“Pro Academia” is a pleasure to read, but is Cicero equipped to judge Bates’s argument, or even the original ”How to Be a (Happy) Skeptic”? And where do we find the premise that Cicero rejects?
Massimo’s elegant gedankenexperiment has Cicero reject an “unexamined premise” namely, “that a theory of assent must be judged for its efficacy as therapy.” There are some problems here; I checked Bates’s paper carefully and this phrase appears nowhere. The premise is not only unexamined; it is unwritten.
Second, the word “therapy” is an anachronism. Cicero could never have used therapeia in anything like its modern psychological sense. Nor would he understand our use of it today.
Bates’s analysis relies on sources from a post‑Ciceronian intellectual world. One example: Sextus Empiricus, whose discussion of Stoic assent Cicero could never have read.
Judy, clearly Cicero came to the 21st century via a warmhole that opened up in the middle of the ancient Roman Forum, that's how he was privy to recent sources and modern lingo, no anachronism there.
Doug did very clearly imply that Academic Skepticism is not a philosophy of life and that that was a defect, a charge to which Cicero responded. (Just because a premise is unwritten it doesn't mean it's not there.)
"Therapy" was a term used by the ancient with exactly the same meaning as we use it today when we talk about philosophy as a way of life.
If a person truly accepts the position of Pyrrhonist, should they even enter into a debate such as this. It seems to me that their position should be to withdraw because their view would be that no judgment could be rendered. To attack using excerpts of statements is in itself rendering a judgment. Am I missing something here?
1. Most of our surviving ancient Pyrrhonist texts are arguments against the positions of other schools. So, your model does not match actual historical practice.
2. It is a false caricature of Pyrrhonism that it prevents the rendering of judgment tout court. The works of Sextus Empiricus have plenty of examples of judgments.
3. Pyrrhonism offers a well-thought-out alternative to philosophies of life such as Stoicism.
In getting an initial understanding of Pyrrhonism, it tends to be unhelpful to start out thinking of it as “skepticism,” as it is a form of skepticism that is rather different from the others, so much so that parts of the dictionary definition of “skepticism” do not apply. For example, our surviving ancient Pyrrhonist texts never discuss doubt. Doubt got associated with Pyrrhonism when the works of Sextus Empiricus were translated into Latin and the translator made an error. That was the translation used for several hundred years.
Doug, as I said before, Pyrrhonism is fundamentally incoherent. And your defense of it usually amounts to a variation of the no-true-Scotsman fallacy. But we've been over this. Many times.
Whenever someone argues against or attacks an idea or a system of thought without offering a well thought out alternative, I become skeptical of their argument. I agree with your approach to Stoicism. Where you add the filter of Academic Skepticism. I think that all ideas should come up for review and analysis, especially if new data becomes available. This process is how science advances and should be applied to philosophy as well. Your ongoing efforts to modernize Stoicism is a perfect example. I haven’t attempted to write out a version that encompasses the adjustments that I make mentally. But there are parts that I discount nevertheless. Skepticism doesn’t stand all by itself as a philosophy of life, but is invaluable as a tool.
Paul, right, philosophical disputes -- like this one -- would seem to squarely fall under the category of "non-evident things" for a Pyrrhonist, so he should suspend judgment. That, in my opinion, is one of the most troublesome aspects of the philosophy. The other one being that it is by nature socially conservative (since one of their criteria of action is something along the lines of "do whatever is acceptable in the society you happen to live").
“Pro Academia” is a pleasure to read, but is Cicero equipped to judge Bates’s argument, or even the original ”How to Be a (Happy) Skeptic”? And where do we find the premise that Cicero rejects?
Massimo’s elegant gedankenexperiment has Cicero reject an “unexamined premise” namely, “that a theory of assent must be judged for its efficacy as therapy.” There are some problems here; I checked Bates’s paper carefully and this phrase appears nowhere. The premise is not only unexamined; it is unwritten.
Second, the word “therapy” is an anachronism. Cicero could never have used therapeia in anything like its modern psychological sense. Nor would he understand our use of it today.
Bates’s analysis relies on sources from a post‑Ciceronian intellectual world. One example: Sextus Empiricus, whose discussion of Stoic assent Cicero could never have read.
Judy, clearly Cicero came to the 21st century via a warmhole that opened up in the middle of the ancient Roman Forum, that's how he was privy to recent sources and modern lingo, no anachronism there.
Doug did very clearly imply that Academic Skepticism is not a philosophy of life and that that was a defect, a charge to which Cicero responded. (Just because a premise is unwritten it doesn't mean it's not there.)
"Therapy" was a term used by the ancient with exactly the same meaning as we use it today when we talk about philosophy as a way of life.
Very interesting but I must confess I wasn’t sure if the text was AI, at first. I think the image primed me to think that way.
Ah, I can see why! But no, my writing is my writing.
If a person truly accepts the position of Pyrrhonist, should they even enter into a debate such as this. It seems to me that their position should be to withdraw because their view would be that no judgment could be rendered. To attack using excerpts of statements is in itself rendering a judgment. Am I missing something here?
Yes, you are missing some things.
1. Most of our surviving ancient Pyrrhonist texts are arguments against the positions of other schools. So, your model does not match actual historical practice.
2. It is a false caricature of Pyrrhonism that it prevents the rendering of judgment tout court. The works of Sextus Empiricus have plenty of examples of judgments.
3. Pyrrhonism offers a well-thought-out alternative to philosophies of life such as Stoicism.
In getting an initial understanding of Pyrrhonism, it tends to be unhelpful to start out thinking of it as “skepticism,” as it is a form of skepticism that is rather different from the others, so much so that parts of the dictionary definition of “skepticism” do not apply. For example, our surviving ancient Pyrrhonist texts never discuss doubt. Doubt got associated with Pyrrhonism when the works of Sextus Empiricus were translated into Latin and the translator made an error. That was the translation used for several hundred years.
Doug, as I said before, Pyrrhonism is fundamentally incoherent. And your defense of it usually amounts to a variation of the no-true-Scotsman fallacy. But we've been over this. Many times.
Whenever someone argues against or attacks an idea or a system of thought without offering a well thought out alternative, I become skeptical of their argument. I agree with your approach to Stoicism. Where you add the filter of Academic Skepticism. I think that all ideas should come up for review and analysis, especially if new data becomes available. This process is how science advances and should be applied to philosophy as well. Your ongoing efforts to modernize Stoicism is a perfect example. I haven’t attempted to write out a version that encompasses the adjustments that I make mentally. But there are parts that I discount nevertheless. Skepticism doesn’t stand all by itself as a philosophy of life, but is invaluable as a tool.
Exactly: a necessary tool, I would say.
Paul, right, philosophical disputes -- like this one -- would seem to squarely fall under the category of "non-evident things" for a Pyrrhonist, so he should suspend judgment. That, in my opinion, is one of the most troublesome aspects of the philosophy. The other one being that it is by nature socially conservative (since one of their criteria of action is something along the lines of "do whatever is acceptable in the society you happen to live").
Very creative and wonderful. It’s fun to hear Cicero “speak” again!
It was fun to write it!
Nice use of the word kayfabe.
I'm very proud of it. I mean, Cicero is very proud of it...