Introduction

1.Overview of the periods of development of skepticism

2. Pyrrho and his school

4. Sextus Empiricist: Skepticism as a way of life

Conclusion

List of used literature

In history ancient philosophy the following stages are distinguished: 1) the formation of ancient Greek philosophy (VI-V centuries BC; philosophers - Thales, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Socrates, etc.); 2) classical Greek philosophy (V - IV centuries BC) - the teachings of Democritus, Plato, Aristotle; 3) Hellenistic-Roman philosophy (from the end of the 4th century BC to the 6th century AD) - the concepts of Epicureanism, stoicism, skepticism.

Relevance topics test work is that at the end of the 4th century. BC Signs of a crisis in Greek slave-owning democracy are intensifying. This crisis led to the loss of political independence by Athens and other Greek city states.

The economic and political decline of Greece and the decline of the role of the polis are reflected in Greek philosophy. Efforts aimed at understanding the objective world, which manifested themselves among the Greek philosophers, are gradually being replaced by the desire to bring together philosophical and scientific questions only to what is sufficient to justify what is correct, i.e. capable of ensuring happiness, personal behavior. There is widespread disappointment in all types and forms of socio-political life. Philosophy turns from a theoretical system into a state of mind and expresses the self-awareness of a person who has lost himself in the world. Over time, interest in philosophical thinking generally declines sharply. The period of mysticism, the fusion of religion and philosophy is coming.

Metaphysics as a philosophy predominantly gives way to ethics; the main question of philosophy of this period becomes not what things are in themselves, but how they relate to us. Philosophy increasingly strives to become a doctrine that develops rules and norms human life. In this, all three main philosophical trends of the era of early Hellenism are similar - Stoicism, Epicureanism and skepticism.

The loss of oneself and self-doubt gave rise to such a direction of Hellenistic philosophy as skepticism .

Skepticism(from Greek skeptikos- considering, exploring) - a philosophical direction that puts forward doubt as a principle of thinking, especially doubt about the reliability of truth. Moderate skepticism limited to knowledge of facts, showing restraint in relation to all hypotheses and theories. In the ordinary sense, skepticism is a psychological state of uncertainty, doubt about something, forcing one to refrain from making categorical judgments.

Ancient skepticism as a reaction to the metaphysical dogmatism of previous philosophical schools is presented, first of all, Pyrrho, then secondary and new academies ( Arcesilaus , Carneades) etc. late skepticism (Aenesidemus, Sextus Empiricus etc.).

Ancient skepticism went through many changes and phases in its development. At first it was of a practical nature, that is, it acted not only as the most true, but also as the most useful and profitable life position, and then it turned into a theoretical doctrine; initially he questioned the possibility of any knowledge, then he criticized the knowledge, but only that obtained by previous philosophy. Three periods can be distinguished in ancient skepticism:

1) Older Pyrrhonism, developed by Pyrrho himself (c. 360-270 BC) and his student Timon of Phlius, dates back to the 3rd century. BC e. At that time, skepticism was of a purely practical nature: its core was ethics, and dialectics was only the outer shell; from many points of view, it was a doctrine similar to early Stoicism and Epicureanism.

2) Academicism. As a matter of fact, during the period when the series of Pyrrho’s students was interrupted, the skeptical trend dominated the Academy; this was in the 3rd and 2nd centuries. BC e. "in the Middle Academy", the most prominent representatives of which were Arcesilaus (315-240) and Carneades (214-129 BC).

3) Younger Pyrrhonism found its supporters when skepticism left the walls of the Academy. Studying the works of representatives of the Academy of a later period, one can see that they systematized skeptical argumentation. The original ethical position faded into the background, and epistemological criticism came to the fore. The main representatives of this period were Aenesidemus and Agrippa. Skepticism gained many supporters in this last period among the doctors of the “empirical” school, including Sextus Empiricus.

No less important, and perhaps even more important, was ethical area of ​​Pyrrhonian skepticism. Although Pyrrho himself did not write anything, enough material has reached us both about his skepticism in general and about the ethical section of his philosophy. A number of terms are important here, which, with the light hand of Pyrrho, became widespread throughout subsequent philosophy.

This is the term "epoche", which meant "abstinence" from all judgment. Since we don’t know anything, then, according to Pyrrho, we should refrain from making any judgments. For all of us, Pyrrho said, everything is “indifferent,” “adiaphoron,” is another popular term, and not only among skeptics. As a result of abstaining from all judgments, we must act only as everyone usually does, according to the morals and orders in our country.

Therefore, Pyrrho used two more terms here that can only amaze anyone who is studying ancient philosophy for the first time and has a desire to delve into the essence of ancient skepticism. These are the terms "ataraxia", "equanimity", and "apatheia", "insensibility", "dispassion". This last term is ignorantly translated by some as “absence of suffering.” This is exactly what should be the internal state of a sage who has refused a reasonable explanation of reality and a reasonable attitude towards it.

3. Skepticism of the Platonic Academy

Usually Plato's successors (academics) are divided into the Old, Middle and New Academy. (Some also accept the 4th and even the 5th academy).

Ticket 1. Philosophy, its subject, functions and structure.

Subject philosophy is a set of questions a person has about the world around him, the answers to which give a person the opportunity to optimize the realization of his needs.

Functions philosophy:

Worldview (helps to form a worldview and acts as its theoretical basis)

Theoretical-cognitive (philosophy understands the world, develops new knowledge)

Critical (analysis of the world: within the framework of philosophy, an assessment of what is happening in the world is carried out on the basis of those contained in philosophy general ideas about the norm and pathology of the phenomena and processes of reality surrounding a person.)

Methodological (helps to integrate knowledge into one whole, acts as a methodology, i.e. as a doctrine of methods of cognition and transformation of reality.)

Prognostic (engaged in forecasting: many philosophers of the past acted as prophets, predicting the future.)

Structure philosophy:

historical philosophical knowledge(means process development of philosophy, analysis of this process as a whole and its individual stages)

theoretical philosophy consisting of:

ontology (the study of being)

epistemology (about knowledge)

axiology (about values)

ethics (about morality)

aesthetics (about beauty)

anthropology (about man)

social philosophy (about society)

metaphysics (about the origins of the world)

Ticket 2. Philosophy and worldview.

The term “philosophy” arose from the combination of two Greek words “phileo” - love and “sophia” - wisdom and means love of wisdom.

One of the functions of philosophy is worldview, which means that philosophy helps to form a worldview (a set of sensations, points of view that fit a person into this world, in other words, a person’s attitude to the world around him).

Philosophy is the theoretical basis of a worldview.

Worldview can be:

– idealistic;

– materialistic.

Materialism is a philosophical view that recognizes matter as the basis of existence. According to materialism, the world is moving matter, and the spiritual principle is a property of the brain (highly organized matter).

Idealism is a philosophical view that believes that true existence belongs to the spiritual principle (mind, will), and not matter.

Worldview exists in the form of a system of value orientations (spiritual and material goods that society recognizes as the dominant force over itself, determining the actions, thoughts and relationships of people), beliefs and convictions, ideals, as well as the way of life of a person and society. Types of worldview can be distinguished by various reasons.

The relationship between the concepts of philosophy and worldview can be characterized as follows: every philosophy is a worldview, although a worldview is not necessarily philosophy. Worldview is not just knowledge about the world and man, but also an assessment, a person’s attitude towards the world.

Ticket 3. Philosophy Ancient India and Ancient China (Confucianism and Taoism).

Ancient Indian philosophy.

Ancient Indian philosophy is conventionally divided into four periods:

Vedic

classical

post-classical

new philosophy

The main features of the philosophy of Ancient India are religiosity, morality and mysticism. Philosophy considered such problems as development of the individual and the universe, liberation of man from passions and material existence.

The thinkers of ancient India regarded truth as multifaceted knowledge, which cannot be expressed in full by focusing only on individual aspects. That is why they believed that there are many ways of improvement, by choosing one of which you can develop your personality and grow spiritually.

Indian philosophy recognized the ultimate goal man, his development and self-improvement. It is through one’s own self-development that one could improve the world itself.

The main goal was achievement of truth, knowledge of the soul and essence of man and touched upon such sections of philosophical knowledge as ontology, epistemology, metaphysics, anthropology and ethics.

Ancient Chinese philosophy.

Ancient Chinese philosophers before the first millennium BC believed that everything that exists and happens in the world depends on the predestination of heaven. Therefore, it was believed that the head of state was the “son of heaven.” The people of China believed that their lives depended on the influence of certain spirits, so sacrifices to these spirits took place.

According to ancient Chinese philosophers, the world arose from chaos. It was argued that two spirits: yin (feminine) and yang (masculine) brought order to the formless chaos, giving birth to the world.

At the beginning of the 1st millennium BC, the natural philosophical concept was formed. The same spirits that influence people's lives are represented as some material forces (water, fire, wood, metal, earth).

Confucianism

The founder of Confucianism is Kong Tzu (Confucius). He taught that heaven is a higher power, a formidable ruler, fate, fate, which is dissatisfied with the existing state of affairs. His ideals are not in the future, but in the past. Kong Tzu founded the idea of ​​"rectification of names." This idea was to try to bring phenomena back to their former meanings. With all deviations from the norm, Confucius believed, one should definitely return to it.

The basis of order in a country according to Confucius is li (ceremonial, ritual, respect, decency, and so on...)

Confucian ethics is based on the concepts of "reciprocity", "golden mean" and "philanthropy", which constitute the "right path". The right path must be followed by every person who wants to live happily. Confucius believed that the key to governing a people lay in the power of the moral example of superior citizens to inferior ones.

