First steps: Skepticism

The Skeptics believed you could never be completely certain of the truth. For example, you can't really know what objects really are, only how they appear. Your senses could be fooling you. Pyrrho is considered to be the first skeptic philosopher, and his ideas were expounded by a philosopher with the unlikely name of Sextus Empiricus.

I first heard of Sextus Empiricus when I was reading “The Black Swan” by Nassim Taleb, and I thought he was making it up. That book does have fictional interludes in it, so it was possibly an invention. But I have found other references to this character, so I am now of the opinion that he did exist. Of course I couldn't be certain of this and still be a good skeptic.

Another Skeptic was Carneadus, and his brand of skepticism is known as Academic Skepticism, since he taught at the Academy in Athens. It appears that Skeptics spent most of their time trying to debunk the ideas of other philosophers, especially the Stoics, although Carneadus also took on the Epicureans.

I like the story of Carneadus's trip to Rome, where on one day he delivered an oration praising Roman justice, and the next day he refuted his own arguments and concluded that justice was impossible. The Romans didn't bother trying to argue with him, they just sent him back to Athens, where he could no longer confuse them with his philosophy.

Here's an overview article about Skepticism. Returning to Sextus Empiricus, he introduced ideas of empiricism to this philosophy. If you couldn't be certain of anything, at least you could have provisional beliefs. Then you could collect evidence for or against your beliefs. Sextus was a physician as well as a philosopher, and belonged to the empirical school of medicine, which believed in basing medical practice on experience. Given the state of medical theory at the time, this was probably a good idea.

To me, Skepticism seems less like a complete philosophy, and more like a useful tool, a way to think about and criticize ideas. In this way it resembles pragmatism. I find it interesting to introduce the idea of uncertainty into discussions about ethics. How can you find the correct way to act in a particular situation when you can't be completely certain of the facts of the matter, or even of the ethical principles that you believe in?

First steps: Cynicism

I wanted to talk about two other Greek schools of philosophy, Cynicism and Skepticism. In reading about Cynicism, I realized I should have covered the Cynics before discussing Stoicism, since it appears that the Stoics derived many of their ideas from the Cynics.

Of course, cynical has a dictionary meaning, which includes things like being suspicious of the motives of other people, being bitter or resentful, and exploiting the moral scruples of others for personal gain. Not a pretty picture! But, as with epicurean and Epicureanism, it doesn't really give a correct picture of what the Cynics believed.

This article on Cynicism gives a good overview of the Cynics and their beliefs. The most famous Cynic was Diogenes, who slept in the streets of Athens in a bathtub. He was trying to illustrate that people should live a life free of possessions, and that true happiness comes from living in accord with nature. Fortunately for Diogenes, Athens has a mild climate.

This idea of living in accord with nature resembles the Stoic idea of living according to reason (see my earlier article on Stoicism). The Cynics believed that being happy depended on being self sufficient and having the right attitude. The way to achieve this positive attitude and self sufficiency was to disregard the conventional goals of wealth, fame, and power, and to live simply. These ideas were also influential with the Stoics.

It appears that the Cynics weren't popular with everyone, maybe because of their tendency to flout convention. Cynicism today has a negative connotation, and the name Cynic itself means dog-like, which I assume was meant to be an insult. On the other hand, there is a theory that Cynic derives from the name of the school where Antisthenes taught. Antisthenes, who was the first Cynic, taught at the Cynosarges gymnasium in Athens (Cynosarges means place of the white dog).

The Cynics were mostly concerned with ethics, unlike some of the other Greek philosophies which included lots of other topics. Antisthenes taught that virtue and not pleasure was the purpose of life, in opposition to the Epicurean philosophy. This seems like a more useful basis for an ethical theory to me, although there is still room for debate over what virtue consists of.

Interestingly, Antisthenes believed in a single natural god (this was around 400 BCE), and not the many gods that other Greeks believed in.

First steps: Epicureanism

After that brief excursion into some oriental philosophies, I'd like to return to traditional Greek philosophy. Epicureanism is a philosophy that is somewhat misunderstood today. I looked up epicurean in the dictionary, and it described someone with a fondness for sensual pleasures, luxury, fine wines, and gourmet foods.

But this isn't quite right. Epicurus (the guy the school was named for) believed in seeking modest pleasures, to attain a state of freedom from fear and pain. But he thought that overindulgence was wrong. If you eat too richly, for example, this can lead to dissatisfaction later. He also believed in abstinence. See Epicureanism, for more on this.

The Roman poet Lucretius wrote an epic poem called "On the Nature of Things", where he presents the main ideas and arguments of Epicureanism (see Nature of Things). The Epicureans had a materialistic world view, thinking that the universe was composed of atoms. Even the Gods were made of atoms. They also thought that the Gods were unconcerned with people, so there was no such thing as divine intervention, and no superstition either.

Knowledge (in their view) can come from either the senses or from reason, but reason might be mistaken, so it needs to be verified by the senses. This seems a lot like the scientific philosophy of creating hypotheses and testing them with experiments.

