death, is evil, since all is “according to nature.”

EPICURIANISM

Epicūrus (341–271 BC) was an Ancient Greek philosopher of the Hellenistic age and founder of the Epicurean school of philosophy.

The aim of Epicurus was the wise conduct of life, to be attained by reliance on the evidence of the senses, and the elimination of superstition and of the belief in supernatural intervention. Happiness consists in attaining tranquility of mind, an attainment achieved by a proper understanding of nature.

Epicurus' moral theory is summed up in a sentence from one of his letters: ‘We say that pleasure is the beginning and end of living happily.’ Thus for Epicurus pleasure is identical with the good. It is in the nature of people to seek pleasure; pain, which is a disturbance of the natural state, is caused by unsatisfied desire, and pleasure is experienced when the natural state is restored. Therefore one must satisfy desire, and this is pleasure. But some pleasures bring pain in their wake. Therefore one must satisfy desires which are natural and necessary, but accept as the limit of pleasure the onset of pain. Hence pleasure may lie in limiting desire. (Epicurus is perhaps uniting under the term ‘pleasure’ both positive enjoyment and the absence of pain.)

Mental pleasure is found in ataraxia, ‘freedom from disturbance’. This can be achieved in three ways:

1. by learning the nature of the universe and of death, which removes fear of the supernatural (the worst mental pain),

2. by withdrawing from the turmoils of public life, and

3. by avoiding emotional commitments.

The meaning given in modern times to the word ‘epicure’ (a gourmet or person devoted to sensual pleasures) represents widespread hostility to and misunderstanding of Epicurean philosophy. Particular antagonism was felt by the Stoics; nevertheless Epicureanism spread, first to Antioch and Alexandria, then into Italy, and for a brief time during the late republic it won the adherence of men like Calpurnius Piso, Cassius, and Cicero's friend Atticus. Naturally the early Christians regarded Epicureanism with abhorrence because it stated that there was no providential God and no survival after death, that the universe had been created by accident, and that the aim of life was pleasure.

STOICISM

Stoic philosophy was founded in Athens in the third century BC by Zeno of Citium and reached the peak of its popularity among the upper classes of Rome during the first century BC and the first century AD. It was influential throughout the Greco-Roman world until at least AD 200. It was inspired by the teaching of Socrates and Diogenes of Sinope. It stressed duty and held that, through reason, mankind can come to regard the universe as governed by fate and, despite appearances, as fundamentally rational, and that, in regulating one's life, one can emulate the grandeur of the calm and order of the universe by learning to accept events with a stern and tranquil mind and to achieve a lofty moral worth. Its teachings have been transmitted to later generations largely through the surviving books of Cicero and the Roman Stoics Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius.

The Stoic view of knowledge is empirical; knowledge comes to us from the world through ‘appearances’, which are impressed on our minds. Reason, seen as the quintessentially human characteristic, enables us to understand the world. Stoicism denied the importance of all bodily conditions, and emotions were always regarded as bad. The only factor seen as essential to human happiness was virtue, all else in life having significance only as an opportunity to demonstrate that one possesses virtue. Seneca claimed that one could demonstrate virtue equally well through pleasure or through pain, whether enjoying a banquet or submitting to torture. For the Stoic, poverty and detachment from the world were not seen as essential for the achievement of the good life, nor need worldly wealth be abandoned in the quest for virtue.

In the treatise De Officiis (On Duties), written after the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC, the Roman politician and philosopher Cicero gave a Stoic account of the correct use of the body as part of his advice to his son — and to the Roman governing classes in general — on how to make moral decisions and to live in the best way possible. As a manual for the upper classes, this text was highly influential in Western political and social thought. Cicero says that both the mind and the body should be trained from childhood into moderate and appropriate behavior, and this should be expressed through every action — there being a seemly way to stand, walk, or sit. The ideal is to control the body, avoid excessive gestures, and follow a moderate way of life. Stoics believe that humans should confront life calmly. The basis of Stoic philosophy was an ethic of the consolations of identification with the impartial, inevitable, moral order of the universe. It is an ethic of self-sufficient, benevolent calm, with the virtuous peace of the wise man rendering him indifferent to poverty, pain, and death, so resembling the spiritual peace of God.

