Having little to say on behalf of the Sceptics, but aware of the duty to represent them fairly and truly and in the best possible light, I am torn between representing them ‘correctly’ (as I see it) or ‘truly’ (as they are). To my mind, the ‘correct’ scepticism is a cleansing and purgative scepticism. It clears the decks and washes away the junk in order to reveal the truth that remains. But this is not the ‘true’ Scepticism. The true Scepticism washes away all junk and all truth, including itself, until we are left with nothing.
The true Scepticism is not correct, I think, because it is incoherent; and because it is incoherent, I will struggle to present it coherently. There will be inconsistencies and contradictions. But out of these confusions, Scepticism does offer a practical approach to living a philosophical life. There are lessons to be learned in this school of thought, even if we probably shouldn’t (or couldn’t) adopt the approach as a whole.
Know that you don’t know
Know that you don’t know, then don’t even know that. Reject all your beliefs as unreliable. Do not just question them all, reject them all. None of them are true. Accept this view as far as you are able.
You will find that this frees you from all of the sources of suffering in your life. Nothing is fearful, because you reject your belief that certain things are rightly to be feared. Nothing is painful, and pain cannot harm you, because you reject your perception of pain and your belief that pain is bad. You experience no grief, because you reject your belief that death is bad for those who die or for those who are left behind.
Nothing is desirable, because you reject your belief that anything is rightly to be desired. Nothing is pleasurable, because you reject your perception of pleasure and your belief that pleasure is good. In this way you free yourself from desire and from the suffering that comes from having your desires frustrated.
Believing nothing, assenting to nothing, fearing nothing, desiring nothing, you are left with nothing; and in this nothing there is an emptiness and tranquillity, a peace and security. The Sceptic is free to walk through life in that peace and security, doing all they can to preserve that state of being by constantly rejecting every belief or appearance that comes their way.
Do not follow opinion
The Sceptics say that there is no such thing as knowledge and so no way of knowing, for all the reasons to do or not do a certain thing, which reasons might be better or worse. Although there are various opinions about these things, we should not be guided by opinions, and especially not by those common sense opinions that go by the name ‘convention’. Social norms are nothing more than the false knowledge that the majority holds to be true, but they are all mistaken. They say it is good to be wealthy, but how do they know? They say it is good to be honest, but how do they know? They say it is good to be wise, but what can they know about wisdom when they believe so many false things?!
Opinions change; what is held to be true one minute is overturned and held to be false the next. Common sense is no reliable guide. Look at the common sense belief that the Earth was at the centre of the universe. Look at the common sense belief that women were inferior to men. Look at the common sense belief that slavery was justified and permissible (and undeniably profitable). You can’t trust the majority to have reliable beliefs. Don’t bind yourself to their ignorance; free yourself from social conventions.
And in freeing yourself from the opinions of ordinary people you are free to reject belief in anything you choose. People say that being cut with a knife is painful and that pain is bad; but people say a lot of false things, so you are free to reject this belief.
As a Sceptic, you know nothing, not even that you know nothing. In this way you know nothing to be fearful or painful or desirable, and so you are free from fear and pain and want. There is a kind of freedom in this.
This approach leads to an unconventional and austere kind of life, closely resembling the ‘Gymnosophists’ of Eastern religions that the early Sceptics imitated. You could describe it as the expression of a committed Scepticism; Scepticism with a heavy touch.
Follow opinion
The Sceptics say that there is no such thing as knowledge and so no way of knowing, for all the reasons to do or not do a certain thing, which reasons might be better or worse. But they allow that there are various opinions about these things. We can follow those opinions, if we choose, so long as we never hold very firm to them. We can let opinions be our guide, and particularly the kind of common sense opinions that go by the name ‘convention’.
For the Sceptics, conventions or social norms are nothing more than the opinions that are held by the majority for long enough that they become what we call ‘normal’. There are no right or wrong answers here, since there is no knowledge that could hold social norms to account, so these common sense opinions are as good as any. If you go along with social convention, you will probably find you have an easier life. Of course, there’s nothing to say that an easy life is rightly something to be desired, but if you happen to have the common sense opinion that it is desirable, then you can follow this opinion and conclude that it is in your interests to go along with social norms. So go along with the world and do as others do, and do whatever meets with the best opinion. If someone rich and powerful wants you to beg, then beg. If the world responds favourably to flashy displays of wealth, then display your wealth flashily. If you don’t like being poor, then go and earn some money.
Opinions might change, but so can you, since you are not committed to anything in particular. Today you want to appear morally upright, trustworthy and honest, because it seems in your interests to do so. Tomorrow you want something that requires dishonesty. So today you will be honest and tomorrow dishonest since you are committed to nothing. There is a kind of freedom in this.
This approach leads to an easy-going and conventional kind of life. It is Scepticism with a lighter touch; the expression of an uncommitted Scepticism.
Follow, or do not follow?
Clearly there is disagreement amongst the Sceptics about whether you can still be rightly guided by opinion in the absence of knowledge. It makes sense that there might be such a disagreement. The Sceptic claims that they will not commit to anything in particular. So do they commit to their own Scepticism, or not? And, if they do, to what extent?
The first view says that we should totally abstain from all judgement because it is better not to assent to anything than assent to the wrong thing. Imagine you are blindfolded and placed on a clifftop. You have no way of knowing if any step will lead to your salvation or to your destruction. What would you do? Would you step out into the void just for the sake of committing to something? Or would you wait and commit to nothing, not moving in any direction, until something more reliable presented itself?
On this view, opinions and perceptions are viewed as guilty until proven innocent, not innocent until proven guilty. The earlier Sceptics seem more inclined to this approach. They deny knowledge, and so reject any appearance as it appears to them. This is what leads Pyrrho and Anaxarchus to fall into ponds and wagons and other dangers, but it’s also what enables them to react with total indifference to these and any other things that they encounter. Their goal is to feel nothing (apatheia), and in feeling nothing they are free from everything, including pain and fear but also pleasure and hope.
The second view, more typical of the later Sceptics, seems to suggest that we are free to follow our opinions and perceptions wherever they lead, never subjecting them to serious questioning because we know that serious questioning will never lead to knowledge. These appearances cannot be improved upon or corrected by anything more ‘right’, because there is no such thing. So if some food seems sweet and tasty and pleasing to you, don’t doubt it but enjoy it. The Sceptic has no idea how or why the food is sweet or tasty or pleasing, or even, if they are honest, what food is, or what it is to be sweet or tasty, or whether we ought to be pleased by these things. They have no knowledge, and so they are left only with things as they seem to them. And here it seems to them that they have sweet and tasty food. That is the end of the matter. In this form of Scepticism there is a freedom to pick and choose and enjoy. Now I think this more probable, now that; now I think this is more pleasurable, now that. You can follow your opinion where it leads, freed from the burden of needing knowledge or truth.
According to Scepticism, you should not let opinions and appearances be your guide. And according to Scepticism, you should let opinions and appearances be your guide. Perhaps it is fitting that there is such a range of opinions amongst the Sceptics. Which opinion is correct, and should we be guided by it if it is? Who knows! You will have to think it through for yourself, but there are lessons to be taken either way.
tobybetenson.com 