Not questioning, reflects that one is either apathetic or credulous. Questioning with pure intention helps bring the gap of understanding. I think it was Confucius who said, ask a foolish question and you are perceived that way momentarily. By not questioning, one remains a fool.
What happened to the philosophical term "skeptic" is the same as what happened to "Stoic," "Cynic," and "Epicurean." They were all at odds with the philosophy of newly hegemonic Christianity and were therefore straw manned. Almost to death. But the philosophies were never fully exterminated, as they are all based on fundamental ways of understanding experience. Since the Renaissance they've had periods of renewed popularity. Historically the most famous of these are the Neo-Stoicism and the Crise Pyrrhonianne of the 16th and 17th centuries. Today one can readily find modern practitioners of Stoicism and Epicureanism, and, with a bit more effort, Pyrrhonian Skepticism.
As a Pyrrhonist, I prefer to avoid using the term "skeptic" because of all of the confusing baggage it carries. Pyrrhonism is not about questioning everything. It's not about dogmatic denialism, as can be found in certain varieties of "climate skeptics" and "vaccine skeptics."
To understand ancient Greek Skepticism, one has to understand that most of the ancients distinguished sharply between appearances of phenomena and the truth that was behind those appearances. Plato's allegory of the cave is an excellent example of this view. The Epicureans, however, dissented from this view. They thought that all phenomena were true. The only source of error was in the interpretation of phenomena. This is the view commonly held today.
While one of the Greeks' greatest contributions to mankind was Greek rationality, the Greeks were occasionally too optimistic about what rationality could prove, such as Parmenides' proof that change was impossible. This led the various schools of philosophy to accept as proven a large number of ill-supported propositions. Their errors in physics and natural philosophy are easy for us now to spot; however, there has been only modest progress in ethics. For example, while contemporary Stoics nearly all embrace the Stoic dogma that virtue is the only good, only a fraction of them accept the Stoic dogma of divine provenance, and almost none of them accept the Stoic dogma about the validity of divination.
In antiquity, the field of medicine was closely associated with philosophy. As Galen pointed out, every doctor should also be a philosopher. Just as philosophy had various sects, so too did medicine. Because of the close association between philosophy and medicine, the sects were close, too. The Rationalist school of medicine was associated with the Socratic lineages of Platonists, Peripatetics, and Stoics. The Methodic school was associated with the Epicureans. And the Empiric school was associated with the Pyrrhonists. As the name implies, the Empirics were proto-empiricists. So, too, were the Pyrrhonists. They were guided by empirical observations and trial and error rather than theory - the opposite of the approach of the Rationalists.
My partner taught me a lesson in scepticism in a way I've never thought of it before:
She said: "You should be trusting of everyone until proven otherwise - it's a nicer way to view the world."
Now, that's not to say you should go and give your money to the "Somalian Prince" in your gmail inbox...but what a positive way to live your life. I trust you, until you betray me.
And if you betray me, so be it.
Maybe the answer is to trust, but have insurance. Do not hand your wallet to a stranger, but believe what they say - why not?
A dose of skepticism, in moderation, of everything is not bad nor good but healthy in balancing the emotions and the mind in seeking an answer to questions one may have on any of the everythings one may encounter. One must choose wisely to what depth of skepticism one descends on any subject though least they become unbalanced.
Friends, a critical eye serves us well, but like a lamp, it must be aimed wisely. The Skeptics are right to question, but true wisdom lies in discernment. Not everything requires deep scrutiny. Focus on what lies within our control: our own thoughts, reactions, and actions. For external matters, a healthy dose of reason and a suspension of strong judgment will serve us better. Let us examine claims with care, but also recognize that some truths are self-evident. Worrying excessively about the unknowable, clouds our minds and hinders virtue. Let us strive for a balanced approach, neither gullible fools nor chronic doubters, but students of reason and experience.
Should we be Skeptics, in the mode of Cicero? Is that a trick question?🤔
Not questioning, reflects that one is either apathetic or credulous. Questioning with pure intention helps bring the gap of understanding. I think it was Confucius who said, ask a foolish question and you are perceived that way momentarily. By not questioning, one remains a fool.
