Chapter 29 Chapter XXVI Cynics and Skeptics

The relationship between people with excellent knowledge and the society at that time is very different in different eras.In some fortunate times they have been generally attuned to their circumstances,--no doubt they will propose such reforms as they themselves think necessary, but they are convinced that their proposals will be welcomed; and Even if the world had never been reformed, they would not for that dislike their own world.In other ages they were revolutionary, seeing the need to call for drastic changes, but hoping (partly as a result of their advice) that these changes would be brought about in the near future.In still other ages they are hopeless about the world, feeling that although they themselves know what is necessary, there is absolutely no hope of attaining it.Such a mood can easily sink into a deeper despair, thinking that life on earth is essentially bad, and that good things can only be hoped for in an afterlife or some mysterious transformation.

At certain times all these attitudes can be assumed by different people at the same time.For example, let's look at the early nineteenth century.Odd was gay, Bentham was a reformer, Shelley was a revolutionist, and Leobarty was a pessimist.But for the most part there has been a prevailing tone among the great writers.In England they were gay in the Elizabethan age and the eighteenth century; in France they became revolutionary about 1750; in Germany they were nationalist since 1813. During the ecclesiastical period, that is to say, from the fifth to the fifteenth centuries A.D., there was a conflict between what people believed in theory and what they actually felt.In theory the world is a well of tears, a preparation for the afterlife in suffering, but in practice writers (who were almost all priests) could not help but rejoice at the power of the Church; Many of the activities they considered useful.So they have the psychology of a ruling class, not of people who feel they are fleeing into another world.This was part of that strange dualism that pervaded the whole of the Middle Ages, which arose from the fact that the Church, though based on otherworldly beliefs, was the most important institution in the everyday world.The psychological preparation of Christianity's other-worldly spirit began in the Hellenistic period and was connected with the decline of the city-state.The Greek philosophers, down to Aristotle, though they could complain of this and that; on the whole they were not despairing of the universe, nor did they feel themselves politically impotent.They may sometimes belong to parties that have failed, but if so, their defeat is due only to chance in the conflict, and not to any inevitable incapacity of wise men.Even those who, like Pythagoras or, in a certain mood, Plato, scorned the world of appearance and sought to escape from mysticism, had concrete plans to transform the ruling classes into saints.But when the power passed into the hands of the Macedonians, the Greek philosophers naturally broke away from politics, and devoted themselves more to problems of personal virtue or liberation.They no longer ask: How can a man create a good country?Rather, ask: How can one be virtuous in a world of sin; or, how can one be happy in a world of suffering?Of course this change is only a change of degree; such questions have been raised before, and the later Stoics were for a time also concerned with politics,—but with Roman politics and not with Greek politics.Yet the change is still a real change.With the exception of certain limits of Roman Stoicism, the views of those who thought seriously and felt seriously became increasingly subjective and individualistic; until at last Christianity brought about a system of personal salvation Gospel, which inspired missionary zeal and created the Christian Church.Hitherto there had been no system in which philosophers could live wholeheartedly, and their legitimate love of power had no proper outlet.For this reason the philosophers of the Hellenistic age were more limited as men than those who lived in an age when the city-state could still inspire their allegiance.They still think because they cannot help thinking; but they have little hope that their thoughts will have any effect in the actual world.

