[Buddha-l] Batchelor

[Curt Steinmetz]

There is no single "classic sceptical attitude". Those who are 
considered to be the original sceptics were of two different schools, 
and within each of those schools there were many variations. One of 
those schools was Plato's Academy, the other school was the followers of 
Pyrrho (360-270 BC), who learned his scepticism in India and Persia.

Sextus Empiricus (160-210 AD) is important because he summarizes 
previous thinkers whose writings are no longer extant. He was an 
excellent writer, but not an original thinker so far as anyone can tell. 
In fact he is valued precisely because he accurately recounts the ideas 
of others.

The Stoics devoted a great deal of attention to countering sceptical 
arguments. One of the Stoics' favorite responses to a sceptical 
interlocutor was to offer to subject the professed sceptic to torture to 
demonstrate that there are, after all, one or two things of which he was 
actually quite certain. No one is at all uncertain about how a glowing 
hot iron rod will feel against one's flesh. Other Stoic 
counter-arguments are more subtle, but that has always been my personal 
favorite.

Curt

Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
> Op 17-3-2010 15:58, Curt Steinmetz schreef:
>   
>> Scepticism is only possible if one has some criterion for truth. "Doubt"
>> by itself, without some criterion for truth, is incoherent at best, and
>> just plain dishonest at worst.
>>    
>>     
> The classic sceptical attitude is that it's impossible to decide A or 
> not A because there are both arguments for A and not A and it is 
> impossible to decide. As Zhuangzi has put it: whether you choose A or 
> not A in both cases you're biassed. The locus classicus for scepticism 
> is not Plato but Sextus Epirucus.
>   
>> To "doubt" something is to posit that it is possible to distinguish
>> between what is true and what is not. It is not necessary to assume that
>> such a distinction is absolute, or, alternatively, that it is absolutely
>> knowable by the human mind. But there must be some extent to which
>> "truth" can be known, and some criteria for making even a qualified
>> judgment in that regard.
>>
>> The more usual case, though, is for people to arbitrarily "doubt" ideas
>> they do not like, and uncritically accept (as "obvious", or whatever)
>> ideas that they do like.
>>    
>>     
> It may be that one wants God to exist, but to defend this position one 
> needs arguments. Well, if there are valid arguments for both the 
> existence and the nonexistence of God, the believer has a bias and 
> scepticism is the only valid position. The fact however that some people 
> believe in God doesn't mean that their arguments are valid. Validity is 
> a priori, people believing  in something is a posteriori.
>
> erik
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>