Table of Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................... 1
The Origin of the Skeptical Philosophy in Ancient Greece ............... 1
Academic Skepticism ............................................................................ 3
3.1 Arcesilaus .......................................................................................... 3
3.2 Carneades .......................................................................................... 4
Pyrrhonian Skepticism ......................................................................... 4
4.1 Pyrrho and Timon.............................................................................. 5
4.2 Aenesidemus ..................................................................................... 5
Critical Evaluation of Ancient Skepticism.......................................... 6 List of references ...................................................................................ii
Ancient Skepticism i

1 Introduction
Ancient skepticism is a wide and important topic in the ancient Greek philosophical schools of thought and has been further developed in contemporary philosophy. It describes the attitude to be doubtful about any claim of knowledge and certainty. The term derives from the Greek skepsis meaning "enquiry", and hence already alludes to the situation in which individuals should question their own beliefs of knowledge claims.
Even if knowledge and the level of certainty about it are essential features of the ancient skepticism theory, the element of belief is equally important. As the school of thought deals with the questioning of knowledge claims, one could interpret these as beliefs about reality.
Ancient skepticism is a philosophical direction that has for the most part been developed in Hellenistic philosophy, approximately beginning in the third century BCE. On the basis of Socratic philosophy, the Academic and Pyrrhonian movements of skepticism have been established.
This papers gives a an overview about the two main theories of ancient skepticism, by initially elaborating the background of this concept, subsequently presenting the Academic and the Pyrrhonian schools of skepticism, and finally concluding on this typic by providing a critical evaluation of the concept of skepticism.
2 The Origin of the Skeptical Philosophy in Ancient Greece
Before presenting the two major schools of skepticism, it is important to understand the roots of skeptical philosophy to be able to better situate the concept in the history of ancient Greek philosophy.
Due to lacking original documents and little publications of philosophers in the ancient world, experts are uncertain about the definite origin of the skeptical orientation in philosophy. Philosophical records of the ancient philosophy are rare and often individuals, such as Sextus Empiricus, reported major philosophical theories of their predecessors, e.g. Pyrrho, Arcesilaus or Carneades, as these didn’t publish any journals or just a little amount at all.
Ancient Skepticism 1
Presocratics, as Xenophanes, Parmenides or Democritus, have certainly had an influence on the philosophy of skepticism, just as well as the sophists with some well- known representatives like Gorgias or Protagoras, who were famous for speculating about the nature or about the state of being by maximizing the use of rhetoric and language to achieve their purpose. The sophists didn’t claim anything to know with certainty, which results in the fact that they relativized many assumptions about knowledge and generalizations, yet the sophists are not considered being the primary origin of the skeptical philosophy.
The first skeptical philosopher, who is usually credited to be the founder of this movement, was Pyrrho of Elis (310–270 B.C.). He argued that people should be prudent and critical towards believe, and fast and reactive towards questions. By denying judgments as much as possible, he founded the heritage of ancient skepticism, and restrained himself to draw conclusions from simple observations, which ultimately led to a peaceful live (Smith, 1997).
Already the preoccupancy about knowledge, such as the claim “I know that I don’t know” (Socrates), has led to discussions that remain at the origin of ancient debates about skepticism. However, the founder of the Pyrrhonian movement (Pyrro) was only partially engaged with pre-socratic philosophy, he was rather focusing on the newly aroused schools of philosophy, the “Epicureans, Stoics, Cynics and Megarian logicians” (Vogt, 2010). However the reason why the ancient skepticism has evolved is much simpler; it happened at the time of the decline of the ancient Greek civilization (griechische Hochkultur) consisting of schools of Socratic, Plato and Aristotle. The ancient skepticism is a response to the newly established schools of Epicureans and Stoics that are, despite their different approaches to find the peaceful state of mind, simplifying the main features of nature to build their view of the world. The skepticism is criticizing this over-simplified dogmatic way of thinking, and focuses on the nature of belief and the suspension of judgment.
Ancient Skepticism 2
3 Academic Skepticism
The first major school of ancient skeptical philosophy consists in the academic school originated from Plato’s Academy and inspired by Socrates claims. The major inputs of the academic movement can be lead back to Arcesilaus, who was the head of the Plato Academy until 90 BC, as well as to another successor Carneades.
