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.