Kun Tzu strives to eliminate cruelty, rudeness, robbery and greed.

Confucian philosophy emphasizes the idea of ​​zhong ("devotion") - the idea of ​​submission. The need to honor the ruler, parents and older brothers as younger ones was also emphasized. Confucius put forward the idea that people are by nature close to each other, that people have innate knowledge, which he considered “supreme knowledge.” People also have other types of knowledge gained through training and direct experience.

The founder of Taoism is Lao Tzu. The central concept of the teachings of Taoism is Tao - the universal pattern of the world, the fundamental principle and completion of everything that exists. Tao is eternal, nameless, incorporeal and formless, inexhaustible and endless in its movement. Tao is present in all material things and causes changes in these things, turning things into their opposites.

Taoism recognizes the independence of human actions. The cause of all adversity, followers of Taoism believe, is a violation of the operation of the Tao. Therefore, in order to get rid of adversity, you need to give up everything you have achieved.

Reasonable behavior, according to Taoism, is the desire for calm, for moderation. Taoism bases its concept of management on the concept of non-action.

Knowledge for followers of the teachings of Tao does not matter, since they believe that the more a person knows, the further he moves away from the true Tao.

Ticket 4. Main schools of pre-Socratic ancient philosophy.

Milesian school- known as the first philosophical school. In it, for the first time, the question of the fundamental principles of all things was consciously raised. In the first place was the question of the essence of the world, and most representatives adhered to a materialistic point of view. Thales considered water to be the first principle, his student Anaximander - apeiron (a certain hypothetical natural material), and Anaximander's student, Anaximenes - air; his student Anaxagoras considered the first principle to be an infinite number of small material particles, qualitatively different from each other, which he calls the seeds of things. An adherent of the Milesian school, Heraclitus called fire the first principle, since not only ordinary material bodies, but also souls come from fire. The soul is material, it is the least wet, dry fire. All things arise from fire through successive transformations.

School of Pythagoras- the basis of the world is Number. Things are changeable, but numbers are universal and regular. The achievement of the Pythagoreans was the explanation of the properties of an object through its organization and orderliness. A student of Pythagoras, Empedocles considered the four elements to be the beginning of all things: fire, earth, water and air. Basic elements and forces can neither arise nor be destroyed. Only combinations of elements arise, or rather are united and separated.

Eleatic school- its founder, Parmenides believed that being is pure positivity, and non-existence is negativity. Being is one, timeless, eternal, indivisible, unchangeable and exists only in the present, only it is truly existing, and multiplicity, variability, discontinuity, fluidity are all the lot of the imaginary. (In other words, being is one and change is illusory). Ticket 5 Philosophy of Socrates and Plato

Socrates (about 470-399 BC), ancient Greek philosopher, one of the founders of dialectics as a method of finding truth by asking leading questions - the so-called. Socratic method (MAIEUTICS (Greek maieutike, letters - midwifery), Socrates' method of extracting knowledge hidden in a person with the help of skillful leading questions.). He was accused of “worshipping new deities” and “corrupting youth” and sentenced to death (he took hemlock poison).

He presented his teachings orally; the main source is the writings of his students Xenophon and Plato. The goal of philosophy is self-knowledge as the path to comprehension of true good; virtue is knowledge or wisdom. For subsequent eras, Socrates became the embodiment of the ideal of the sage.

Key ideas: Maieutics and irony

Socrates' dialogues were a search for true knowledge, and an important step on this path was the awareness of its absence, the understanding of one's own ignorance. According to legend, Socrates was called “the wisest of all wise” by the Delphic Pythia. Apparently, this is connected with his statement about the limitations of human knowledge: “I know that I know nothing.” Using the method of irony, Socrates puts on the mask of a simpleton and asks to teach something or give advice. There is always a serious goal behind this game - to force the interlocutor to reveal himself, his ignorance, to achieve the effect of a beneficial shock to the listener.

About a person. Repeating after the Delphic Oracle “Know thyself,” Socrates addresses the problem of man, the solution to the question of the essence of man, his nature. You can study the laws of nature, the movement of the stars, but why go so far, as Socrates seems to say - know yourself, go deeper into what is close, and then, through knowledge of accessible things, you can come to the same deep truths. For Socrates, a person is, first of all, his soul. And by “soul” Socrates understands our mind, the ability to think, and conscience, the moral principle. If the essence of a person is his soul, then it is not so much his body that needs special care, but his soul, and the highest task of the educator is to teach people how to cultivate the soul. Virtue makes the soul good and perfect.

Socrates reveals the concept of happiness and the possibilities of achieving it. The source of happiness is not in the body or in anything external, but in the soul, not in enjoying the things of the external material world, but in a feeling of inner fulfillment. A person is happy when his soul is orderly and virtuous.

The soul, according to Socrates, is the mistress of the body, as well as the instincts associated with the body.

Plato (428 or 427 BC - 348 or 347), ancient Greek philosopher. Disciple of Socrates, ca. 387 founded a school in Athens. The main part of Plato's philosophy, which gave the name to the whole direction of philosophy, is the doctrine of ideas (eidos), the existence of two worlds: the world of ideas (eidos) and the world of things, or forms. Ideas (eidos) are prototypes of things, their sources. Ideas (eidos) underlie the entire set of things formed from formless matter. Ideas are the source of everything, but matter itself cannot give rise to anything. The human soul is represented by Plato in the form of a chariot with a rider and two horses, white and black. The driver symbolizes the rational principle in a person, and the horses: white - the noble, highest qualities of the soul, black - passions, desires and the instinctive principle. The second force, no less transformative of a person and capable of raising him to the world of the gods, is Love. In general, the philosopher himself resembles Eros: he also strives to achieve good, he is neither wise nor ignorant, but is an intermediary between one and the other, he does not possess beauty and good and that is why he strives for them. Ideas (the highest among them is the idea of ​​good) are eternal and unchanging intelligible prototypes of things, of all transitory and changeable existence; things are likeness and reflection of ideas. Knowledge is anamnesis - the soul's recollection of the ideas that it contemplated before its union with the body. Love for an idea (Eros) is the motivating reason for spiritual ascent. The ideal state is a hierarchy of three classes: rulers-sages, warriors and officials, peasants and artisans. Plato intensively developed dialectics and outlined the scheme of the main stages of being developed by Neoplatonism. In the history of philosophy, the perception of Plato has changed: “divine teacher” (antiquity); forerunner of the Christian worldview (Middle Ages); philosopher of ideal love and political utopian (Renaissance).

Plato's works are highly artistic dialogues; the most important of them: “Apology of Socrates”, “Phaedo”, “Symposium”, “Phaedrus” (the doctrine of ideas), “State”, “Theaetetus” (theory of knowledge), “Parmenides” and “Sophist” (dialectics of categories), "Timaeus" (natural philosophy). Ticket 6. Aristotle's philosophy Aristotle. If things really exist, then the ideas of things necessarily exist; so that without an idea a thing does not exist or the thing itself remains unknowable. There is no fundamental separation of the idea of ​​a thing from the thing itself. The idea of ​​a thing is inside the thing itself. The idea of ​​a thing, being something singular, just as the thing itself is singular, is at the same time a generalization of all parts of the thing, is a kind of community.

The generality of a thing necessarily exists in each individual thing, and exists differently each time; but this means that the community of a thing embraces all its separate parts and therefore is the integrity of the thing. The integrity of a thing, when with the removal of one part of the thing the whole thing perishes, is the organism of the thing, in contrast to the mechanism of the thing, when the thing remains integral, despite any removal of its individual parts and their replacement with other parts. An organism is such an integrity of a thing when there are one or several such parts in which the integrity is present substantially. The four-principled structure of every thing as an organism: 1. The eidos (idea) of a thing is its essence, which is located in it itself, and without which it is generally impossible to understand what a given thing is. 2. The matter of a thing is only the very possibility of its formation, and this possibility is infinitely varied. The eidos of a thing is not its matter, and the matter of a thing is not its eidos. Matter is only the possibility of realizing eidos. 3. If things move, and for movement there must be some specific cause of movement, then this means that it is necessary to recognize some kind of self-motion, some reason that is a cause for itself. In being there is a self-propelled cause, and this self-propulsion is one way or another reflected in the real dependence of the movement of one thing on the movement of another thing.

Basic philosophical views. But in addition to theoretical mastery of the material, Aristotle was characterized by their comprehension, addition, and processing. Thinking about the existence of the world in all its manifestations, he names 4 reasons for the existence of any thing or object. In his philosophy, Aristotle briefly and succinctly describes these factors: matter, form, cause and purpose. God, according to his teaching, is immaterial, being himself the prime mover. The goals for each subject of existence are different, the highest goal of the universe is the achievement of the Good - the highest value described by Plato. The purpose of every thing, including a person, is to fulfill its purpose as fully as possible.

If we talk about Aristotle’s philosophy briefly, then its main features can be called the scientist’s attention to the realized, existing world. From this position, he is often compared with Plato, who saw the purpose of man’s earthly stay in the pursuit of the Divine, which he designated by the category “One”. It is believed that with Aristotle and his teacher, two paths of development of European culture took shape: Western - Aristotelianism - with its desire to know God in this world and Eastern - Platonism, characterized by a craving for the sublime, unearthly. Ticket 7 Philosophy of Neoplotonism and Stoicism The founder of Stoicism in philosophy is Zeno from Kitium in Cyprus (c. 333 - 262 BC)..

According to the Stoics, the world is one whole. This integrity is based on universal consistency and necessarily conditioned interconnection. The world, according to Chrysippus, is spherical and located in an endless void, which is incorporeal.

