Skeptology

A skeptical tune

I'm thinking Bossa Nova; in the Pyrrhonic sense of rejecting acceptance of dogma and substituting an 'assent to the natural order of things', aka 'going with the flow'; and in how it reflects the sounds of birds, cicadas and the playa.

Which demonstrates - some might say - the strength of Pyrrhonic scepticism in being 'flexible'. But others might say it's proof that it is easily bent completely out of shape (as when Rome adopted it as an 'approved philosophy' because it proved that Luther (dogmaticly wrong-headed) was in error, while the Pope was 'just right' (in all senses of the phrase) because being Pope and following God's will was certainly what Scepticism meant when it talked about 'assenting to the natural order and custom of things.'  What scepticism actually 'meant' - was easily interpreted to favour any side of any position in consequence.  I guess that's the price you pay when you are a philosophy that rejects a dogmatic interpretation of your own position.

Dig

Well ask (and look) and you will receive. A seemingly ideal English-Greek lexicon from Tufts University that also includes a trove of classical material.  Although - unfortunately nothing of Sextus Empiricus.  Bury's 1933 edition is still in copyright presumably.

Purchased a copy (three volumes) from the US for $96, plus any additional postage - which might be a deal-breaker.

Author: SEXTUS EMPIRICUS.
Title: Sextus Empiricus In Three Volumes
Description: Complete in three octavo volumes [The later Loeb Classical Library editions were done in four volumes]. xlv, 513, 10; vii, 489, 8; vii, 555, 8 pp., including publisher's ads. Text in the original Greek, with English translation on facing pages. Publisher's full green cloth, spines tooled and lettered in gilt, publisher's device in gilt to front covers, top edges gilt. From the library of Prof. Dale Riepe, with his ownership inscription to front flyleaf and occasional penciled annotations to volume I. Some light rubbing and soiling to extremities, still a very good set, scarce complete. Loeb Classical Library series. Volume I: Outlines of Pyrrhonism; Volume II: Against the Logicians; Volume III: Against the Physicists and Against the Ethicists. First edition, first printing of volumes II and III; second printing of volume I.

Cambridge appear to be working on a set of new translations, I have Annas and Barnes 'Outlines of Scepticism', and Bett's 'Against the Logicians'. The Cambridge set (which also includes Against the Ethicists) will eventually duplicate Bury's edition, but in this case both versions are worth having.  The Cambridge may be the better translation and have useful commentary, but the Bury's are used universally for page references, and they come from a very interesting library.

Using Hookway and Annas & Barnes I have updated the discussion area in the Wiki:Sextus Empiricus, suggesting an answer to the Conundrum (as A&B put it) of Empiricus's observation that Empiricism wasn't consistent with scepticism.  I have been careful not to attempt to change the main page yet (except to make the link from Sextus to the Empiric School), although I can see room for a subheading relating to his medical work.

 

WikiSkeptics

It struck me during my short university experience that lecturers appeared to have a strong aversion to Wikipedia, speaking about it in - it seemed - much the same manner as the Pope might have referred to Luther's works (or vice versa) in times past.  Even granted that the views put by lecturers to students may well not be so much as 'what they believe' as 'what they believe the students need to hear' and that they may have a (justifiably in many cases) low opinion of their students ability to resist plagiarism of online material, lecturers horror of Wikipedia seemed dissproportionate.  I couldn't help but think that there may be a case of professional jealousy, that it is not so much that Wikipedia is riddled with errors (as they aver but studies have suggested otherwise), but that there is now more knowledge to be had in Wiki (and more coherently presented) than in most university lectures.  Or it could simply be techno-phobia.  What strikes me is that they do not (or choose not to admit that they do) seem to understand that the rules for updating Wikipedia are extremely sophisticated, and as a discipline would rank as a University Degree subject in its own right.  On the other hand it is worth taking note of an alternate view, courtesy of Molly Lewis

It is my view (and others and these and still more apparently) that teaching students to use Wiki to access the material in their courses would be constructive, and to teach them how to properly update the material in Wiki would be a powerful learning tool.  If lecturers could overcome their apprehensions that is.  It's something that's been kicking around in the back of my mind for a while, but brought forward by my observation today that the Wiki entry for 'Pyrrhonism' needs fleshing out.