3.1 Arcesilaus
Arcesilaus (316 -241 BCE) was a philosopher of Plato’s school and developed his approach upon the Socratic claims and ideas. He broke new ground by raising questions against the statement, “that there is a criterion of truth, as both Epicureans and Stoics... claim there is” (Vogt, 2010). The main areas of investigation in his philosophy are his dialectical method, the claim of whether it exists a criterion of truth and “his defense of the skeptic’s ability to act” (Vogt, 2010).
The theme of the dialectical method consists of a restriction Arcesilaus introduced against himself to argue in favor or against views proposed by his discussion members. Thereby he followed Socrates’ practice and debates against the option falling below a certain “sense-impression [received by any observer], which we could not be mistaken about” (Thorsrud, 2004), and which would lead to a misunderstanding about the observed object, as this becomes indistinguishable between the observation and the sense-impression.
Furthermore Arcesilaus developed assumptions about the aspect of certainty and truth. The Hellenistic debate about the idea of truth introduced by Epicurus and developed by Zeno (Stoicism) questions the belief-formation and argues that certain impressions gained through the belief-formation are cognitive. Arcesilaus believes that there may not be any existence of such impressions/ commitments to the doctrines akatalêpsia (apprehension) and universal epochê at all (Vogt, 2010).
Finally, he withholds judgment from the dogmatic component and “explain[s] skeptic action as rational agency” (Vogt, 2010). By equally weighting impressions of both sides of the observation, which means not to agree with a proposed solution neither denying it, hence it is similar to not believe anything at all. However this assumption would lead to an inability to act, hence Arcesilaus introduces the notion of to eulogon, meaning to act by the rule of reasoning decision-making and hence to proceed accordingly. He claims
Ancient Skepticism 3
Ancient Skepticism 4 that those who act reasonable will come to the right decision and will generally be happy. 3.2 Carneades
Succeeding Arcesilaus, the probably most well known representative of the academic school of philosophy is Carneades of Cyrene (213-129 BCE). He investigated further in the dogmatic positions that were held by Arcesilaus and argued against the Stoics that their assumptions have no established facts of knowledge, and hence are not valid claims of knowledge (“no one in fact knows what the summum bonum is” (Thorsrud, 2004).
Carneades critically elaborated against the Stoics view by arguing on the supporting and denying aspects of a question, which ultimately leads to a better perception of the truth. The Stoics claim that all intelligent people’s judgments “will qualify as knowledge by being based on a firm and unshakable grasp of the truth” (Allen, 2011). By assuming a certain degree of knowledge, based on the people’s cognitive views, the Stoics assert the existence of a “criterion of truth”. Carneades contradicts this assumption and contends that these impression might not be cognitive, but false impressions, and hence there is no criterion of truth. Clearly, this implies that knowledge is not possible at all and that one should withdraw judgment about everything. However, with this assumption we could also claim that the knowledge about this statement is false, hence Carneades introduced the skeptical criterion to pithanon, meaning “the plausible”, and aiming at the idea that although sense-impressions are misleading in the ultimate search for the truth, some impressions might be more probable than others, and hence are useful indicators to establish some facts of truth.
To conclude on Carneade’s skeptical debates, he has introduced two main elements of investigation: “knowledge is not and that one ought to suspend judgement about everything” (Allen, 2011).
4 Pyrrhonian Skepticism
This school of philosophy goes back to its founder Pyrrho of Elis, who contrariwise of the academic school asserted about himself to be skeptical. As Pyrrho didn’t leave any writings, philosophical researchers had to rely a lot on Timon’s documents, a student of Pyrrho.
4.1 Pyrrho and Timon
Pyrrho’s main claim consists of the statement that it it’s not possible at all to obtain knowledge of truth. This extreme skeptical opinion is further elaborated by Pyrrho asserting, “things are equally indifferent, unmeasurable and inarbitrable... [hence] neither our sensations nor our opinion tells us the truths or falsehoods... [and therefore] we should be unopinionated, uncommitted and unwavering... concerning each individual thing” (Vogt, 2010). Ultimately, the result consists of speechlessness of the individual and a total freedom from distraction.
