Just a short correction: "What he emphatically rejected was any hint of skepticism about our ability to know reality" - Principal Doctrine 24 mentions something about not rushing to treat as confirmed something that is not yet clear, so Epicurus did call for limited epoche (suspension of opinion) until evidence of nature is presented. Once evidence is presented, there is no need to question what is clear and self-evident--which is something for which Epicurus and his friends had little patience. So the "dogmatism" of the Hellenistic philosophers was actually a stepping stone towards the scientific enterprise of amassing knowledge by empirical means.
KD 28 also says that there are certain types of knowledge that are necessary for our happiness. Clear knowledge about certain things is necessary, but it appears that he had a utilitarian conception of knowledge and deemed other forms of knowledge (useless or unnecessary) less choice-worthy.
Hi Doug, thanks for your corrections. You’re right that the title by Kuzminksi was generated by AI. “Give me a list of suggested readings,” I said. Well, serves me right. As for the errors about Sextus Empiricus, can’t blame AI. Those are mine. I’ll be sure to correct them and thanks for your comments.
There are a couple of things I suggest need fixing.
* You've mentioned that you use AI to assist in composing your articles. I think you have an AI hallucination in this one. I'm very well acquainted with the works of Adrian Kuzminski and I'm pretty sure he never wrote anything titled "Early Greek Cynicism and Its Possible Influence on Indian Thought." One cannot find it on Google Scholar.
* Your claim, "Pyrrho was not its founder, that honor goes to the Roman Skeptic Sextus Empirucus" is definitely wrong, for several reasons. While there is some debate that Pyrrho should not be considered the founder of Pyrrhonism and instead Aenesidemus should, no one contents that Sextus was the founder. Further, as best we can tell, Sextus was not Roman. He was Greek. Admittedly, he may have been working in Rome, but an analysis of his writing style best matches Alexandrian Greek. So, our best guess, based on weak evidence, is that he was working in Alexandria.
Just a short correction: "What he emphatically rejected was any hint of skepticism about our ability to know reality" - Principal Doctrine 24 mentions something about not rushing to treat as confirmed something that is not yet clear, so Epicurus did call for limited epoche (suspension of opinion) until evidence of nature is presented. Once evidence is presented, there is no need to question what is clear and self-evident--which is something for which Epicurus and his friends had little patience. So the "dogmatism" of the Hellenistic philosophers was actually a stepping stone towards the scientific enterprise of amassing knowledge by empirical means.
KD 28 also says that there are certain types of knowledge that are necessary for our happiness. Clear knowledge about certain things is necessary, but it appears that he had a utilitarian conception of knowledge and deemed other forms of knowledge (useless or unnecessary) less choice-worthy.
That’s a very nuanced point, Hiram. Thank you!
Hi Doug, thanks for your corrections. You’re right that the title by Kuzminksi was generated by AI. “Give me a list of suggested readings,” I said. Well, serves me right. As for the errors about Sextus Empiricus, can’t blame AI. Those are mine. I’ll be sure to correct them and thanks for your comments.
Thanks for the mention.
There are a couple of things I suggest need fixing.
* You've mentioned that you use AI to assist in composing your articles. I think you have an AI hallucination in this one. I'm very well acquainted with the works of Adrian Kuzminski and I'm pretty sure he never wrote anything titled "Early Greek Cynicism and Its Possible Influence on Indian Thought." One cannot find it on Google Scholar.
* Your claim, "Pyrrho was not its founder, that honor goes to the Roman Skeptic Sextus Empirucus" is definitely wrong, for several reasons. While there is some debate that Pyrrho should not be considered the founder of Pyrrhonism and instead Aenesidemus should, no one contents that Sextus was the founder. Further, as best we can tell, Sextus was not Roman. He was Greek. Admittedly, he may have been working in Rome, but an analysis of his writing style best matches Alexandrian Greek. So, our best guess, based on weak evidence, is that he was working in Alexandria.
You may find this article interesting: https://pyrrhonism.medium.com/epicureanism-versus-pyrrhonism-6932797eb414