<\/p>
The arguments in favor of skepticism were summarized by Aenesidemus in the first century B.C. in his Pyrrhonian Principles <\/em> . Aenesidemus brought together the arguments under \u201cten modes\u201d or \u201cten tropes,\u201d helpfully summarized at http:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/skepticism-ancient\/#LPA as they were stated by Sextus Empricus. The ten modes are reproduced below. (Mates refers to Benson Mates, The Skeptic Way: Sextus Empricus\u2019s Outlines of Pyrrhonism <\/em> [OUP, 1996], and PH <\/em> to the Outlines of Pyrrhonism <\/em> by Sextus Empircus). <\/p>\n (i) the opposing perceptions and views of the world which characterize different species: \u201cFor how could one say, with regard to touch [for example], that animals are similarly affected whether their surfaces consist of shell, flesh, needles, feathers or scales? And, as regards hearing, how could one say that perceptions are alike in animals with a very narrow auditory canal and in those with a very wide one, or in those with hairy ears and those with ears that are hairless . . . [P]erfume seems very pleasant to human beings but intolerable to dung beetles and bees, and the application of olive oil is beneficial to human beings but kills wasps and bees.\u201d (PH 1.50, 55, Mates) <\/p>\n (ii) the opposing perceptions and views of the world which characterize different individuals: thus \u201c . . . the greatest indication of the vast and limitless difference in the intellect of human beings is the inconsistency of the various statements of the Dogmatists concerning what may be appropriately chosen, what avoided, and so on.\u201d (PH 1.85-86, Mates) <\/p>\n (iii) the opposing perceptions and views of the world which characterize different sense organs: thus \u201cPictures seem to the sense of sight to have concavities and convexities,\u201d for example, \u201cbut not to the touch,\u201d and \u201cLet us imagine someone who from birth has . . . lacked hearing and sight. He will start out believing in the existence of nothing visible or audible, but only of the three kinds of quality he can register. It is therefore a possibility that we too, having only our five senses, only register from the qualities belonging to the apple those which we are capable of registering. But it may be that there objectively exist other qualities\u201d (PH 1.92, 96-7, Mates). <\/p>\n (iv) the opposing perceptions and views of the world which characterize different circumstances: \u201cThus, things affect us in dissimilar ways depending on whether we are in a natural or unnatural condition, as when people who are delirious or possessed by a god seem to hear spirits but we do not . . . . And the same water that seems to us to be lukewarm seems boiling hot when poured on an inflamed place . . . . Further, if someone says that an intermingling of certain humors produces, in persons who are in an unnatural condition, odd phantasiai [impressions] of the external objects, it must be replied that since healthy people, too, have intermingled humors, it is possible that the external objects are in nature such as they appear to those persons who are said to be in an unnatural state, but that these humors are making the external objects appear to the healthy in a natural people other than they are.\u201d (PH 1.101-2, Mates). <\/p>\n (v) the opposing perceptions and views of the world that characterize different positions and distances and places: for example, \u201clamplight appears dim in sunlight but bright in the dark. The same oar appears bent in water but straight when out of it\u201d (PH 1.119, Mates). <\/p>\n (vi) the opposing perceptions and views of the world that characterize mixtures: thus \u201cwe deduce that since no object strikes us entirely by itself, but along with something, it may perhaps be possible to say what the mixture compounded out of the external object and the thing perceived with it is like, but we would not be able to say what the external object is like by itself . . . The same sound appears one way when accompanied by a rarefied atmosphere, another way when accompanied by a dense atmosphere\u201d (PH 1.124, 125, Mates). <\/p>\n (vii) the opposing perceptions and views of the world due to different quantities and structures: thus \u201c[the] individual filings of a piece of silver appear black, but when united with the whole they affect us as white . . . . And wine, when drunk in moderation, strengthens us, but when taken in excess, disables the body . . . .\u201d (PH 1.129, 131, Mates). <\/p>\n (viii) the opposing views possible because of the relativity of all things: \u201c . . . since all things are relative, we will suspend judgment about what things exist absolutely and in nature . . . This has two senses. One is in relation to the judging subject [different subjects perceiving differently] . . . The other in relation to the conceptions perceived with it . . . .\u201d (PH 1.135, Mates). <\/p>\n (ix) the opposing perceptions and views of the world due to constancy or rarity of occurrence: for \u201cThe sun is certainly a much more marvelous thing than a comet. But since we see the sun all the time but the comet only infrequently, we marvel at the comet so much as even to suppose it a divine portent, but we do nothing like that for the sun. If, however, we thought of the sun as appearing infrequently and setting infrequently, and as illuminating everything all at once and then suddenly being eclipsed, we sould find much to marvel at in the matter.\u201d (PH 1.141, Mates). And <\/p>\n (x) the opposing perceptions and views of what is right and wrong which characterize different ways of life, laws, myths and \u201cdogmatic suppositions\u201d: for \u201camong the Persians sodomy is customary but among the Romans it is prohibited by law; and with us adultery is prohibited, but among the Massagetae it is by custom treated as a matter of indifference, as Eudoxus of Cnidos reports . . . . and with us it is forbidden to have intercourse with one\u2019s mother, whereas with the Persians this sort of marriage is very much the custom. And among the Egyptians men marry their sisters, which for us is prohibited by law. (PH 1.152, Mates). <\/p>\n Some reflections: First, of course, skepticism globally considered is self-refuting; at least, we should suspend judgment regarding it, since it\u2019s possible that some form of dogmatism may be the way to go. Despite that, many of the particulars of Aenesidemus\u2019 list have their inherent interest. <\/p>\n Second, the socio-political setting for the rise of skepticism is important. It had little support prior to the Hellenistic period, and rose to prominence in an imperial setting. It is, one might say, a product of Berger\u2019s \u201cheretical imperative\u201d that comes with religious\/cultural pluralism. <\/p>\n Third, as Bauman points out, the Skeptics were not retreatist, but on the contrary saw public action as a demand of their skeptical emphasis on humility and reconciliation. Nor did they deny the legitimacy of representations in general: \u201cResignation from universally valid truth did not mean rejection of the evidence offered by representation; it only suggested the need for caution and careful application of reason to the planning and execution of action.\u201d In place of \u201cdogmatic criteria\u201d for establishing truth-with-a-capital-T, the skeptics relied on pragmatic criteria, especially those established by general consensus: \u201cOne could rely on trustworthy representations; better still, on representations unquestioned and unchallenged by others and thus enjoying the tacit support of general agreement; best of all, on representations checked and tested as thoroughly as could be done in given circu Fourth, much of postmodernism is a form of skepticism, with the important twist that it is communally oriented in a way that was never true of ancient and early modern skepticism: \u201cInstead of calling individuals, bereaved by the withdrawal of supra-human guarantees of truth, to distrust the promises of faultless wisdom and fall back on the faculties of their own good sense, it exhorts them, now liberated from coercive practices of truth-defenders, to huddle in the warm embrace of community\u201d (Bauman). <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The arguments in favor of skepticism were summarized by Aenesidemus in the first century B.C. in his Pyrrhonian Principles . Aenesidemus brought together the arguments under \u201cten modes\u201d or \u201cten tropes,\u201d helpfully summarized at http:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/skepticism-ancient\/#LPA as they were stated by Sextus Empricus. The ten modes are reproduced below. (Mates refers to Benson Mates, The Skeptic […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1730","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-philosophy"],"yoast_head":"\n
The ten modes are different ways of arguing designed to encourage suspension of judgment. Through these ten modes create undecidable antitheses by emphasizing the relativity and contingency of all human knowledge and perception. <\/p>\n
\nmstances.\u201d <\/p>\n