CYNICISM

The first philosopher to outline the themes that came to be known as cynicism was Antisthenes, who had been a pupil of Socrates in the late 5th century BCE. He was followed by Diogenes of Sinope, who lived in a tub on the streets of Athens. Diogenes took Cynicism to its logical extremes, and came to be seen as the archetypal Cynic philosopher. He was followed by Crates of Thebes who gave away a large fortune so he could live a life of Cynic poverty in Athens. Cynicism spread with the rise of Imperial Rome in the 1st century, and Cynics could be found begging and preaching throughout the cities of the Empire. Cynicism finally disappeared in the late 5th century, although many of its ascetic and rhetorical ideas were adopted by early Christians.

Some historians have noted the similarities between the life and teachings of Jesus and those of the Cynics. Some scholars have argued that the Q document, the hypothetical common source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke, has strong similarities with the teachings of the Cynics. Scholars on the quest for the historical Jesus, such as Burton L. Mack and John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, have argued that 1st century Galilee was a world in which Hellenistic ideas collided with Jewish thought and traditions. The city of Gadara, only a day's walk from Nazareth, was particularly notable as a center of Cynic philosophy, and Mack has described Jesus as a "rather normal Cynic-type figure." For Crossan, Jesus was more like a Cynic sage from an Hellenistic Jewish tradition than either a Christ who would die as a substitute for sinners or a Messiah who wanted to establish an independent Jewish state of Israel.

Many of the ascetic practices of Cynicism were undoubtedly adopted by early Christians, and Christians often employed the same rhetorical methods as the Cynics. Some Cynics were actually martyred for speaking out against the authorities. One Cynic, Peregrinus Proteus, lived for a time as a Christian before converting to Cynicism, whereas in the 4th century, Maximus of Alexandria, although a Christian, was also called a Cynic because of his ascetic lifestyle. Christian writers would often praise Cynic poverty, although they scorned Cynic shamelessness. The ascetic orders of Christianity also had direct connection with the Cynics, as can be seen in the wandering mendicant monks of the early church who in outward appearance, and in many of their practices were little different from the Cynics of an earlier age.

Their philosophy was that the purpose of life was to live a life of Virtue in agreement with Nature. This meant rejecting all conventional desires—including the desires for fortune and fame—and by living a simple life free from all possessions. As reasoning creatures, people could gain happiness by rigorous training and by living in a way which was natural for humans. They believed that the world belonged equally to everyone, and that suffering was caused by false judgments of what was valuable and by the worthless customs and conventions which surrounded society. Many of these thoughts were later absorbed into Stoicism.

Various philosophers, such as the Pythagoreans, had advocated simple living in the centuries preceding the Cynics. In the early 6th century BCE, Anacharsis, a Scythian sage had combined plain living together with criticisms of Greek customs in a manner which would become standard among the Cynics. Perhaps of importance were tales of Indian philosophers, known to later Greeks as the Gymnosophists, who had adopted a strict asceticism together with a disrespect for established laws and customs. By the 5th century BCE, the Sophists had begun a process of questioning many aspects of Greek society such as religion, law and ethics. However, the most immediate influence for the Cynic school was Socrates. Although he was not an ascetic, he did profess a love of Virtue and he seemed to have an indifference to wealth, together with a distrust of general opinion. These aspects of Socrates' thought became the central inspiration for another of Socrates' pupils, Antisthenes.