The Stoics believed that everything in nature is in motion. Moreover, in their opinion, there are 3 types of movement: change, spatial movement and tension. Tension is considered as a state of pneuma. Depending on the state of pneuma in bodies, four kingdoms of nature are distinguished: inorganic, flora, fauna and the human world. Pneuma is understood not only as a physical, but also as a spiritual principle. The highest tension of pneuma as a spiritual principle is characteristic of sages. But pneuma is something divine among the Stoics; for them it acts as reason, the logos of the cosmos. The mind of God, in their opinion, is pure fire. For the Stoics, God is the highest rational power that controls everything and gives expediency to everything. The world, according to the Stoics, is dominated by strict necessity. Its manifestation is subject to the will of God.

At the center of the ethical reasoning of the Stoics is not the concept of happiness, but the concept of duty. The Stoics, developing their original ethics, saw duty in the pursuit of moral perfection, which is achieved when a person lives in accordance with nature and submits to fate. Man, the Stoics believed, cannot make this world perfect, but he can create a perfect world within himself, acquire proud dignity, and follow the high demands of morality. The desire for perfection lies in the ways of understanding the world and practicing virtuous behavior. Inner freedom is achieved by recognizing the need to follow the demands of indisputable duty.

The Stoics believed that the path to bliss was equanimity. They paid close attention to the analysis of passions, demanding their subordination to reason. Passions were divided into four types: sadness, fear, lust and pleasure.

Sadness, according to the Stoics, comes in many forms. It can be caused by compassion, envy, jealousy, ill will, anxiety, grief, etc. The Stoics considered fear as a premonition of evil. They understood lust as an unreasonable desire of the soul. Pleasure was perceived by the Stoics as the unreasonable use of desires. The Stoics eschewed pleasure. For them, the ideal was a dispassionate person, an ascetic.

Passions, according to the Stoics, are the source of evil, which can appear in the form of unreason, cowardice, immoderation and injustice.

The Stoic strives to rise above passions. This is achieved by understanding the essence of good and evil, between which, as they believed, lies a vast field of moral indifference.

The Stoics taught moderation, patience, and courageous enduring of the blows of fate. They proclaimed: be a man in both poverty and wealth, maintain your dignity and honor, no matter what it costs you, if fate has destined you for poverty, ill health, homelessness, endure them without groaning, if you are rich, handsome, smart, be moderate in the use of these benefits, remember that tomorrow you may find yourself poor, sick, persecuted.

The largest representatives of middle Stoicism are Panetius (about 185 - 110/109 BC) and Posidonius (135 - 51 BC). They softened the rigorism of the original Stoicism.

NEOPLATONISM is the last stage in the development of ancient Platonism, the fundamental novelty of which in comparison with average Platonism should be considered the recognition of the super-existential nature of the origin and the identity of mind-being as its first manifestation, which was first clearly presented in the philosophy of Plotinus (3rd century). Neoplatonism closes middle Platonism, absorbs neo-Pythagoreanism and, starting with Plotinus’s student Porphyry, uses Aristotelianism as an introduction - ch.o. logical - in the teachings of Plato. Ancient Neoplatonism gravitated towards a school organization and existed primarily in the form of a number of schools, focused primarily on the interpretation of Plato’s dialogues and the systematization of his teachings. True, Plotinus’s school in Rome was a circle of listeners that disbanded during the teacher’s lifetime. Nevertheless, it was Plotinus and his students Amelius and Porphyry who developed the basic concepts of the system of Neoplatonism: at the head of the hierarchy of being is the super-existent single good, understandable only in super-mental ecstasy and expressible only by means of negative (apophatic) theology; further, in the order of revelation of the one and as its main manifestations (hypostases) in the sphere of being (cf. Emanation), there follows being-mind (nus) with ideas in it, soul (psyche), turned to the mind and to the sensory cosmos, eternal in its temporary existence (third hypostasis). However, Plotinus's school still lacked clear foundations for the interpretation of Plato's dialogues. Amelius, for example, carried out a triple division of the mind and taught about three minds and three demiurges, believing that these were the “three kings” of Plato’s 2nd “Letter”, while Plotinus understood the “three kings” as one, mind and soul . Porfiry, unlike Plotinus and Amelius, believed that Plato’s demiurge can be understood not as the mind, but as the soul.

Ticket.8Philosophy of Epicureanism A widely known destination in philosophy The Hellenistic era was Epicureanism. Its ancestor Epicurus (c. 342/341 - 270/271 BC) was born on the island of Samos. The thinker's works have reached us incompletely in the form of several letters and a significant number of fragments from his works.

Epicurus understood philosophy as an activity that gives people, through reflection, a happy life devoid of suffering. The goal of his philosophy is not to change the world, but to adapt to it.

The philosophy of Epicurus is divided into three parts The main one is ethics, which teaches how to achieve happiness. The second part of philosophy is physics. It gives insight into the natural world, frees us from fear of it, and serves as a basis for ethics. Both of these parts are based on the canon, a kind of theory of knowledge and methodology of science, which acts as the third part. According to Epicurus, knowledge is possible on the basis of sensations. Repeated sensations, sinking deeply into human consciousness, form concepts. Epicurus considered feelings as infallible, and deduced errors from incorrect judgments.

In physics, Epicurus proceeded from the recognition of the eternity and uncreateability of the world. He, following Democritus, adhered to the idea of ​​​​the atomic structure of matter. Pointing to knowledge as a means of subordinating necessity to a rational acting person, Epicurus thereby pointed out the real way to rise above necessity, to subordinate it to his interests. This circumstance allowed the philosopher to consider a person in the world not as a puppet, but as a free creator of his actions, his destiny. In other words, in the knowledge of phenomena that occur due to necessity and chance, Epicurus sees the path to freedom.

Prudence as a human ability is formed during education. It frees a person from boundless absurd passions and fear, which is an indispensable and first condition for acquiring the ability to think happily and avoid unhappiness. Epicurus believed that the achievement of happiness should involve freeing a person from the bonds of social activity, meaning participation in political activity.

Elaborating on Ethical Issues, which occupies a dominant place in Epicurus’s system of philosophizing, and comparing the state of ataraxia and serenity with happiness, Serenity (ataraxia) for him is only a condition for one of the types of pleasures, which he divided into active and passive or the pleasures of peace. The latter are, according to Epicurus, the result of serenity. Achieving happiness involves the realization of numerous desires. The philosopher believed that an error-free combination of desires when choosing a line of behavior largely depends on the individual himself. According to Epicurus, the organization happy life requires not the free manifestation of knowledge, but its clear implementation within predetermined limits. In other words, one must observe moderation in realizing desires and receiving pleasures. The latter can be obtained only if measures are taken in needs that are realized in desires. The problem of pleasure occupies a special place in the ethics of Epicurus. In it, the thinker recognized that pleasure is the highest for a person. This point of view is characteristic of hedonistic ethics. In this case, pleasure is recognized as the beginning and end of a happy life. Epicurus associated pleasure with the absence of pain. Epicurus understood pleasure as the line beyond which suffering begins. Moderation in everything, including pleasures, is considered by the thinker as an independent and significant good. According to the philosopher, one who is accustomed to moderation will not suffer when there is not much and one has to be content with little. Epicurus included among the most important conditions for a happy life, first of all, such seemingly elementary, but extremely important for maintaining life, needs as the need for food and warmth. In his opinion, the satisfaction of these needs gives rise to the most pleasant pleasures.

Question 9. Philosophy of ancient skepticism

Skepticism arises as a trend in philosophy, obviously due to the collapse of some educated people's hopes for the previous claims of philosophy. At the core of skepticism is a position based on doubt about the existence of any reliable criterion of truth.

By focusing on the relativity of human knowledge, skepticism played a positive role in the fight against various forms of dogmatism. Within the framework of skepticism, a number of problems of the dialectics of knowledge were posed. However, skepticism also had other consequences, since unbridled doubt about the possibilities of knowing the world led to pluralism in the understanding of social norms, to unprincipled opportunism, servility, on the one hand, and disregard for human institutions, on the other.

Skepticism is contradictory in nature; it prompted some to an in-depth search for truth, and others to militant ignorance and immorality.

The founder of skepticism was Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360 - 270 BC). The philosophy of the skeptics came to us thanks to the works of Sextus Empiricus. His works give us an idea of ​​the ideas of the skeptics Pyrrho, Timon, Carneades, Clitomachus, Aenesidemus.

According to the teachings of Pyrrho, a philosopher is a person who strives for happiness. It, in his opinion, lies only in equanimity, combined with the absence of suffering.

Anyone who wants to achieve happiness must answer three questions:

what things are made of;

how they should be treated;

what benefit we are able to obtain from our attitude towards them.

Pyrrho believed that no answer could be given to the first question, just as it could not be asserted that something definite exists. Moreover, any statement about any subject can with equal right be contrasted with a statement that contradicts it.

From the recognition of the impossibility of unambiguous statements about things, Pyrrho derived the answer to the second question: the philosophical attitude towards things consists in abstaining from any judgments. This is explained by the fact that our sensory perceptions, although reliable, cannot be adequately expressed in judgments. This answer also predetermines the answer to the third question: the benefit and benefit arising from abstaining from all kinds of judgments consists of equanimity or serenity. This state, called ataraxia, based on the renunciation of knowledge, is considered by skeptics as the highest level of bliss.

The efforts of the skeptics Pyrrho, Aenesidemus and Agrippina, aimed at shackling human curiosity with doubt and slowing down the movement along the path of progressive development of knowledge, were in vain. The future, which seemed to skeptics as a terrible punishment for believing in the omnipotence of knowledge, nevertheless came and none of their warnings could stop it.

