Things are by nature interested in their own existence. Life, other than humans, seems to follow a strict and disciplined system of birth, growth, reproduction, and death (not always in that order); while us rational beings do the same, but attempt to stave off or alter any of these processes as if we can control them. In the pursuit of trying to control, extend, or “better” our lives, humans have created and are continuing to create technologies that are no longer seeking to cure deficiencies in processes as a necessity to life, but instead we are trying to make life more comfortable for us. A comfortable life will never be a good life, so my philosophy tells me. Given that life expectancy for humans has now begun to decline for reasons not attributable to “natural causes,” one would expect a growing resistance to that fact by doing everything humans could do to control for such. However, we continue to do the opposite by allowing the non-scientific community (commercial interests) to exploit resources at unsustainable and frankly absurd levels. The amount of consumption today of earth’s resources by the fraction of its inhabitants (humans) is not just.
The attitude one should adopt on this topic is awareness, gratitude, and indifference for everything else. We must be aware first of the process of life and our place in it; realizing, of course, we are an infinitesimally small part of it. Once aware, happiness in life for humans relies on continuing our existence at the macro level and finding joy in that existence at the micro level. Indifference to everything else allows us to focus on both of those priorities. But I believe the question then becomes what, if any, duty humans have to one another to hold each other accountable to follow through on these points?
Those that follow this rule will find happiness, at least that is what the Stoics tell me.
Thanks for the exercise, Massimo. Great way to start today and any other.
Very well argued! Thanks for shedding light on this... I was particularly struck by this passage: “Those sources of conduct for evident matter seem to come out of nowhere to rescue the Pyrrhonist who realizes that he does, in fact, have to arrive at opinions about certain things, on penalty of not being able to have a life.”
Massimo, thank you for your reply. I suspend judgement on whether Perin’s or Beckwith’s speculations be true or have more or less substance. But taken as some kind of a “spiritual exercise“ – if I encounter contrary opinions, as I do often – I find Beckwith’s interpretation more useful. You may be more comfortable with Hadot’s interpretation of Pyrrho:
“Pyrrho finds peace by refusing to decide whether things are good or bad; and for the Skeptics, inner peace followed "like a shadow" after the suspension of judgment - that is, the refusal to form value judgments about things.” Hadot, What is Ancient Philosophy, p. 223
Nevertheless I agree with you, that this is not useful in all circumstances and that sometimes we have to decide and will form value judgements. Therefore we should not take it as a dogma. I speculate that this wasn’t the intention of Pyrrho either.
"On the other hand (the metaphysical reading) he may be claiming that things are unknowable by their very nature."
In quantum mechanics somethings are unknowable 'by their very nature.". You cannot know both momentum and position perfectly. You can't distinquish one electron from any others; they are identical. Same for protons, etc.
However, we can know that in coliding two protons they will never scatter trhough 90 degs precisely bcause they are indential.
Everything in the “Aristocles passage” depends on how we understand *pragmata*, which has been translated by Long/Sedley, Bett and others as “things”. But Christopher Beckwith, in *Greek Buddha : Pyrrho’s encounter with early Buddhism in Central Asia* argues or shows that it has to be understood as “exclusively ethical ‘matters, affairs, topics’”.
Beckwith writes:
> In short, for Pyrrho, pragmata are always and only ethical ‘topics, questions, matters, affairs’ which people dispute or try to interpret with antilogies—opposed choices such as Good : Bad, or True : False.
Following that Pyrrho didn’t suggest, that we should suspend judgement about the physical world. There is much more about the Aristocles passage in Beckwith, opening up our view on Pyrrho. Worth reading!
Good read thank you Massimo! This series helps reevaluate and to see how much no matter the noblest of pursuit and attempts. A lot of actions are done for ego’s sake, at least thats how I happen to think about after considering what I know.
evident vs. non-evident sort of reminds me somehow of the child who asks "why?" and no matter the answer repeats "why?" Until finally the parent says, "Because I say so!"
Interesting--but not vey handsome--guy, Mr. Pyrrho. What has he to do with pyromania?
Has anyone suggested "content" as an adequate translation of eudaimon? i.e. "In order to be *content* we need to answer three questions . . ."