Antisthenes (ca. 450 – 360 B.C.), was the Ancient Greek philosopher who founded the philosophy that came to be known as cynicism. Most of his views stemmed from his early Sophist orientation, even though he became one of Socrates' most devoted followers. He believed that man's happiness lay in cultivating virtue for its own sake. However, Antisthenes idealized a way to attain virtue; according to him, people must reduce their dependence on the external world to a minimum, disregard social convention, shun pleasure, and live in poverty. Antisthenes, like Xenophanes, repudiated polytheism, substituting one god, whom he described as unlike anything known to man. His view that each individual is unique had implications for ethics.

DIOGENES OF SINOPE (c. 400-325 BC), thought by many to also be the founder of the Cynics, lived in Athens and perhaps Corinth. He may have been taught by Antisthenes, but it was his life and influence that gave the Cynics their importance. He taught that the right way of life was to have the simplest possible needs and to satisfy them in the most direct way. In particular, whatever is natural is honorable and decent, and can therefore be done without any shame. Conventions contrary to this openness should be ignored. The ethic is not just one of self-sufficiency, but more one of self-mastery born of a healthy contempt for one's own pleasures and pains, and especially born of impatience with the conventions and hierarchies of a presumably corrupt society: “Aristotle breakfasts when it pleases the king; Diogenes, when it pleases Diogenes.”

Cynicism is one of the most striking of all the Hellenistic philosophies. It offered people the possibility of happiness and freedom from suffering in an age of uncertainty. Although there was never an official Cynic doctrine, the fundamental principles of Cynicism can be summarized as follows:

The goal of life is happiness which is to live in agreement with Nature.

1. Happiness depends on being self-sufficient, and a master of mental attitude.

2. Self-sufficiency is achieved by living a life of Virtue.

3. The road to virtue is to free oneself from any influence such as wealth, fame, or power, which has no value in Nature.

4. Suffering is caused by false judgments of value, which cause negative emotions and a vicious character.

Thus (taken to the extreme) a Cynic has no property and rejects all conventional values of money, fame, power or reputation. A life lived according to nature requires only the bare necessities required for existence, and one can become free by unshackling oneself from any needs which are the result of convention. The Cynic way of life required continuous training, not just in exercising one's judgments and mental impressions, but a physical training as well:

Diogenes used to say, that there were two kinds of exercise: that, namely, of the mind and that of the body; and that the latter of these created in the mind such quick and agile impressions at the time of its performance, as very much facilitated the practice of virtue; but that one was imperfect without the other, since the health and vigor necessary for the practice of what is good, depend equally on both mind and body.

None of this meant that the Cynic would retreat from society, far from it; Cynics would live in the full glare of the public's gaze and would be quite indifferent in the face of any insults which might result from their unconventional behavior. The Cynics believed (as did Socrates) in the idea of cosmopolitanism: when he was asked where he came from, Diogenes replied that he was "a citizen of the world.

The ideal Cynic would evangelize; as the watchdog of humanity, it was their job to hound people about the error of their ways. The example of the Cynic's life (and the use of the Cynic's biting satire) would dig-up and expose the pretensions which lay at the root of everyday conventions.

Although Cynicism concentrated solely on ethics, Cynic philosophy had a big impact on the Hellenistic world, ultimately becoming an important influence for Stoicism. The Stoic named Apollodorus, writing in the 2nd century BCE, stated that "Cynicism is the short path to virtue."

The classical Greek and Roman Cynics regarded virtue as the only necessity for happiness, and saw virtue as entirely sufficient for attaining happiness. Classical Cynics followed this philosophy to the extent of neglecting everything not furthering their perfection of virtue and attainment of happiness. They sought to free themselves from conventions; become self-sufficient; and live only in accordance with nature. They rejected any conventional notions of happiness involving money, power, or fame, to lead entirely virtuous, and thus happy, lives.

The ancient Cynics rejected conventional social values, and would criticize the types of behaviors, such as greed, which they viewed as causing suffering. The modern definition of cynicism is in marked contrast to the ancient philosophy, which emphasized "virtue and moral freedom in liberation from desire."