Question 10. Philosophy of patristics.

A characteristic feature of the stage of medieval philosophy patristics (2nd–8th centuries), is that thinkers, in order to confirm their ideas turn to the most authoritative and ancient source - the Bible.

Patristics is the direct successor of the apostolic tradition, which has the highest after Old Testament authority. The philosophy created by the apostolic tradition is the first in Christianity. And due to the traditionalism of thinking of the representatives of patristics, it is considered as a prototype of any future philosophizing and its classic example. Based on this, they construct their works as explanations of individual provisions of the Old and New Testaments.

A feature of the writings of the church fathers of the patristic period is that, along with knowledge of the texts of the Holy Scriptures, they reflect all the richness and diversity of ancient philosophy. Patristics created a tradition that found its continuation in scholasticism. This makes it possible to consider patristics and scholasticism as phenomena of the same order, firstly, due to their common method of philosophizing, and secondly, due to their reliance on the same principles that mediate the content of philosophical works. These principles include:

theocentrism (monotheism) - recognition of God as the source of all things;

creationism - recognition that God created everything out of nothing;

providentialism - recognition that God is in control of everything;

personalism - recognition that man is a “person”, created by God in his own image and endowed with a conscience;

Relationism - the recognition that the most reliable way of knowing the most important truths for a person is to comprehend the meaning of the Holy Scriptures;

eschatology – the history of mankind is the struggle to save the world, as man turns away from God;

the dual nature of Jesus Christ - both God (works miracles) and man (possesses a human body).

At the stage of patristics, a great contribution to the development of philosophy was made by such fathers of the Christian church as: Tertullian (160 - 220), Origen (c. 185 - 253/254), Cyprian of Carthage (after 200 - 258), Eusebius Pamphilus (c. 260 - 339), Athanasius the Great (295 - 373), Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzen) (329/330 - 390), Basil the Great (c. 330 - 379), Ambrose of Milan (333/334 - 397), Gregory of Nyssa (335 - after 394), Jerome of Stridon (347 - 419/420), Augustine the Blessed (354 - 430), etc.

The range of problems that interested representatives of patristics was wide. And yet it remained in the foreground the problem of man and his structure in the world. What was significant here was the problem of the relationship between knowledge and faith. Priority was given to faith. At the same time, knowledge was often seen as a means to strengthen faith. Another important issue discussed during the patristic period and later is the problem of free will. At the same time, some medieval philosophers denied free will, others allowed it, but limited it to the possible intervention of God, and others defended the idea that people are free in their will, but the world is not free from the will of God.

Another widely discussed set of issues related to ethics. One of them was the problem of good and evil in the world. Many Christian philosophers of the patristic period believed that evil in the world has its source in the deeds of people, which are the realization of their free will, affected by errors. Other thinkers saw the source of evil in the machinations of the devil.

The philosophy of ancient skepticism existed for quite a long time and was the most influential movement in philosophy for many, many centuries - from the 4th century BC. to 3-4 centuries after R.H. The founder of ancient skepticism is traditionally considered to be the philosopher Pyrrho along with his student Timon. Subsequently, skepticism of the Pyrrhonian type fades somewhat, and the so-called Platonic Academy appears. academic skepticism with representatives such as Carneades and Arcesilaus - this is the 2nd century BC. Pyrrhonian skepticism is being revived, what was later called Pyrrhonism, by Aenesidemus and Agrippa (the works of these philosophers have not survived to this day). The representative of late ancient skepticism is the philosopher and physician Sextus Empiricus, who lived in the 2nd century after Christ. In the 3rd and 4th centuries the school still existed, and elements of skepticism can be found in the physician Galen.

A few words about the life of the founder of ancient skepticism - Pyrrho. He was born in 270 BC and lived 90 years. Pyrrho is one of those philosophers who did not write philosophical treatises, like Socrates, showing through his life the philosophy that he developed. We know about him from the book of Diogenes Laertius. The chapter on Pyrrho in it is the main source of information on Pyrrhonism. From it we learn that he refrained from any judgment, i.e. he had doubts about the knowability of the world. And Pyrrho, being a consistent philosopher, strove throughout his life to be a supporter of this teaching. As Diogenes Laertius points out, Pyrrho did not move away from anything, did not shy away from anything, was exposed to any danger, be it a cart, a pile, or a dog, without being exposed to any sense of danger; he was protected by his friends who followed him. This is a rather bold statement, because it contradicts the essence of skeptical philosophy. Diogenes further reports that at first Pyrrho was engaged in painting; a painting has been preserved, painted rather mediocrely. He lived in solitude, rarely showing himself even at home. The inhabitants of Elis respected him for his intelligence and elected him high priest, This gives rise to some thought. Again, it is not clear how a person, being an extravagant and convinced skeptic, could become a high priest. Moreover, for his sake, it was decided to exempt all philosophers from taxes. More than once he left home without telling anyone and wandered around with just anyone. One day his friend Anaxarchus fell into a swamp, Pyrrho passed by without shaking his hand. Everyone scolded him, but Anaxarchus praised him. He lived with his sister, a midwife, and went to the market to sell chickens and piglets.

A famous incident is mentioned by Diogenes Laertius: when Pyrrho was sailing on a ship and, together with his companions, was caught in a storm, everyone began to panic, only Pyrrho alone, pointing to the ship’s pig, which was serenely slurping from its trough, said that this is exactly how a true man should behave. philosopher

Little is known about Pyrrho's student Timon, only that he was a poet and expressed his worldview in the form of syllabi. Subsequently, skeptical ideas began to develop in Plato's Academy. Plato's students developed Plato's teachings in their own way. Carneades and Arcesilaus, considering themselves true Platonists, began to develop the theme of criticism of sensationalism and came to the conclusion that truth is unknowable. Nothing has reached us from Carneades and Arcesilaus either. A proponent of academic skepticism is the ancient Roman orator and philosopher Cicero. He has a number of works where he presents his views on academic skeptics. We can also familiarize ourselves with academic skepticism in the work of Blessed. Augustine's "Against the Academicians", where he criticizes their teaching.

Pyrrhonism was later revived by Aenesidemus and Agrippa and then by Sextus Empiricus, a systematizer and perhaps the most talented representative of Pyrrhonism.

I recommend reading the works of Sextre Empiricus in 2 volumes, ed. 1976 He wrote 2 works: one of them is “Three Books of Pyrrho’s Propositions”, the other is “Against the Scientists”. Ancient skepticism, like all Hellenistic philosophy, posed primarily ethical questions, considering the main solution to the problem of how to live in this world, how to achieve a happy life. It is usually believed that skepticism is primarily a doubt about the knowability of truth, and they reduce skepticism only to the theory of knowledge. However, this is not at all true with regard to Pyrrhonism. Sextus Empiricus divides all philosophical schools into 2 classes: dogmatic and skeptical. He also divides dogmatists into dogmatists and academicians. Dogmatists and academicians believe that they have already decided the question of truth: dogmatists, i.e. followers of Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics, etc., claim that they have found the truth, and academics claim (also dogmatically) that it is impossible to find the truth. Only skeptics seek the truth. Hence, as Sextus Empiricus says, there are three main types of philosophy: dogmatic, academic and skeptical. Diogenes Laertius writes that in addition to the name “skeptics” - from the word “to look out”, they were also called aporetics (from the word “aporia”), dzetics (from the word “to seek”) and effektiki (i.e. doubters).

As Sextus Empiricus pointed out, the essence of skeptical philosophy boils down to the following. “The skeptical ability is that which contrasts, in the only possible way, a phenomenon with a conceivable one, from here, due to the equivalence in opposite things and speeches, we come first to abstinence from judgment, and then to equanimity.” I note that Sextus speaks about the skeptical ability, and never about the dogmatic one, showing that being a skeptic is natural for a person, but being a dogmatist is unnatural. At first, skeptics try to consider all phenomena and everything conceivable, find out that these phenomena and concepts can be perceived in different ways, including the opposite, prove that in this way everyone will contradict each other, so that one judgment will balance another judgment. Due to the equivalence of judgments in opposing things and speeches, the skeptic decides to refrain from judging anything, and then the skeptic comes to equanimity - attarxia, i.e. to what the Stoics were looking for. And each of these stages was carefully developed by the skeptics. Abstinence from judgment is also called "epoch".

So, the first task of the pyrrhonist is to oppose everything to each other in any possible way. Therefore, the skeptic contrasts everything: the phenomenon with the phenomenon, the phenomenon with the conceivable, the conceivable with the conceivable. For these purposes, Aenesidemus developed 10 tropes, and Agrippa five more. Often these paths limit the consideration of skepticism, and this is serious reasons. Here, indeed, are the foundations of ancient Pyrrhonism. But before we consider the paths, let's try to understand whether it is really possible to live following the philosophy of ancient skepticism?

The dispute about this philosophy arose during the lifetime of the skeptics themselves; they were reproached that their philosophy was not viable, that it had no life guide. Because in order to live, you need to accept something as truth. If you doubt everything, then, as Aristotle said, a person going to Megara will never reach it, because at least you need to be sure that Megara exists.

Pascal, Arno, Nicole, Hume and other philosophers of modern times reproached skepticism for such sins. However, Sextus Empiricus writes something completely opposite - that the skeptic accepts his philosophy in order not to remain inactive, because it is dogmatic philosophy that leads a person to inactivity, only skepticism can serve as a guide in life and activity. A skeptic focuses primarily on phenomena, refuses to know the essence of things, because he is not sure of this, he is looking for it. What is certain for him is a phenomenon. As Pyrrho said: I am sure that honey seems sweet to me, but I refrain from judging that it is sweet by nature.