There are four schools of philosophy that were established around the time of Alexander.The two most famous schools, the Stoics and the Epicureans, are the subject of our next two chapters; in this chapter we shall discuss the Cynics and the Skeptics. The former of these two schools came from (via its founder Diogenes) Antisthenes; a pupil of Socrates, about twenty years older than Plato.Antisthenes is a very remarkable figure, similar in some respects to Tolstoy.Until Socrates' death, he still lived in the circle of Socrates' noble disciples, and did not show any signs of unorthodox.But something—or the failure of Athens, or the death of Socrates, or his distaste for philosophical sophistry—made him despise what he once valued when he was no longer young. .He would not want anything but simple kindness.He befriends the workers and dresses like them.He lectured in open air in a manner understandable to the uneducated.All refined philosophy was of no value to him; what a man could know, a common man could know.He believes in "returning to nature" and implements this belief very thoroughly.He advocated no government, no private property, no marriage, no established religion.His disciples (if he himself had not) condemned slavery.He was not a strict ascetic, but he despised luxury and all artificial pursuit of sensual pleasures."I'd rather be crazy than happy," he said.Antisthenes' reputation was overshadowed by his pupil Diogenes, who "was a youth from Sinope upon the Eugenes, and he [Antisthenes] did not like him at first; For he was the son of a disreputable money merchant who had been imprisoned for altering currency. Antisthenes ordered the youth to go home, but he did not move; he struck him with a rod, and he did not move He longed for wisdom, and he knew that Antisthenes could teach him wisdom. His lifelong ambition was to do what his father did, to alter currency, but on a much larger scale. He wanted to alter the world's popular All money. Every common stamp is counterfeit. Men are stamped with generals and kings, things with honor, wisdom, happiness, and wealth; It's just a stamp." He was determined to live like a dog, so he was called "cynic", which means "like a dog".He rejects all customs—whether of religion, fashion, dress, housing, diet, or manners.It is said that he lived in a barrel, but Gilbert Mouley assured us that this was a mistake: for it was a large urn, the kind used in primitive times to bury the dead.He lived by begging like an Indian fakir.He preached fraternity, not only between all human beings, but also between man and animals.Even when he was still alive, many legends gathered around him.It is well known how Alexander visited him and asked him what bounty he wanted; and he replied, "Only if you keep out of my sun".There was nothing in the teaching of Diogenes that we would now call "cynicism" ("cynicism")—but just the opposite.He has a passionate feeling for "virtue", and he believes that compared with virtue, worldly wealth is insignificant.He seeks virtue, and moral freedom from desire: you can be free from fear as long as you are indifferent to the goods that fortune offers.We can see that his doctrine was in this respect adopted by the Stoics, but they did not follow him in his renunciation of civilized joy.He held that Rometheus had been justly punished for bringing to man the techniques of complexity and artificiality which have given rise to modern life.In this respect he is similar to Taoism, Rousseau and Tolstoy, but more thorough than them.

Although he was a contemporary of Aristotle, his teachings belonged in quality to the Hellenistic age.Aristotle was the last Greek philosopher to face the world joyfully; all philosophers since him have, in one form or another, a philosophy of escape.The world is not good, let us learn to leave the world and be independent.External possessions are not to be relied upon; they are the bestowals of fortune, not the rewards of our own efforts.Only subjective wealth—that is, virtue, or the gratification gained through resignation—is reliable, and therefore only these are the ones that the wise man values.Diogenes himself was a vigorous man, but his doctrine, like all the doctrines of the Hellenistic age, was a doctrine catered to weary men whose genius had been destroyed by disappointment. Enthusiasm.Such a doctrine is, of course, by no means one that can be expected to promote art or science or politics or any useful activity, except as a protest against powerful vices.

It will be interesting to see what became of the doctrines of the Cynics after their popularity.Cynicism was very popular in the early third century BC, especially in Alexandria.They published short sermons on how easy it is to be without material possessions, how blissful a simple diet can be, how to keep warm in winter without expensive clothes (this may be true in Egypt!), And how foolish it is to cling to one's hometown or mourn the death of one's own children or friends.One of these popularizing cynics, Delus, said: "When my son or wife is dead, is there any reason why I should disregard myself who is still alive and take care of my property?" Is it?" At this point it is difficult to feel any sympathy for this simple life, which has become too simple.Who, we suspect, delights in such preaching, to the rich who wish to conceive of the miseries of the poor as mere fantasies?Or the new poor who seek to despise successful entrepreneurs?Or the sycophants who want to convince themselves that the gifts they have received are insignificant?Deles said to a rich man: "You give me generously, and I take from you freely, without groveling or complaining." This is a very convenient doctrine.Popular cynicism does not teach abstinence from worldly good things, but merely a certain indifference to them.In the case of the debtor, this may take the form of reducing his obligations to the creditor.We can see how the term "cynicism" ("cynical") acquires its everyday meaning.