What happened to the philosophical term "skeptic" is the same as what happened to "Stoic," "Cynic," and "Epicurean." They were all at odds with the philosophy of newly hegemonic Christianity and were therefore straw manned. Almost to death. But the philosophies were never fully exterminated, as they are all based on fundamental ways of understanding experience. Since the Renaissance they've had periods of renewed popularity. Historically the most famous of these are the Neo-Stoicism and the Crise Pyrrhonianne of the 16th and 17th centuries. Today one can readily find modern practitioners of Stoicism and Epicureanism, and, with a bit more effort, Pyrrhonian Skepticism.
As a Pyrrhonist, I prefer to avoid using the term "skeptic" because of all of the confusing baggage it carries. Pyrrhonism is not about questioning everything. It's not about dogmatic denialism, as can be found in certain varieties of "climate skeptics" and "vaccine skeptics."
To understand ancient Greek Skepticism, one has to understand that most of the ancients distinguished sharply between appearances of phenomena and the truth that was behind those appearances. Plato's allegory of the cave is an excellent example of this view. The Epicureans, however, dissented from this view. They thought that all phenomena were true. The only source of error was in the interpretation of phenomena. This is the view commonly held today.
While one of the Greeks' greatest contributions to mankind was Greek rationality, the Greeks were occasionally too optimistic about what rationality could prove, such as Parmenides' proof that change was impossible. This led the various schools of philosophy to accept as proven a large number of ill-supported propositions. Their errors in physics and natural philosophy are easy for us now to spot; however, there has been only modest progress in ethics. For example, while contemporary Stoics nearly all embrace the Stoic dogma that virtue is the only good, only a fraction of them accept the Stoic dogma of divine provenance, and almost none of them accept the Stoic dogma about the validity of divination.
In antiquity, the field of medicine was closely associated with philosophy. As Galen pointed out, every doctor should also be a philosopher. Just as philosophy had various sects, so too did medicine. Because of the close association between philosophy and medicine, the sects were close, too. The Rationalist school of medicine was associated with the Socratic lineages of Platonists, Peripatetics, and Stoics. The Methodic school was associated with the Epicureans. And the Empiric school was associated with the Pyrrhonists. As the name implies, the Empirics were proto-empiricists. So, too, were the Pyrrhonists. They were guided by empirical observations and trial and error rather than theory - the opposite of the approach of the Rationalists.
YES, - trust, faith, loyalty are only virtues when combined with good judgement.
My partner taught me a lesson in scepticism in a way I've never thought of it before:
She said: "You should be trusting of everyone until proven otherwise - it's a nicer way to view the world."
Now, that's not to say you should go and give your money to the "Somalian Prince" in your gmail inbox...but what a positive way to live your life. I trust you, until you betray me.
And if you betray me, so be it.
Maybe the answer is to trust, but have insurance. Do not hand your wallet to a stranger, but believe what they say - why not?
Thanks for the thought-provoking question!
A dose of skepticism, in moderation, of everything is not bad nor good but healthy in balancing the emotions and the mind in seeking an answer to questions one may have on any of the everythings one may encounter. One must choose wisely to what depth of skepticism one descends on any subject though least they become unbalanced.
Yes, it is good to question everything.
Friends, a critical eye serves us well, but like a lamp, it must be aimed wisely. The Skeptics are right to question, but true wisdom lies in discernment. Not everything requires deep scrutiny. Focus on what lies within our control: our own thoughts, reactions, and actions. For external matters, a healthy dose of reason and a suspension of strong judgment will serve us better. Let us examine claims with care, but also recognize that some truths are self-evident. Worrying excessively about the unknowable, clouds our minds and hinders virtue. Let us strive for a balanced approach, neither gullible fools nor chronic doubters, but students of reason and experience.
"Yes" to the first question, and "mostly" to the second. There are such things as indisputable facts, but for most everything else, question away.
Yes question everything! But it may not be the best life lived as it is very tiring. All the best