The dogmatist, on the contrary, asserts certain propositions about the essence of things, but it is obvious that they can be erroneous, which shows the difference between dogmatic schools. And what happens if a person begins to act in accordance with an erroneous philosophy? This will lead to dire consequences. If we rely in our philosophy only on phenomena, only on what we undoubtedly know, then all our activities will have a solid foundation.

This position of Sextus Empiricus has other roots. In the 1st century after R.H. In Greece there were three medical schools: methodological, dogmatic and empirical. The physician Sextus belonged to the school of empiricists, hence his name “Empiricist”. The doctor Galen belonged to the same school. These doctors argued that there is no need to search for the origins of diseases, there is no need to determine what is more in a person: earth or fire, there is no need to bring all four elements into harmony. But you need to look at the symptoms and relieve the patient of these symptoms. When treating patients, this method gave good results, but empirical doctors wanted to treat not only the body, but also the soul. The main diseases of the soul are dogmatism and academicism, for they prevent a person from achieving happiness, and dogmatism must be treated. A person must be treated for what he is mistaken about, and he is mistaken in the fact that it is possible to know the essence of things. We must show him that this is wrong, show that the truth is sought by trusting the phenomenon. In the chapter "Why Does a Skeptic Make Weak Arguments?" Sextus Empiricus writes about this. Indeed, when we read his works, we often see weak arguments, even sometimes funny. Sextus Empiricus himself knows this and says that skeptics deliberately do this - they say that one can be convinced by a weak argument, for another it is necessary to build a solid philosophical system. The main thing is the goal, the achievement of happiness. However, for the sake of fairness, it must be said that skeptics have very few weak arguments.

So, let's consider the skeptical arguments that Sextus Empiricus puts forward. First, about the trails of Enysidem. There are ten of them, they mainly capture the sensory side of cognition, and the five paths of Agrippa cover the rational area.

The first trope is based on the diversity of living things and says the following. Philosophers claim that the criterion of truth is man, i.e. he is the measure of all things (Protagoras) and he alone can know the truth. The skeptic rightly asks, why, in fact, a person? After all, a person knows the world around us thanks to the senses. But the diversity of the animal world shows that animals also have sense organs and they are different from humans. Why do we think that human senses provide a truer picture of the world than the senses of other animals? How can those who have a narrow hearing organ and those who have a wide one hear equally, those who have hairy ears and those who have smooth ones? And we have no right to consider ourselves the criterion of truth. Therefore, we must refrain from judgment, because... We don’t know whose senses we can trust.

The second trope: the philosopher makes an assumption (narrowing the question): let’s say a person is the criterion of truth. But there are many people and they are different. There are Scythians, Greeks, Indians. They tolerate cold and heat differently, food is healthy for some, harmful for others. People are diverse, and therefore it is impossible to say which particular person is the criterion of truth.

The third trope further narrows the scope of exploration. The skeptic assumes that we have found a person who is the criterion of truth. But he has many senses that can give a different picture of the world around him: honey tastes sweet but is unpleasant to look at, rainwater is good for the eyes, but the airways become coarser from it, etc. - this also implies the abstinence of judgments about the environment.

The fourth trope is about circumstances. Let's say there is a sense organ that we can trust most of all, but there are always some circumstances: there are tears in the eyes that more or less affect the idea of ​​​​the visible object, an uneven state of mind: for a lover a woman seems beautiful, for another - nothing special. The wine seems sour if you eat dates before, and if you eat nuts or peas, then it seems sweet, etc. This also entails abstention from judgment.

The fifth trope is about dependence on position, distances and places. For example, a tower appears small from afar, but large up close. The same lamp flame is dim in the sun and bright in the dark. Coral in the sea is soft, but in the air it is hard. Facts again force us to refrain from making judgments about what a subject is in its essence.

The sixth trope is dependent on admixtures, writes Sextus. We never perceive any phenomenon by itself, but only in conjunction with something. It is always air or water or some other medium. The same sound is different in thin air or in thick air, aromas are more intoxicating in a bathhouse than in ordinary air, etc. Same conclusion as before.

The seventh trope concerns the size and structure of the subject objects. The same object can look different depending on whether it is large or small, whether it is broken into component parts or whether it is whole. For example, silver filings by themselves appear black, but together as a whole they appear white; wine consumed in moderation strengthens us, and in excess relaxes the body, etc.

The eighth trope is about attitude towards something. It echoes the sixth. The skeptic argues that since everything exists in relation to something, then we will refrain from saying what its separate nature is.

The ninth trope concerns something that is constantly or rarely encountered. The sun should strike us, of course, more, writes Sextus Empiricus, but since... We see it all the time, but rarely see a comet, then we are so amazed by the comet that we consider it a divine sign, but we are not surprised by the sun at all. What occurs less often amazes us, even if in essence the event is very ordinary.

The tenth trope is associated with the issue of morality and depends on the beliefs and dogmatic positions of different peoples and their customs. Sextus gives examples where he shows that different peoples have their own ideas about good and evil. Some Ethiopians tattoo small children, but we don't. The Persians consider it decent to wear long, colorful clothes, but here it is not, etc.

The following are the paths of Agrippa. The first trope is about inconsistency. It testifies that there is a huge variety of philosophical systems, people cannot agree and find the truth, it follows that if there is still no agreement, then we must withhold judgment for now.

The second trope is about moving away into infinity. Based on it, the skeptic argues that in order to prove something, one must be based on a statement that must also be proven, it must be proven on the basis of again some statement, which in turn must also be proven, etc. - we go to infinity, i.e. we don't know where to start the justification; We refrain from judgment.

The third trope is called “relative to what,” in which the subject thing appears to us as one or another in relation to the one judging and contemplating the object. He who judges an object is at the same time the subject and object of knowledge. When we judge something, we interfere in the process of cognition, so we cannot judge the object in itself, because it does not exist in itself, but exists only for us.

The fourth trope is about assumption. If a philosopher wants to avoid going into infinity, then he dogmatically assumes that some proposition is true in itself. But the skeptic does not agree to such a concession, believing that this is precisely a concession, the position is accepted without proof and therefore cannot claim to be true.

The fifth trope is interprovability, which states that in order to avoid infinity in proof, philosophers often fall into the fallacy of interprovability. One position is justified with the help of another, which, in turn, is justified with the help of the first.

Skeptics use all these paths when considering any philosophical question. Skeptics argued with their contemporaries; their main opponents were the Stoics. In the books of Sextus Empiricus there are objections to ethicists, rhetoricians, geometers, astrologers (arguments from this book will be found in the works of the Church Fathers). Here, for example, is the problem of causation. In particular, Sextus Empiricus considers the question, does a cause exist or does not exist? At the beginning he proves that there is a cause, for it is difficult to suppose that there is any effect without its cause, then everything would be in complete disorder. But no less convincingly he proves that there is no reason. For before we think of any action, we must know that there is a cause that gives rise to this action, and in order to know that this is a cause, we must know that it is the cause of some action, i.e. we cannot think of either cause or effect separately, i.e. they are correlative with each other. Therefore, in order to conceive the cause, one must first cognize the effect, and in order to cognize the effect, one must first cognize the cause. From this mutual proof it follows that we cannot know either the cause or the effect.

A few words about how ancient skepticism interacted with emerging Christianity. Can we say that skepticism hindered or helped the spread of Christianity? Most historians of philosophy believe that ancient skepticism prepared the way for the seed of Christianity to fall on favorable soil thanks to the preaching of the apostles. Skeptical views in the first years after Christ. were so widespread among ancient thinkers that any statement could be perceived as completely reliable and worthy. And skepticism prepared ancient world to saying: “I believe, because it is absurd.” Therefore, we can say that skepticism played a preparatory role for the spread of Christianity in Europe.

Skepticism was developed in the works of Lactantius, who considered skepticism a good introduction to Christianity. After all, skepticism shows the futility and weakness of our reason, it proves that reason cannot know the truth on its own, this requires revelation. On the other hand, blessed. Augustine shows another way for a Christian to relate to skepticism - the way to overcome it. In his works he proves that skepticism is not a true philosophy. According to Augustine, skepticism destroys faith in truth, and since God is truth, skepticism leads to atheism. Therefore, any Christian must wage an irreconcilable fight against skepticism.

The philosophy of ancient skepticism existed for quite a long time and was the most influential movement in philosophy for many, many centuries - from the 4th century. BC to III-IV centuries. after R.H. The founder of ancient skepticism is traditionally considered to be the philosopher Pyrrho along with his student Timon. Subsequently, skepticism of the Pyrrhonian type fades somewhat, and so-called academic skepticism appears in Plato’s Academy with such representatives as Carneades and Arcesilaus - this is the 2nd century. BC Pyrrhonian skepticism (what was later called Pyrrhonism) was revived in Aenesidemus and Agrippa (the works of these philosophers have not survived to this day). The representative of late ancient skepticism is the philosopher and physician Sextus Empiricus, who lived in the 2nd century. after R.H. In the III-IV centuries. the school still exists, and elements of skepticism can be found in the physician Galen.