In his approach, Pyrrho recommended to ask itself the following three questions: first of all, how are things given by nature? Secondly, how is the observer’s attitude towards these things? And finally, what will be the outcome, based on the observer’s attitude?
To conclude on Pyrrho’s claims, he is a representative of actions based on the absence of certainty. By suppressing any sort of belief and preferences, Pyrrho aims at the total suppression of action, which leads to the total “apathy [and] total quietism” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2011).
4.2 Aenesidemus
Originally, being a member of Plato’s Academy, he developed ten modes of skepticism, which consist in a “set of skeptical argument forms, or modes, to show that judgment must be withheld on any issue” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2001). As at this time, the Academy has turned into a situation of moderate fallibilism (theory stating that there is no rational certainty for any our opinions/ beliefs), Aenesidemus complained about the loss of direction after Carneades, and quit the Academy to found it’s own school following Pyrrho’s direction. The developed ten modes are based on the fact that an object A is relative towards other objects, so it’s about the relation of different objects to themselves. He claims that there is “no criterion by which to adjudicate which of the perceptions, customs, etc., are correct” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2001).
Aenesidemus contributed to the pyrrhonian skepticism by again withholding judgment, as human beings are epistemologically limited.
Ancient Skepticism 5
5 Critical Evaluation of Ancient Skepticism
Event though the skeptical philosophers Sextus and Arne Naess (Norwegian) have pronounced that skepticism “is a form of mental health” (Skepticism, 2001), the philosophical school of skepticism includes limitations and inconsistencies. The claim that knowledge with certainty doesn’t exist, and the request to suspend judgment could also be interpreted as illusion or judgment about itself: the assumption that nothing can be known with certainty could also be a sens-impression and is hence self-refuting. Consequently, any form of absolute skepticism is logically unreachable, as it is not possible to distinguish between illusion and reality.
The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) clearly proclaimed his antipathetic position against skepticism can be seen in the following section: He describes his ideas as follows: [...] the questions that we raise and our doubts depend upon the fact that some propositions are exempt from doubt, are as it were like hinges on which those turn. That is to say, it belongs to the logic of our scientific investigations that certain things are in deed not doubted. “ (Pritchard, 2004). By this statement Wittgenstein argues that not every scientific investigation should be doubted in its logic. He claims that certain aspects in life and nature (like “I have two hands”) are so evident that nothing will be more certain than the knowledge about them.
Other contemporary philosophers, such as A.J. Ayer and John Austin, assert that the skepticism leads to false problems. “If knowledge is defined in terms of satisfying meaningful criteria, then knowledge is open to all, [...] as a matter of fact, possible to tell that some experiences are illusory since we have criteria for distinguishing them from actual events” (Skepticism, 2001).
To conclude on the critical evaluation of skepticism, a philosophical direction which has been developed in ancient Greece, it is a complex concept implying the idea to deny certainty, especially with respect to knowledge, and consequently to suspend all sorts of judgment from any observation.
Ancient Skepticism 6
6 List of references
Allen, J. (2011). Carneades. Retrieved from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/carneades/#2
Bett, R. (2010). The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Scepticism. New York: Cambridge University. pp.11-239
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . (2001, April 25). Aenesidemus. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/aeneside/
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . (2011, April 21). Pyrrho. Retrieved December 5, 2011, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/pyrrho/
Pritchard, D. (2004, October 15). Contemporary Sekpticism. Retrieved from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/skepcont/
Skepticism. (2001, September 14). Retrieved December 5, 2011, from Philosophy: http://www.mizii.com/jesusi/inlight/philosophy/western/Skepticism.htm
Smith, G. H. (1997). History and Meaning of Skepticism. Retrieved from Ressource for Independent Thinking: http://www.rit.org/essays/history.php
Thorsrud, H. (2004, October 15). Ancient Greek Skepticism. Retrieved December 4, 2001, from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/skepanci/
Vogt, K. (2010, Winter). Ancient Skepticism. (E. N. (ed.), Ed.) Retrieved December 4, 2011, from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/