 

'K' or 'C'

The OED observes that the earliest reported usage in English uses 'k' - c1575 G. Buchanan, 'I can not tak you for ane Stoik philosopher.. of ane cairless (skeptic) hart that taks cuccaldris as thyng indifferent.'  The use of 'c' comes via latin scepticus.  It is apparent that English writers in the 1500's were familiar with the Greek pronounciation (hard k) as well as the Latin spelling, and usage seemed to fall on both sides of the fence.  Dr Johnson's dictionary had it as 'k'; but he was aware of the alternate spelling, referring readers at the entry 'sceptick' (page 572) to see 'skeptick' (page 655).  The OED notes that 'sk' became the norm in the USA, while 'sc' is the common form in England.  I suppose, from a purely rational spelling point of view, the spelling should be 'k'.  More needs to be said about the Greek roots, but I have yet to lay my hands on a good Greek lexicon.  Incidentally 'cuccaldris' appears to be 'cuckoldry' in the c1575 quote - which illustrates how 'plastic' language was/is.  My own usage is perfectly inconsistent.

What is interesting in this - for me - is that I had read elsewhere about Dr Johnson's dictionary citing 'sk' and would have assumed that he never mentioned 'sc' at all, except that I stumbled on the latter while looking for the former.  Not hugely significant, but it does put Dr Johnson more 'towards the centre' in terms of usage.  At 'sk' he cites a Greek and a French source (only).  It might become apparent by checking against other words whether he had a preference against using French root spellings where he had the choice.  Another project for another day.

Scepticism

My thinking about scepticism has been very much 'native' or naive up to now.  If anything it had its start in Zhuangzi's dream of a butterfly (conversely the butterfly's dream of Zhuangzi dreaming of the butterfly) and was led down the path of IT incertitude to Hume.  Now I find - admittedly with some satisfaction - that I appear to have washed up quite some time ago at a known location - 'Constructive Scepticism'.  Hookway suggests Mersenne and Gassendi (and John Wilkins) had a something to say on this in the 1500's.  Best way I can put it at the moment is that it is disbelief in the possibility of belief tempered by a notion that there is some utility in 'theories' as long as one doesn't put too much faith in them.  So it is reasonable to plants crops today on the assumption that the sun will rise tomorrow, but foolish to assert that it 'must' rise.  Hookway observes that the problem of scepticism is how to live in the world in a manner consistent with it.  Pyrrhonists (100BC or so) supposedly disregarded speculation and enquiry into 'anything' as futile and lived quiet tranquil lives by following natural paths rather than principles etc.  Other's argued that one's view of what was a 'natural path' is in itself a belief system (take for example the mumbo jumbo that hippies carry on with), but Hookway suggests that Pyrrhonists were awake to this.  Here it comes around to the mountains are mountains at the beginning and end parable (Chinese Zen) - echoed in Hookways's observation that the 'problems of scepticism' are really only a problem to folk who (used to) think too much (and that scepticism was largely a reaction to overly rational philosophy).  Living naturally could be achieved most easily in a rural setting where the cycles of nature made themselves 'evident' and the behaviour of plants and animals followed natural paths presumably without the benefit or hinderance of philosophy.  Constructive scepticism sits more comfortably in the 'modern' complex world where one is surrounded by (and dependent (?) upon) systems and ideas (food is a 'process' and a 'concept' as much as it is a 'thing').  Whereas a purist sceptic couldn't but see the absurdity in a mortgage, the constructive sceptic balances out the utility of it against the enslavement that (he/she knows) lies behind it. Even so, the parable of the bum who left the beach to make a fortune so that he could finally retire (to the beach) comes to mind...

Summing up and moving on

The newspapers now report (West Australian Monday, May 9, 2011) that the Shared Services adventure is over.  It has cost $489 million to date, and will cost another $1.8 billion to decommission.  The Government has apparently determined that this will be an acceptable price to pay to get this off the books.   The dogs have barked, the caravan moves on - as have I.  Technology is no longer my trade, or reputation, or concern.  So I've freshened up the sub-heading, dropping the Technology bit from: "A constructively skeptical view of the promises and expectation of Technology."  Essentially my interest these last few years has drifted in the direction of the abstract; sociology, psychology and philosophy.  A few particular concepts engage me, but whether they are worth running to ground is hard to judge: "It is in the nature of an hypothesis, when once a man has conceived it, that it assimilates everything to itself as proper nourishment, and, from the first moment of begetting it, it generally grows the stronger by everything you see, hear, read, or understand." LAURENCE STERNE (1713-1768), Tristam Shandy.  Just so...