A few words about the life of the founder of ancient skepticism - Pyrrho. He was born in Elis in 360 BC and lived for 90 years. Pyrrho is one of those philosophers who did not write philosophical treatises, like Socrates, showing through his life the philosophy that he developed. We know about him from the book of Diogenes Laertius. The chapter on Pyrrho in it is the main source of information on Pyrrhonism. From it we learn that he refrained from any judgment, i.e. he had doubts about the knowability of the world. And Pyrrho, being a consistent philosopher, strove throughout his life to be a supporter of this teaching. As Diogenes Laertius points out, Pyrrho did not move away from anything, did not avoid anything, did not avoid any danger, be it a cart, a pile or a dog, without being exposed to any sense of danger; he was protected by his friends who followed him. This is a rather bold statement, because it contradicts the essence of skeptical philosophy. Diogenes further reports that at first Pyrrho was engaged in painting; a painting, painted rather mediocrely, has survived. He lived in solitude, rarely showing himself even at home. The inhabitants of Elis respected him for his intelligence and elected him high priest. This gives rise to some thought. Again, it is not clear how a person, being an extravagant and convinced skeptic, could become a high priest. Moreover, for his sake they decided to exempt all philosophers from taxes. More than once he left home without telling anyone anything and wandered around with just anyone. One day his friend Anaxarchus fell into a swamp, Pyrrho passed by without shaking hands. Everyone scolded him, but Anaxarchus praised him. He lived with his sister, a midwife, and went to the market to sell chickens and piglets.

A famous incident is mentioned by Diogenes Laertius: when Pyrrho was sailing on a ship and, together with his companions, was caught in a storm, everyone began to panic, only Pyrrho alone, pointing to the ship’s pig, which was serenely slurping from its trough, said that this is exactly how a true man should behave. philosopher

Little is known about Pyrrho's student Timon: only that he was a poet and expressed his teachings in the form of poetry, syl. Subsequently, skeptical ideas began to develop in Plato's Academy. Plato's students developed Plato's teachings in their own way. Carneades and Arcesilaus, considering themselves true Platonists, began to develop the theme of criticism of sensationalism and came to the conclusion that truth is unknowable. Nothing has reached us from Carneades and Arcesilaus either. A proponent of academic skepticism is the ancient Roman orator and philosopher Cicero. He has a number of works where he presents his views on academic skeptics. We can also familiarize ourselves with academic skepticism in the work of Blessed. Augustine's "Against the Academicians", where he criticizes their teaching.

Pyrrhonism was later revived by Aenesidemus and Agrippa and then by Sextus Empiricus, a systematizer and perhaps the most talented interpreter of Pyrrhonism. Sextus Empiricus wrote 2 works - “Three Books of Pyrrho’s Propositions” and “Against the Scientists”.

Ancient skepticism, like all Hellenistic philosophy, posed primarily ethical questions, considering the main solution to the problem of how to live in this world, how to achieve a happy life. It is usually believed that skepticism is primarily a doubt about the knowability of truth, and they reduce skepticism only to the theory of knowledge. However, this is not at all true with regard to Pyrrhonism. Sextus Empiricus divides all philosophical schools into 2 classes: dogmatic and skeptical. He also divides dogmatists into dogmatists and academicians. Dogmatists and academicians believe that they have already decided the question of truth: dogmatists, i.e. followers of Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics, etc., claim that they have found the truth, and academics claim (also dogmatically) that it is impossible to find the truth. Only skeptics seek the truth. Hence, as Sextus Empiricus says, there are three main types of philosophy: dogmatic, academic and skeptical. Diogenes Laertius writes that, in addition to the name “skeptics” - from the word “to look out”, they were also called aporetics (from the word “aporia”), zetics (from the word “to seek”) and effektiki (that is, doubters).

As Sextus Empiricus pointed out, the essence of skeptical philosophy boils down to the following: “The skeptical faculty is that which, in the only possible way, contrasts the phenomenon with the conceivable, from here, due to the equivalence in opposite things and speeches, we come first to abstinence from judgment, and then to equanimity.” I note that Sextus speaks about the skeptical ability, and never about the dogmatic one, showing that being a skeptic is natural for a person, but being a dogmatist is unnatural. At first, skeptics try to consider all phenomena and everything conceivable, find out that these phenomena and concepts can be perceived in different ways, including the opposite, prove that in this way everyone will contradict each other, so that one judgment will balance another judgment. Due to the equivalence of judgments in opposing things and speeches, the skeptic decides to refrain from judging anything, and then comes to equanimity - ataraxia, i.e. to what the Stoics were looking for. And each of these stages was carefully developed by the skeptics. Abstinence from judgment is also called “epoch”.

So, the first task of the pyrrhonist is to oppose everything to each other in the best possible way. Therefore, the skeptic contrasts everything: the phenomenon with the phenomenon, the phenomenon with the conceivable, the conceivable with the conceivable. For these purposes, Aenesidemus developed ten tropes, and Agrippa five more. Considerations of skepticism are often limited to these tropes, and for good reasons. Here, indeed, are the foundations of ancient Pyrrhonism. But before we consider the paths, let's try to understand whether it is really possible to live following the philosophy of ancient skepticism?

The dispute about this philosophy arose during the lifetime of the skeptics themselves; they were reproached that their philosophy was not viable, that it had no life guide. Because in order to live, you need to accept something as truth. If you doubt everything, then, as Aristotle said, a person going to Megara will never reach it, because one must be sure at least that Megara exists.

Skepticism was reproached for this kind of sin by Pascal, Arno, Nicole, Hume and other philosophers of modern times. However, Sextus Empiricus writes something completely opposite - that the skeptic accepts his philosophy in order not to remain inactive, because it is dogmatic philosophy that leads a person to inactivity, only skepticism can serve as a guide in life and activity. A skeptic focuses primarily on phenomena, refuses to know the essence of things, because he is not sure of this, he is looking for it. What is certain to him is a phenomenon. As Pyrrho said: I am sure that honey seems sweet to me, but I refrain from judging that it is sweet by nature.

The dogmatist, on the contrary, asserts certain propositions about the essence of things, but they may be erroneous, which shows the difference between dogmatic schools. And what happens if a person begins to act in accordance with an erroneous philosophy? This will lead to dire consequences. If we rely in our philosophy only on phenomena, only on what we undoubtedly know, then all our activities will have a solid foundation.

This position of Sextus Empiricus has other roots. In the 1st century after R.H. In Greece there were three medical schools: methodological, dogmatic and empirical. The physician Sextus belonged to the school of empiricists, hence his name “Empiricist”. The doctor Galen belonged to the same school. These doctors argued that there is no need to search for the origins of diseases, there is no need to determine what is more in a person: earth or fire, there is no need to bring all four elements into harmony, but you need to look at the symptoms and relieve the patient from these symptoms. When treating patients, this method gave good results, but empirical doctors wanted to treat not only the body, but also the soul. The main diseases of the soul are dogmatism and academicism, for they prevent a person from achieving happiness, and dogmatism must be treated. A person must be treated for what he is mistaken about, and he is mistaken in the fact that it is possible to know the essence of things. We must show him that this is wrong, show that the truth is sought by trusting the phenomenon. In the chapter “Why Does a Skeptic Make Weak Arguments?” Sextus Empiricus writes about this. Indeed, when we read his works, we often see weak arguments, even sometimes funny. Sextus Empiricus himself knows this and says that skeptics deliberately do this - they say that one can be convinced by a weak argument, for another it is necessary to build a solid philosophical system. The main thing is the goal, the achievement of happiness. However, for the sake of fairness, it must be said that skeptics have very few weak arguments.

So, let's consider the skeptical arguments that Sextus Empiricus puts forward. First, about the trails of Enysidem. There are ten of them, they mainly cover the sensory side of knowledge, and the five paths of Agrippa cover the rational side.

The first trope is based on the diversity of living beings and says the following. Philosophers claim that the criterion of truth is man, i.e. he is the measure of all things (Protagoras) and he alone can know the truth. The skeptic rightly asks, why, in fact, a person? After all, a person experiences the world around him through his senses. But the diversity of the animal world shows that animals also have sense organs and they are different from humans. Why do we think that human senses provide a truer picture of the world than animal senses? How can those with a narrow hearing organ and those with a wide one, those with hairy ears and those with smooth ones, hear equally? And we have no right to consider ourselves the criterion of truth. Therefore, we must refrain from judgment, since we do not know whose senses we can trust.

The second trope: the philosopher makes an assumption (narrowing the question): let’s say a person is the criterion of truth. But there are many people, and they are different. There are Scythians, Greeks, Indians. They tolerate cold and heat differently; food is healthy for some and harmful for others. People are diverse, and therefore it is impossible to say which particular person is the criterion of truth.

The third trope further narrows the scope of exploration. The skeptic assumes that we have found a person who is the criterion of truth. But he has many sense organs that can give a different picture of the world around him: honey tastes sweet, but is unpleasant in appearance, rainwater is good for the eyes, and the respiratory tract becomes coarse from it, etc. - this also implies abstinence judgments about the environment.

The fourth trope is about circumstances. Let's say there is a sense organ that we can trust most of all, but there are always some circumstances: there are tears in the eyes that more or less influence the idea of ​​​​the visible object, or an uneven state of mind: for a lover a woman seems beautiful, for another - nothing special. The wine seems sour if you eat dates before, and if you eat nuts or peas, it seems sweet, etc. This also entails abstention from judgment.

The fifth trope is about dependence on position, distances and places. For example, a tower appears small from afar, but large up close. The same lamp flame is dim in the sun and bright in the dark. Coral in the sea is soft, but in the air it is hard. Facts again force us to refrain from making judgments about what a subject is in its essence.

The sixth trope is dependent on admixtures, writes Sextus. We never perceive any phenomenon by itself, but only in conjunction with something. It is always air or water or some other medium. The same sound is different in thin or thick air, aromas are more intoxicating in a bathhouse than in ordinary air, etc. Same conclusion as before.