---

Returning to the pleasure principle, Epicurus did believe in living in a way that maximizes pleasure. But the pleasures that Epicurus was talking about were things like friendship, conversation, and learning. He believed that the way to maximize pleasure was to pursue things that yield lasting contentment and satisfaction, not momentary highs.

This idea was generalized to include a theory of justice and social contract. The point of living in a society with laws and punishments is so that you can be protected from harm. Then you are free to go after the things that will bring you pleasure. Laws that don't serve to promote human happiness in this way are unjust.

This could be the basis for a general theory of ethics, but I see some problems with this. For one thing, how do you resolve conflicts between individuals? Two people, pursuing their own idea of happiness, might want the same indivisible object, and how can it be determined which one should get it?

A similar problem exists with laws. How can a law be said to promote happiness, if people disagree about what makes them happy? For example, a law like prohibition might be considered pro-happiness by people who think that alcohol brings unhappiness and misery. But not everyone will agree with this.

Taoism revisited

Since I wrote my first article on Taoism, I've read some different versions of the Tao Te Ching. I'd like to recommend the book by Stephen Addiss and Stanley Lombardo as a good place to start if you are interested in learning about Taoism ("Tao Te Ching", 1993, Hackett Publishing).

This version presents a mostly literal translation that preserves a lot of the characteristics of the original Chinese. Like the original, it is terse and ambiguous, with a poetic feel. This book leaves the interpretation up to the reader, rather than trying to explain everything.

If you would like to dig deeper into the Tao Te Ching, there are two books by Robert Henricks that I recommend. These books are based on recent discoveries of ancient versions of the Tao Te Ching, and contain more discussion about the text. One of the books is called "Lao-Tzu Te-Tao Ching" (1989, Ballantine Books), and is based on mostly complete texts found at Ma-wang-tui. The second book is called "Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching" (2000, Columbia University Press). This book is a translation of texts found at Guodian, which are a subset of the traditional Tao Te Ching, with a different ordering of the chapters.

Both of these books give the reader a better feel for the problems of translation of this text, and also talk about the meaning of some of the more obscure passages.

First steps: Ecclesiastes

"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full" - Ecclesiastes 1:7.

Ecclesiastes talks a lot about the futility of human efforts. Other famous quotes along these lines include "there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecc 1:9) and "vanity of vanities; all is vanity" (Ecc 12:8). I wonder if he might change his mind if he saw some modern technology. Would he count a Ford Mustang as something new? Or is it perhaps just another version of a chariot, and not truly new?

Anyway, Ecclesiastes goes on to consider all the activities of people, and one by one he concludes that they are ultimately futile. He was a great king who collected treasures and built great works, but in the end it was all vanity and vexation of spirit. Then he turned to collecting wisdom, instead of material possessions, but he realized that the wise man dies the same as the fool.

Justice seems to be in short supply in his view. He has seen a good man who died young and a wicked man that lived long (Ecc 7:15). He also observes that no one can control the events of their lives. The swift don't always win the race, and the strong don't always win the battle, but chance happens in all things (Ecc 9:11). People who are born into an evil time will lead troubled lives, through no fault of their own. Yet, as long as there is life, there is hope, so it is better to be alive, and even a living dog is better than a dead lion (Ecc 9:4).

In the end he concludes that the ways of God are a mystery that we can't understand. So it is best to treasure the good that comes into our lives, and enjoy the simple pleasures of life, while not forgetting the dark days that we have experienced. Charity is also a good thing, because while you may be well off today, and able to help others, in the future the situation might be reversed. You never know today what will happen tomorrow.

One interesting observation in Ecclesiastes is that people and animals have a lot in common. "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; ... as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast" (Ecc 3:19). This raises an interesting ethical point. If people are truly not different in kind from the animals, then is it right to use them the way that we do?

Most of the early philosophies place mankind in a special category that is different from the beasts, and so they don't seriously consider this question. Even this remark in Ecclesiastes is only made in passing, and not expanded on. Still, it is the earliest reference that I know that questions the special nature of mankind.

First steps: Taoism

It's interesting how both the English and the Chinese words for path carry the same dual meaning. It can refer to the way to travel to a particular destination, or it can refer to a way of life. Perhaps this analogy between finding a path out of the forest and finding your way in life is something that comes naturally to humans everywhere.


Taoism gets its name from the Chinese word meaning way (above). This is the first word of a Chinese text that was supposed to have been written by the Chinese sage Lao-Tzu. See the Wikipedia article on the Tao Te Ching for more details, and also the one on Taoism.

The Tao Te Ching is a short book of 81 chapters, and each chapter is a self-contained verse of ten to twenty lines. So it's a quick read, although it is a bit strange to try and read it straight through. The topics change frequently, and there is a lot of juxtapositions of opposites in the verses. It might be better just to flip around and read chapters at random.