The best of Cynicism passed into Stoicism, which is a more complete and tactful philosophy. Skepticism as a school of doctrine was first advocated by Pyrrho, who had served in Alexander's army and had accompanied them on the expedition to India.This seems to have given him a keen interest in travel; he spent the rest of his life in his native city of Alice, where he died in 275 BC.Apart from a certain systematization and formalization of previous doubts, there is not much new in his doctrine.Doubts about the senses have plagued the Greek philosophers from very early times; the only exceptions are those who, like Parmenides and Plato, denied the epistemological value of perception, and took their denial as a way of preaching A good opportunity for intellectual dogmatism.Sophists, especially Protagoras and Gorgias, were led to a subjectivism akin to Hume's by the apparent contradictions of the vagueness of sensory perception.Pyrrho seems (for he was clever enough not to have written any books) to add to the skepticism of the senses a moral and logical skepticism.He is said to have maintained that there can never be any reasonable reason for choosing one course of conduct over another.In practice, this means that no matter which country one lives in, one conforms to its customs.A modern believer will go to church on Sunday, and practice the proper kneeling service, without having any religious convictions which are supposed to motivate these actions.The skeptics of antiquity practiced the full spectrum of pagan religious rites, and were sometimes even priests themselves; their skepticism assured them that such behavior could not be proven wrong, and their sense of common sense (which a sense of common sense outliving their philosophy) reassures them that it is convenient to do so.

Skepticism naturally strikes many minds that are not very philosophical.One sees the divisions among the parties, and the sharpness of their disputes, and concludes that all alike presume to possess knowledge which is in fact impossible to acquire.Skepticism is a consolation to the idle, for it proves that the ignorant are as wise as the learned.It may seem unsatisfactory to those who qualitatively demand a gospel; but like every doctrine of the Hellenistic period, it was welcomed as an antidote in itself. .Why worry about the future?The future is completely unpredictable.You might as well enjoy the present; "nothing in the future is in your hands."For these reasons skepticism has enjoyed considerable success among ordinary people.

It should be pointed out that skepticism, as a philosophy, is not just doubt, and it can also be called dogmatic doubt."I thought it was so, but I can't be sure," the scientist said.Someone with intellectual curiosity says "I don't know how it is, but I hope I can figure it out".Philosophical skeptics say: "Nobody knows, and can never be known."It is this element of dogmatism that gives the system of skepticism its weakness.Skeptics certainly deny that they affirm the impossibility of knowledge arbitrarily, but their denial is not very convincing. However, Pyrrho's disciple Timon advanced an intellectual argument which is difficult to answer from the standpoint of Greek logic.The only logic recognized by the Greeks was that of deduction, and all deduction had to proceed, like Euclid's, from universal principles recognized as self-evident.But Timon denies any possibility of finding such a principle.Everything therefore has to be proved by something else; and all arguments are then either circular, or an endless chain tied to nothing.Neither of these two cases proves anything.We can see that this argument strikes at the very root of Aristotelian philosophy, which ruled throughout the Middle Ages.

Certain forms of skepticism are preached in our day by those who are not entirely skeptical, and were not present to the skeptics of antiquity.They do not doubt phenomena, nor do they question propositions which they regard as expressing only what we know directly about phenomena.Most of Timon's writings are lost, but two surviving sentences from him illustrate this point.One sentence says: "Phenomena are always effective."The other says, "Honey is...sweet, I am by no means sure; honey appears to be sweet, I fully admit." A modern skeptic would point out that the phenomenon is merely appearing, it is neither valid Nor is it invalid; what is valid or invalid must be a statement; but no statement can be so closely connected with a phenomenon that falsity cannot be possible.For the same reason, he would also say that the statement "honey appears to be sweet" is only highly probable, not absolutely certain.In some respects Timon's doctrine is very similar to Hume's.He thought that some things that have never been observed - such as atoms - cannot be effectively inferred by us; when two phenomena are repeatedly observed by us, we can infer from one another.