Things are by nature interested in their own existence. Life, other than humans, seems to follow a strict and disciplined system of birth, growth, reproduction, and death (not always in that order); while us rational beings do the same, but attempt to stave off or alter any of these processes as if we can control them. In the pursuit of trying to control, extend, or “better” our lives, humans have created and are continuing to create technologies that are no longer seeking to cure deficiencies in processes as a necessity to life, but instead we are trying to make life more comfortable for us. A comfortable life will never be a good life, so my philosophy tells me. Given that life expectancy for humans has now begun to decline for reasons not attributable to “natural causes,” one would expect a growing resistance to that fact by doing everything humans could do to control for such. However, we continue to do the opposite by allowing the non-scientific community (commercial interests) to exploit resources at unsustainable and frankly absurd levels. The amount of consumption today of earth’s resources by the fraction of its inhabitants (humans) is not just.
The attitude one should adopt on this topic is awareness, gratitude, and indifference for everything else. We must be aware first of the process of life and our place in it; realizing, of course, we are an infinitesimally small part of it. Once aware, happiness in life for humans relies on continuing our existence at the macro level and finding joy in that existence at the micro level. Indifference to everything else allows us to focus on both of those priorities. But I believe the question then becomes what, if any, duty humans have to one another to hold each other accountable to follow through on these points?
Those that follow this rule will find happiness, at least that is what the Stoics tell me.
Thanks for the exercise, Massimo. Great way to start today and any other.
Until next time, should fate allow.
Very well argued! Thanks for shedding light on this... I was particularly struck by this passage: “Those sources of conduct for evident matter seem to come out of nowhere to rescue the Pyrrhonist who realizes that he does, in fact, have to arrive at opinions about certain things, on penalty of not being able to have a life.”
Massimo, thank you for your reply. I suspend judgement on whether Perin’s or Beckwith’s speculations be true or have more or less substance. But taken as some kind of a “spiritual exercise“ – if I encounter contrary opinions, as I do often – I find Beckwith’s interpretation more useful. You may be more comfortable with Hadot’s interpretation of Pyrrho:
“Pyrrho finds peace by refusing to decide whether things are good or bad; and for the Skeptics, inner peace followed "like a shadow" after the suspension of judgment - that is, the refusal to form value judgments about things.” Hadot, What is Ancient Philosophy, p. 223
Nevertheless I agree with you, that this is not useful in all circumstances and that sometimes we have to decide and will form value judgements. Therefore we should not take it as a dogma. I speculate that this wasn’t the intention of Pyrrho either.
"On the other hand (the metaphysical reading) he may be claiming that things are unknowable by their very nature."
In quantum mechanics somethings are unknowable 'by their very nature.". You cannot know both momentum and position perfectly. You can't distinquish one electron from any others; they are identical. Same for protons, etc.
However, we can know that in coliding two protons they will never scatter trhough 90 degs precisely bcause they are indential.
Everything in the “Aristocles passage” depends on how we understand *pragmata*, which has been translated by Long/Sedley, Bett and others as “things”. But Christopher Beckwith, in *Greek Buddha : Pyrrho’s encounter with early Buddhism in Central Asia* argues or shows that it has to be understood as “exclusively ethical ‘matters, affairs, topics’”.
Beckwith writes:
> In short, for Pyrrho, pragmata are always and only ethical ‘topics, questions, matters, affairs’ which people dispute or try to interpret with antilogies—opposed choices such as Good : Bad, or True : False.
Following that Pyrrho didn’t suggest, that we should suspend judgement about the physical world. There is much more about the Aristocles passage in Beckwith, opening up our view on Pyrrho. Worth reading!
See: http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s10500.pdf
Good read thank you Massimo! This series helps reevaluate and to see how much no matter the noblest of pursuit and attempts. A lot of actions are done for ego’s sake, at least thats how I happen to think about after considering what I know.
evident vs. non-evident sort of reminds me somehow of the child who asks "why?" and no matter the answer repeats "why?" Until finally the parent says, "Because I say so!"
Interesting--but not vey handsome--guy, Mr. Pyrrho. What has he to do with pyromania?