The seventh trope concerns the size and structure of the subject objects. The same object can look different depending on whether it is large or small, whether it is broken into component parts or whether it is whole. For example, silver filings by themselves appear black, but together as a whole they appear white; wine consumed in moderation strengthens us, and in excess it relaxes the body, etc.

The eighth trope is about attitude towards something. It echoes the sixth. The skeptic argues that since everything exists in relation to something, then we will refrain from saying what its separate nature is.

The ninth trope concerns something that is constantly or rarely encountered. The sun should, of course, amaze us more, writes Sextus Empiricus, but since we see it constantly, and a comet rarely, we are so amazed by the comet that we consider it a divine sign, but we are not surprised by the sun at all. What occurs less often amazes us, even if in essence the event is very ordinary.

The tenth trope is associated with the issue of morality and is dependent on beliefs and dogmatic positions different nations, their customs. Sextus gives examples where he shows that different peoples have their own ideas about good and evil. Some Ethiopians tattoo small children, but we don’t. The Persians consider it decent to wear long, colorful clothes, but we don’t, etc.

The first trope is about inconsistency. It testifies that there is a huge variety of philosophical systems, people cannot agree and find the truth, it follows that if there is still no agreement, then we must withhold judgment for now.

The second trope is about moving away into infinity. Based on it, the skeptic argues: in order to prove something, you need to be based on a statement that must also be proven, it must be proven on the basis of again some statement, which in turn must also be proven, etc. — we go to infinity, i.e. we don't know where to start the justification, and so we reserve judgment.

The third trope is called “relative to what,” in which the subject thing appears to be this or that in relation to the one who judges or contemplates the object. He who judges an object is at the same time the subject and object of knowledge. When we judge something, we interfere in the process of cognition, therefore we cannot judge the object in itself, since it does not exist in itself, but exists only for us.

The fourth trope is about assumption. If a philosopher wants to avoid going into infinity, then he dogmatically assumes that some proposition is true in itself. But the skeptic does not agree to such a concession, believing that this is precisely a concession, the position is accepted without proof and therefore cannot claim to be true.

The fifth trope is about interprovability, which says: in order to avoid infinity in proof, philosophers often fall into the fallacy of interprovability. One position is justified with the help of another, which in turn is justified with the help of the first.

Skeptics use all these paths when considering any philosophical question.

Skeptics argued with their contemporaries; their main opponents were the Stoics. In the books of Sextus Empiricus there are objections to ethicists, rhetoricians, geometers, astrologers (arguments from this book will be found in the works of the Church Fathers). Here, for example, is the problem of causation. In particular, Sextus Empiricus considers the question, does a cause exist or does not exist? First he proves that there is a cause, for it is difficult to suppose that there is any effect without its cause, then everything would be in complete disorder. But with no less convincingness he proves that there is no reason. For before we think of any action, we must know that there is a cause that gives rise to this action, and in order to know that this is a cause, we must know that it is the cause of some action, i.e. we cannot think of either cause or effect separately, i.e. they are correlative with each other. Therefore, in order to conceive the cause, one must first cognize the effect, and in order to cognize the effect, one must first cognize the cause. From this mutual proof it follows that we cannot know either the cause or the effect.

A few words about how ancient skepticism interacted with emerging Christianity. Can we say that skepticism hindered or helped the spread of Christianity? Most historians of philosophy believe that ancient skepticism prepared the way for the seed of Christianity to fall on favorable soil thanks to the preaching of the apostles. Skeptical views in the first years after Christ. were so widespread among ancient thinkers that any statement could be perceived as completely reliable and worthy. And skepticism prepared the ancient world to say: “I believe, because it is absurd.” Therefore, we can say that skepticism played a preparatory role for the spread of Christianity in Europe.

Skepticism was developed in the works of Lactantius, who believed skepticism good introduction into Christianity. After all, skepticism shows the futility and weakness of our reason, it proves that reason cannot know the truth on its own, this requires revelation. On the other hand, blessed. Augustine shows another way for a Christian to relate to skepticism - the way to overcome it. In his works he proves that skepticism is not a true philosophy. According to Augustine, skepticism destroys faith in truth, and since God is truth, skepticism leads to atheism. Therefore, any Christian must wage an irreconcilable fight against skepticism.

Skepticism is one of the main philosophical trends that is opposite to dogmatic philosophy and denies the possibility of building a philosophical system. Sextus Empiricus says: “the skeptical direction in its essence consists in comparing the data of the senses and the data of reason and their possible opposition. From this point of view, we, skeptics, due to the logical equivalence of opposition in the objects and arguments of reason, first come to abstain from judgment, and then to complete peace of mind" ( "Pyrrhonian principles", 1, 4).

IN modern times Aenesidemus (Schulze) gives the following definition of skepticism: “Skepticism is nothing more than the assertion that philosophy is not able to give firm and generally accepted positions either regarding the existence or non-existence of objects and their qualities, or regarding the boundaries of human knowledge.” A comparison of these two definitions, ancient and new, shows that ancient skepticism was practical in nature, while the new one was theoretical. In various studies on skepticism (Steidlin, Deschamps, Kreibig, Sasse, Owen), various types of skepticism are established, and, however, they often confuse the motives from which skepticism follows with skepticism itself. In essence, only two types of skepticism should be distinguished: absolute and relative; the first is the denial of the possibility of all knowledge, the second is the denial of philosophical knowledge. Absolute skepticism disappeared along with ancient philosophy, while relative skepticism is developed in the new in very diverse forms. Distinguishing skepticism as a mood from skepticism as a complete philosophical trend has undoubted power, but this distinction is not always easy to make. Skepticism contains elements of denial and doubt and is a completely vital and complete phenomenon. For example, Descartes' skepticism is a methodological technique that led him to dogmatic philosophy. In any research, scientific skepticism is a life-giving source from which truth is born. In this sense, skepticism is completely opposite to dead and deadening skepticism.

Methodological skepticism is nothing more than criticism. Such skepticism, as Owen notes, is equally contradicted by both a positive affirmation and a definite denial. Skepticism grows out of skepticism and manifests itself not only in the philosophical sphere, but also in the religious, ethical and scientific sphere. The core issue for skepticism is epistemological, but the motives for denying the possibility of philosophical truth can be gleaned from various sources. Skepticism can lead to the denial of science and religion, but, on the other hand, the belief in the truth of science or religion can lead to the denial of all philosophy. Positivism, for example, is nothing more than the denial of philosophy on the basis of confidence in scientific knowledge. The main reasons used by skeptics of various times to deny the possibility of knowledge are as follows: a) differences in the opinions of philosophers served as a favorite topic for skeptics; This argument was developed with particular zeal by Montaigne, in his experiments, and by French skeptics who imitated Montaigne. This argument has no significance, because from the fact that the opinions of philosophers are different, nothing follows in relation to the truth and the possibility of finding it. The argument itself needs proof, because perhaps the opinions of philosophers differ only in appearance, but in essence they converge. The possibility of reconciling philosophical opinions did not turn out to be impossible, e.g. for Leibniz, who argued that all philosophers are right in what they assert, and differ only in that. which they deny. b) Limitations of human knowledge. Indeed, human experience is extremely limited within the limits of space and time; therefore conclusions drawn from such experience must seem ill founded. This argument, with all its apparent persuasiveness, has, however, a little more significance than the previous one; knowledge deals with a system in which each individual case is a typical representative of an infinite number of others. General laws are reflected in particular phenomena, and the task of human knowledge is exhausted if it succeeds in deducing from particular cases a system of general world laws. c) The relativity of human knowledge. This argument has philosophical significance and is the main trump card of skeptics. This argument can be presented in various forms. Its main meaning is that cognition is the activity of the subject and cannot in any way get rid of the stamp of subjectivity.

This basic principle breaks down into two main motives: one, so to speak, sensualistic, another - rationalistic; the first corresponds to the sensory element of knowledge, the second to the intellectual. An object is cognized by the senses, but the qualities of the object are not at all similar to the content of the sensation.

Sensory cognition delivers to the subject not an object, but a phenomenon, a subjective state of consciousness. An attempt to distinguish two kinds of qualities in an object: primary, belonging to the object itself and repeated in sensory knowledge, and secondary (subjective, like color) - does not lead to anything, because the so-called primary qualities, i.e. definitions of space and time turn out to be just as subjective as secondary ones. But since, the skeptic-sensualist continues, the entire content of the mind is given by sensations, and only the formal side belongs to the mind, then human knowledge can never deal with objects, but always only with phenomena, i.e. with the states of the subject.

The rationalist skeptic, inclined to recognize the primary importance of reason and its independence from the senses, directs his arguments against the activity of reason itself. He argues that reason, due to the principles inherent in it, in its activity falls into fundamental contradictions, from which there is no outcome. Kant tried to systematize these contradictions and presented them in the form of four antinomies of reason. In the very activity of the mind, not only in its results, the skeptic finds a contradiction. The main task of reason is to prove, and any proof rests, in the end, on obvious truths, the truth of which cannot be proven and therefore contradicts the requirements of reason. - These are the main arguments of skeptics against the possibility of philosophical knowledge, based on the relativity of human knowledge. If we recognize them as solid, then we must at the same time recognize the futility of any attempt at philosophical quest within the sensualistic and rationalistic area; in this case, only skepticism or mysticism remains, as an affirmation of the possibility of supersensible and superintelligent knowledge. - Perhaps, however, the strength of the skeptic's arguments is not as great as it seems at first glance. The subjective nature of sensations is beyond doubt, but it does not follow from this that nothing in the real world corresponds to sensations. From the fact that space and time are forms of our intuition, it does not follow that they are only subjective forms. As for reason, the unresolved nature of antinomies does not imply their insoluble nature.
The unprovability of axioms does not in the least speak against their truth and ability to serve as the basis of evidence. Over refutation of skepticism, with greater or lesser success, many authors have worked, for example. Crousaz, in his "Examen du pyrrhonisme".