Timon lived in Athens during the last years of his long life, where he died in 235 BC.With his death the school of Pyrrho came to an end as a school; but his doctrines—strange to say—were accepted, somewhat modified, by the Academy representing the Platonic tradition. The man responsible for this astonishing philosophical revolution was Timon's contemporary, Acesilaus, who died about 240 BC.What most people accept from Plato is belief in a supersensible intellectual world, in the superiority of the immortal soul over the mortal body.But Plato is multifaceted, and in some respects he can also be seen as preaching skepticism.Plato's Socrates professes ignorance; we naturally take this as irony, but it can be taken seriously.There are many dialogues that do not lead to any positive conclusions and are designed to leave the reader in a state of doubt.Some dialogues—such as the second half of the Parmenides—seem to serve no purpose other than to point out that both sides of any question can give equally plausible reasons.Platonic dialectics may be regarded as an end rather than a means; so treated it becomes in itself a most admirable defense of skepticism.This seems to be the way Arcesilaus explained Plato, and he thought he was still following Plato.He cut off Plato's head, but the torso that remained was still real anyway.

There would be much to be admired in the method of teaching of Acesilaus, if the youth who studied with him were not paralyzed by it.He does not assert any arguments, but he does refute any arguments put forward by the students.Sometimes he presents himself with two contradictory propositions back and forth to show how either can be argued convincingly.A student with sufficient rebellious courage may learn tact and avoid error; but in fact no one seems to have learned anything but tact and indifference to truth.So great was the influence of Acesilaus that for about two hundred years the whole Academy remained skeptical. In the middle of this period of doubt, an interesting thing happened.In 156 BC Athens sent three philosophers to the diplomatic mission to Rome, and one of them was Carneades, who deservedly succeeded Acesilaus as the head of the academy.He saw no reason why his dignity as an envoy should interfere with his great opportunity, and he began to teach in Rome.Young people at that time were eager to imitate the Greek atmosphere and learn Greek culture, so they flocked to listen to his lectures.His first lecture was a development of Aristotle's and Plato's views on justice, and it was thoroughly constructive.His second lecture, however, was a refutation of everything he had said the first time, not in order to establish a contrary conclusion, but merely to demonstrate that each conclusion was unreliable.Plato's Socrates argues that inflicting injustice is a greater sin to the perpetrator than enduring injustice.Carneade, in his second lecture, treated this statement with great contempt.He pointed out that great powers were made great by their unjust aggression against their weak neighbors; this was not easily denied in Rome.When a shipwreck you can save your own life at the expense of other weaklings; you'd be a fool if you didn't.He seems to think that "save the women and children first" is not a maxim that can lead to personal salvation.What should you do if you have lost your horse while retreating before a victorious enemy, and you find a wounded comrade riding one?If you were sane, you'd pull him off and take his horse, no matter what the justice says.It is surprising that all this not very constructive argument comes from a nominal follower of Plato, but it seems to have pleased the modern minded Roman youth.But it displeased one man, and that man was Cato the Elder; Cato the Elder represented the austere, rigid, stupid and brutal morality by which the Romans defeated Carthae. Basic.Old Catu lived a simple life from his youth to his old age, going to bed early in the morning, performing rigorous physical labor, eating only rough food, and never wearing a single piece of clothing worth more than a hundred pence.He is loyal to the country, and he rejects all bribes and corruption.He exacted from other Romans all the virtues which he himself practiced, and insisted that accusing and prosecuting the wicked was the best thing a man of integrity could do.He strove to enforce the austere fashions of ancient Rome: "Catus expelled from the senate a man called Manilius, who had been very likely to be appointed consul the following year, simply because he Kissed his wife too affectionately during the day and in the presence of his daughter; and Cato, when he reprimanded him for doing it, told him that his own wife never kissed him except in thunder ".Extravagance and banquets were banned during Kathu's reign.He made his wife breastfeed not only her own children, but the children of his slaves, in order that when fed with the same milk, the slaves' children might love his own.When his slaves were too old to work, he sold them without mercy.He insisted that his slaves should never work or sleep.He encouraged his slaves to quarrel with each other because "he could not bear that slaves should be good friends".If a slave commits a grave fault, he calls the rest, and induces them to curse the erring man as worthy of death; then he executes him with his own hands in the presence of the rest. The contrast between Cato and Carneades is indeed very comprehensive: the one is morally too strict and traditional