Should We Be Skeptics?

Is it good to question everything?

Dear Classical Wisdom Reader,

When someone is described as a Skeptic, most folks have a very clear vision that comes to mind. The blue glow reflecting in forlorn eyes, long from staring too much on darknet sites, they are invariably in a basement, somewhere where the sun doesn’t reach. The tin hat is optional. 

Almost never (except perhaps in these humble pages), does one conjure instead the proud thoughtful bearing of an eloquent orator, addressing an august collection of thinkers and statesmen....someone like Cicero. 

Skeptic and its eponymous philosophy is just one of many ancient words that have been co-opted and corrupted by modern society. 

Of course going back to the ancients, this epistemological line of inquiry was proposed by the pre-socratics (whom I like to term the natural philosophers) such as Xenophanes (c. 570–c. 475 BCE) and Democritus ( c. 460 – c. 370 BC) as well as by Ajñani thinkers. It could range from questioning the topics du jour to trying to understand whether or not we can ever know anything at all... 

Skepticism reached its height in both the Greek and Roman worlds with, respectively, Pyrrhonism founded by Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360–270 BCE) and then Academic Skepticism (of which we mostly know from Academica, written by the Academic skeptic philosopher Cicero.)

A fresco by Cesare Maccari (1840-1919 CE) depicting Roman senator Cicero (106-43 BCE) denouncing the conspirator Catiline in the Roman senate. (Palazzo Madama, Rome)

While this concept was carried on by great philosophers such as Hume and championed in the scientific community as critical to the scientific method, the modern iteration has descended into the aforementioned description. 

So... what happened? Why did this once well regarded label become so compromised? Should we bring Skepticism back? And more importantly, should we apply its concepts to our lives?

From addressing wisdom itself to our current events, like the causes of war, climate change and the origins of diseases, should we be skeptics? Is it good to question everything?

As always, reply to this email, comment below or write to me directly at anya@classicalwisdom.com. 

Now, for today’s responses to last week’s question: How should we look at history? You can read your fellow classics lovers' replies... and you can also join us this Thursday for a deep dive, constructive and critical discussion on the Battle of Thermopylae...

Was that pass the only way to go? How many Spartans died on that fateful field? And did their sacrifice really help the Greeks much? Make sure to register for this important discussion here: 

All the best,

Anya Leonard
Founder and Director
Classical Wisdom 

P.S. I hope you had a lovely Easter weekend! If you are interested in learning more about early Christianity, as well as the often overlooked genre of early Christianity Poetry.

Members, you can read these fascinating works in our Classical Wisdom Ebook: The Latin Christians: 

Not a Member? Subscribe today and unlock the wisdom: 

---

Monday Mailbag

Re: How Should We Look at History? 

History should help us reject errors and embrace truth. Study of historic calamities can reveal errors to be avoided. Study of historic progress can uncover principles to be promoted. Study of historic individuals can teach us about errors, vices, and virtues.

History abounds with lessons to be learned.

Robert H.

-

Thanks Anya, very provocative and well crafted. Although not one of the Classics, I'm with Churchill on this one. Quarrelling between the past and present loses the future. Take their wisdom, not their habits.

Michael Q.

-

Break it down into fact, fiction, and needs investigating..... Keep digging and displaying all archeological and historical finds for everyone to investigate, explore and interpret, then hold it up for all to see!

Princess Peach

History is often written by the survivors and victors. Too often it becomes useless propaganda and far from the absolute truth. How we should look at history is to question who is writing and their agenda. Then we should move through the tedious and difficult process of verifying and validation. The bottom line is very jaundiced as only then can you satisfy the requirement of Santana to first know history before moving to avoid repetition. Rarely done and never accomplished.

Charles F.

-

We should cherish the past, and preserve it as it was, warts and all. The history is part of our identity. Just like we don't hide from our past sins, or block out the identity of our biological father, even if he was a bad father, we shouldn't block out our past. The attack on the past is really an attack on the present by attacking our collective memory. 

Daniel D.

-

I like this question. A lot.

Should we admire and venerate past people who did remarkable dids but also committed terrible crimes?

Should we forget about their crimes for the sake of the great things they did?

Should we forget about the great things they did on account of the terrible crimes they committed?

Fernando

I agree with others that this is a provocative topic. The question of whether Julius Caesar should be glorified seems to be an odd one, in my opinion. If glory means being remembered for one's memorable achievements, Julius Caesar has been glorified for his political and military achievements for the past two thousand years. To stop glorifying him now is to break from Western tradition, and potentially be against it. This seems to be a strange position for any Classical Wisdom reader.

Ofmar

-

How should we look at history? First of all, we need to learn history. Read, read, and read some more. There is a common saying that history books are written by the winners, and there is much truth in this, but that is no excuse for not studying history.

Harry Truman, the last president of the US who never graduated from college, was nonetheless an avid student of history, and once wrote, "There is nothing new in the world, except the history you do not know." 

Clearly he was not speaking of technological change, but rather of people and how they interact. I enjoy learning history by reading biographies, but there are many great histories written. Another great quote (I don't remember who said it), is that history is the record of everything the human race has learned to this point. Should we not strive to study and learn history, so as not to have to repeat the mistakes of those who came before?

To conclude, and answer your question, there are many today who want to modify and control history (or what is taught as history) in order to justify their narratives or policies. They are not the first to attempt such, and a real study of history will show that these previous attempts all ended badly. Thus, my position is that each of us has the responsibility to learn as much history as we can, and to understand how that influences the people and forces we see acting on our world today. Trite and superficial treatments intended to paint us (or more properly particular groups or factions) as superior to all who went before expose the ignorance of those who promote such efforts. Hopefully, someone will still be around afterward to write the history of their failure as well.

Gordon F.

-

AI will only be problematic if we let humans impress upon it their frailties and doubts.

As for transitioning to questioning both how we look at history and how we treat history from the very human depictions created from a human's attempt to code intelligence without having any understanding of what history truly is, a narrative not a thought of the past.

History is what has transpired in the past, preserved in languages inadequate to the task of perspective that captures the entirety of events, not just a viewpoint. History is neither active or passive, nor does it require contemplated engagement or dismantlement but it could stand some expansive perspectives of the exponential views less recorded.

Storytellers wrote the history of humankind.

Historians write the history of the storytellers.

Darrell B.