II. The history of skepticism represents a gradual decline, exhaustion. Skepticism originated in Greece, played a small role in the Middle Ages, was revived again during the restoration of Greek philosophy in the era of the Reformation, and degenerated into softer forms (positivism, subjectivism) in the new philosophy. In history, the concept of skepticism is often overextended: e.g. Saisse, in his famous book on skepticism, classifies Kant and Pascal as skeptics. With such an expansion of the concept of skepticism, the entire history of philosophy could be squeezed into its framework, and those followers of Pyrrho who, according to Dugen Laertius, classified Homer and the Seven Wise Men as skeptics, would have been right; Cicero laughs at such a dissemination of the concept of skepticism in his “Lucullus.” Skepticism originated in Greece; True, Diogenes Laertius says that Pyrrho studied in India, and Sextus Empiricus mentions the skeptic Anacharsis Scythus (Adversus logicos, VII, 55) - but there is no reason to attach significance to this information. It is also unreasonable to classify Heraclitus and the Eleatics as skeptics for the reason that the younger sophists associated their negative dialectics with the above-mentioned philosophers. The Sophists prepared skepticism. Their subjectivism naturally should have led to an affirmation of the relativity of knowledge and the impossibility of objective truth. In the ethical and religious spheres, Protagoras' teaching contained elements of skepticism. The younger generation of sophists - e.g. Gorgias from Leontinus and Hippias from Elis serve as representatives of the purest denial, although their denial was of a dogmatic nature. The same should be said about Thrasymachus and Callicles, described by Plato; they lacked only the seriousness of conviction to be skeptics. The founder of the Greek school of skeptics was Pyrrho, which gave skepticism a practical character. Pyrrho's skepticism tries to give a person complete independence from knowledge. It is not because little importance is attributed to knowledge that it can be erroneous, but because its usefulness for the happiness of people - this goal of life - is doubtful. The art of living, the only valuable one, cannot be learned, and such art in the form of certain rules that could be transmitted does not exist. The most expedient thing is to limit knowledge and its role in life as much as possible; but, obviously, it is impossible to completely get rid of knowledge; While a person lives, he experiences coercion from sensations, from external nature and society. All the “paths” of skeptics, therefore, do not have meaning in themselves, but represent only indirect indications.

The practical direction of Pyrrhonism indicates little connection between sophistry and skepticism; this is confirmed by historical information, which makes Pyrrho dependent on Democritus, Metrodorus and Anaxarchus, and not on the sophists. Sextus Empiricus in Pyrrho's Principles, 1 book, 32) clearly points out the difference between the teachings of Protagoras and Pyrrho. Pyrrho did not leave behind any writings, but created a school. Diogenes Laertius remembers many of his students, such as: Timon from Phlius, Aenesidemus from the island of Crete, Nausifanus, the systematizer of skepticism, teacher Epicurus, etc. Pyrrho’s school soon ceased to exist, but skepticism was adopted by the academy. The first skeptic of the new academy was Arcesilaus (about half of the third century BC), who developed his skeptical teaching in the fight against Stoic philosophy. The most brilliant representative of the skepticism of the new academy was Carneades of Cyrene, founder of the so-called third academy. His criticism is directed against Stoicism. He tries to show the impossibility of finding a criterion of truth either in sensory or rational knowledge, to undermine the possibility of proving the existence of God and to find an internal contradiction in the concept of the Divine. In the ethical sphere, he denies natural law. For the sake of peace of mind, he creates a kind of probability theory that replaces truth. The question of how much Carneades enriched skepticism and how much he is an imitator is not sufficiently clarified.

Zedler believes that Aenesidemus's skepticism owes much to Carneades; but this is contradicted by the words of Sextus Empiricus, who strictly distinguishes the systems of the Academicians from the Aenesidemic teaching. The works of Aenesidemus have not reached us. Associated with his name are the so-called ten “paths” or 10 systematized arguments against the possibility of knowledge. Here the concept of causality is analyzed in particular detail. The meaning of all paths is proof of the relativity of human knowledge. The paths are listed in the work of Sextus Empiricus: “Pyrrhonian principles”, book 1, 14. They all refer to facts of perception and habit; Only one (8th) path is devoted to thinking, where it is proven that we do not know the objects themselves, but only objects in relation to other objects and to the cognizing subject. Younger skeptics propose a different classification of paths. Agrippa puts forward five of them, namely: 1) the endless variety of opinions does not allow the formation of a firm conviction; 2) every proof rests on another, also in need of proof, and so on ad infinitum; 3) all ideas are relative, depending on the nature of the subject and the objective conditions of perception. The 4th path is only a modification of the second. 5) The truth of thinking rests on the data of perception, but the truth of perception rests on the data of thinking. Agrippa's division reduces the tropes of Aenesidemus to more general points of view and does not stop exclusively or almost exclusively with the data of perception. The most important skeptical writer for us is Sextus Empiricus, doctor who lived in the 2nd century. according to R. Chr. He is not very original, but his writings are an irreplaceable source for us. In the Christian era, skepticism took on a completely different character. Christianity, as a religion, did not value scientific knowledge, or at least did not recognize knowledge as an independent and guiding principle. Such skepticism on religious grounds still has its defenders (for example, Brunetière, “La science et la religion”, Par., 1895). Under the influence of religion, the doctrine of double truth- theological and philosophical, first proclaimed by Simon of Tournai at the end of the 12th century. (see Magwald, " Die Lehre von d. zweifachen Wahrheit", Berl., 1871). Philosophy is not completely free from it to this day.

During the Renaissance, along with attempts at independent thinking, ancient Greek systems reappeared, and with them skepticism, but it could no longer acquire its former meaning. Skepticism appeared first in France. Michel de Montaigne(1533-92) with his “Experiences” evoked a number of imitators, such as: Charron, Sunhead, Girnheim, La Mothe Le Vaye, Hue, Glanville (English), Baker (English), etc. All Montaigne’s arguments are contained in his great experience about the philosophy of Raymond of Sabunda: Montaigne does not have anything fundamentally new.

Montaigne is more of a skeptic in mood than a skeptic in the sense of Aenesidemus. “My book,” says Montaigne, “contains my opinion and expresses my mood; I express what I believe in, and not what everyone should believe in... Maybe tomorrow I will be completely different if I learn something and I will change." Charron essentially follows Montaigne, but in some ways he tries to extend his skeptical mood even further; eg he doubts the immortality of the soul. Closest to the ancient skeptics La Motte Le Vailler, who wrote under the pseudonym Oracius Tubero; of his two students, one, Sorbier, translated part of Sextus Empiricus into French. language, and another, Fouche, wrote the history of the academy. The largest of the French. skeptics - Pierre Daniel Huet(1630-1721); his posthumous work “On the Weakness of the Human Mind” repeats the arguments of Sextus, but he has in mind the contemporary philosophy of Descartes. The work of Bishop Hue is the largest work of skeptical philosophy after Sextus Empiricus. (Pierre Daniel Huet. Reliance on sensationalism as a means of degrading human reason and emphasizing the importance of religious faith).

Glanville was Hume's predecessor in the analysis of the concept of causality. In the history of skepticism, an extensive place is usually given Petru Baylu(1647-1706); Deschamps even dedicated a special monograph to him (“Le scepticisme erudit chez Bayle”); but Bayle's real place is in the history of religious enlightenment, and not in the history of skepticism; he is in the 17th century. was what Voltaire was in the 18th century. Bayle's skepticism was manifested in his famous historical dictionary, published in 1695. The main problem that led him to skepticism was the problem of the source of evil, which intensely occupied the 17th century; his skeptical principles are set out in an article on Pyrrho and the Pyrrhonists, from which it is clear that skepticism is important to him mainly as a weapon against theology. Approximately the same time dates back to refutations of skepticism, written by Martin Schock (Schoock, "De skepticismo", Groningen, 1652), Silyon ( "De la certitude des connaissances humaines", Par., 1661) and de Willemand ( "Scepticismus debellatus", Leiden, 1697). In the new philosophy, starting with Descartes, there is no place for absolute skepticism, but relative skepticism, i.e. denial of the possibility of metaphysical knowledge is extremely common. The study of human cognition, beginning with Locke and Hume, as well as the development of psychology, was to lead to an increase in subjectivism; in this sense we can talk about skepticism Yuma and find skeptical elements in philosophy Kant, since the latter denied the possibility of metaphysics and knowledge of objects in themselves. Dogmatic philosophy also arrived at a somewhat similar result on this point in a completely different way. Positivism, represented by Kant and his followers, asserts the impossibility of metaphysics, like evolutionism Spencer, standing for the unknowability of being in itself and for the relativity of human knowledge; but it is hardly fair to put these phenomena of new philosophy in connection with skepticism. The essay deserves mention E. Schulze, "Aenesidemus oder uber die Fundamente der von H. Reinhold geliferten Elementarphilosophie"(1792), in which the author defends the principles of skepticism by criticizing Kant's philosophy. Wed. Staudlin, “Geschichte und Geist des Scepticismus, vorzuglich in Rucksicht auf Moral u. Religion” (Lpts., 1794); Deshamps, "Le scepticisme erudit chez Bayle" (Liège, 1878); E. Saisset, “Le skepticisme” (P., 1865); Kreibig, "Der ethische Scepticismus" (Vienna, 1896).