to be brutal, the other is morally too liberal, too imbued with the social depravities of the Hellenistic world to be base. . "Marcus Cato disliked it from the very beginning—from the time when the youth began to learn Greek, and Greek became more and more important in Rome: for fear of Roman youth eager for knowledge and debate We will completely forget about honor and the glory of arms.... And one day he openly attacked these envoys in the Senate for staying too long and not doing things quickly: also consider these envoys They are cunning people, and are easily persuaded of them. If nothing else, this alone is enough to persuade the Senate to make a decision answer to the ambassadors, so that they will be sent back to teach, Teach their own Greek children, and let them not mind the Roman children; let the Roman children learn to obey the law and the senate as before. It is not from the sense that he said this to the senate He had any personal vendetta or malice against Carneades (as some have supposed): but because he was always hostile to philosophy".In Cato's eyes, the Athenians are low people without laws; so it doesn't matter if they are corrupted by the shallow sophistry of the intellectuals; but the Roman youth must be Puritan , imperialist, ruthless and ignorant.He was unsuccessful, however; the later Romans not only retained many of Catu's faults, but also adopted many of Carneade's.The next head of the academy after Carneades (c. 180-110 BC) was a Carthaginian whose real name was Hasdrubal, but who preferred to call himself in dealings with the Greeks For Credomacus.Unlike Carneades, who confined himself to lecturing, Credomachus wrote more than four hundred books, some of them in Phoenician.His principles seem to be the same as Carneade's.In some ways, they are useful.Both skeptics engaged in opposition to the increasingly widespread beliefs in divination, witchcraft, and astrology.They also developed a constructive doctrine of degrees of probability; although we can never have reason to feel certainty, some things seem closer to reality than others.Probability should be the guide of our practice, for it is reasonable to act on the most probable of the possible hypotheses.This view is also one that most modern philosophers agree with.Unfortunately the books that developed this view have been lost; it is difficult to reconstruct the doctrine from the few surviving hints. After Credomachus the Academy ceased to be skeptical, and from Antiochus (who died in 69 B.C.) its teachings became practically Stoic for several centuries. However, skepticism has not been faked.Men are stamped with the stamp of generals and kings, and things with honor, wisdom, happiness, and wealth; and Knossos (if we knew a little) may have had skeptics more than two thousand years ago. , who entertained the dissolute courtiers by doubting the divinity of the animal goddess.The age of Exydim cannot be determined.He threw away the doctrine of probability preached by Carneade, and returned to the original form of skepticism.His influence was considerable; he was followed by the poet Lucian in the second century A.D., and later Sexto Empiricus, the only surviving of the ancient skeptical philosophers.For example, a short essay "Arguments Against Belief in God" was translated into English by Edwin Bevan in his "Late Greek Religions" pp. 52-56, and according to him it may be Sykes To Empiricus from Carneades as dictated by Credomacho. The article begins by explaining that skeptics are orthodox in conduct: "We skeptics follow the way of the world in practice, and have no opinion about it. We speak of God, and put them As beings, we adore the gods and say that they execute their providence; but in saying this we do not profess faith, and thus avoid the rashness of the dogmatists". He then argues that people disagree about the nature of God, for example, some believe that he has a body, while others think that he has no body.Since we have no experience with him, we cannot know his attributes.The existence of God is not self-evident, so it needs to be proved.At the same time, he also has a more confusing argument, pointing out that such a proof is impossible.Next, he touches on the subject of sin, and concludes: "Those who positively affirm the existence of God cannot avoid falling into a kind of impiety. For if they say that God rules over all things, they take him for if, on the other hand, they say that God rules over some things or nothing; then they have to make God narrow-minded or impotent, and To do so would obviously be a form of sheer impiety." Skepticism, though continuing to impress some educated individuals well into the third century A.D., ran counter to the character of the age, which turned increasingly to dogmatic religion and the doctrine of salvation.Skepticism is powerful enough to make educated people dissatisfied with state religion, but it offers nothing positive (even in the purely intellectual sphere) to replace it.Since the Renaissance, theological skepticism (so far as most of its adherents are concerned) has been replaced by fervent faith in science, but in antiquity there was no such substitute for skepticism.The ancient world had no arguments capable of answering the skeptics, and avoided them.The Olympic gods are no longer believed in, and the way for the invasion of the Eastern religions has been cleared, so the Eastern religions come to win the support of the superstitious people until the victory of Christianity.