The quotes in this article are from the Jonathan Star translation.

The Tao seems to be some underlying principle of the universe, present in all things, eternal and unchanging. "I do not know its name, so I call it Tao" (chapter 25). When you live in harmony with Tao, then you are natural, simple, selfless, truthful, and content.

Taoism is skeptical about learning and the rituals that the Confucians promoted. "True words are not born of the mind" (chapter 81) and "If you need rules to be kind and just, ... this is a sure sign that virtue is absent" (chapter 18).

The Tao Te Ching gives out advice to rulers, warriors, and ordinary people. This advice is often the opposite of what you might expect, so that warriors, for example, are advised to not regard their opponent as an enemy and to fight without anger. Rulers are urged to place themselves below the people, and to lead as if behind them. People are told to be happy by having less (and also desiring less). Regard the easy as difficult, and the difficult will become easy.

---

This constant contrariness wears on you after a while, but it provides some interesting things to think about. The point I would like to consider is the contrast between acting naturally and acting according to ritual (as in Confucianism). Last week I was playing a chess game, and I made a mistake in the opening. After a long struggle, I lost the game.

I was a bit upset, mostly at myself for blundering, but I congratulated my opponent on a well played game, and shook his hand. After all, he had played well, and it wasn't his fault that I screwed up. This is behaving according to ritual, so I suppose that this makes me a Confucian, at least in this instance.

But if I were to act naturally, I might have banged my fist on the table, swore, and stomped off. Is this what a Taoist would advocate? Somehow, I don't think so. But what is the right thing to do in a case like this? Perhaps the root of the problem is my desire to win, which leaves me angry when I lose. The Taoist answer, then, is to lessen my desire, so that I don't feel this way. Then I can admire the game as if I were a bystander.

This answer strikes me as a bit impractical, although it is perhaps a goal to strive towards. As a practical matter, I'd prefer to live in a society were there was at least some respect for ritual. It's these social niceties that allow us all to get along, at least until we reach that state of perfection where our passions no longer rule us.

---

The most famous Taoist quote is probably this one: "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" (chapter 64).

First steps: Confucianism

First steps: Confucianism

"Lead the people with administrative injunctions and put them in their place with penal law, and they will avoid punishments but will be without a sense of shame. Lead them with excellence and put them in their place through roles and ritual practices, and in addition to developing a sense of shame, they will order themselves harmoniously. " (Analects II, 3)

See Confucianism, where I got that quote above, for a more detailed discussion of Confucianism.

Confucianism seems obsessed with maintaining order, which makes it a difficult philosophy to love. Is it really our highest goal to lead an orderly (harmonious) existence? But you have to like the way they go about it. Instead of having a bunch of laws, if you could instill in people an understanding of their role in society, and a sense of shame, then they would take care of themselves.

It's interesting how this relates to the idea of reason in Stoicism (see my earlier post on Stoicism). In the modern world, it seems that the idea of the individual rising above his environment is more prevalent, but both of these ancient philosophies promote the idea of living harmoniously with your environment.

Perhaps it has to do with the idea of progress. Progress is something we take for granted today, but in ancient societies life was much more chaotic. Any fledgling attempts to improve the conditions of life generally could be wiped out in a moment by an invading army.


But let's return to that part about roles and ritual practices (that's the Chinese character for rite, above). Ritual practices in Confucianism has a different meaning than it does in the west. It's not talking about large ceremonial gatherings like weddings or baptisms, but rather about day to day activities.

Examples of this kind of ritual practice are how a child should behave when talking to an elder, or how a guest should greet his host. Behaving properly according to these rules helps make it clear to everyone what a person's role in society is. But to be truly effective, it has to be more than lip service, you have to be sincere. When you sincerely engage in these ritual acts, you naturally come to feel the respect that the ritual calls for.

There seems to be a good understanding of human psychology in this aspect of Confucianism. It's been shown that when you act humble, or excited, or happy, then you start to feel the corresponding emotion. So by performing these ritual acts, you are improving your character by making it more consistent with your place in society.

---

Now, you might not be so happy with this philosophy if you don't like the basic hierarchical model of society that it implies. It does seem to be a danger with this philosophy that it could be used to reinforce an existing model of society and work against change, even when change is needed. But there are a few characteristics of Confucianism that work against despotic tendencies.

One of these is the idea that a ruler needs to cultivate personal virtue. A ruler's virtue will be reflected in his or her domain. But if a ruler lacks humanity, then the subjects will fail to act humanely as well, and then the ruler runs the risk of losing authority and position. This idea seems to parallel Plato's ideal of the philosopher king.

The idea of meritocracy and the nobility of virtue in Confucianism also opposes to some degree the idea of a rigid hereditary ruling class. A person is noble by reason of virtue, and not by birth. Rulers should be those who are best qualified to rule.

---

OK, we can't leave Confucianism without at least mentioning the Confucian version of the golden rule: "Do not do unto others what you would not want others to do unto you".