During the first of two of Trollface Socrates' bi-weekly meetings, our attention and focus turned today to (arguably) one of the most interesting Greek philosophers yet: Pyrrho.
The bust of the little joker. I bet the guy had an awesome mustache-beard thing going on when he was alive.
Pyrrho preaches a strong, hard-and-fast line of Skepticism, where he asserts his belief that since no one knows anything, we can never be certain about anything. The implication of this are far-reaching, and taken to it's logical extreme, this pretty much eliminates any and all emotion from your life. Is is cold outside, or are you really just imagining it to be cold? Did that raw blowfish really poison you, or is that pain you feel from something else entirely. According to Pyrrho, our senses couldn't be trusted, and therefore, judgments made based off the information we collect from them can't be trusted or used.
Pyrrho once stayed calm even when a storm was tearing this ship to shreds, embarrassing even the saltiest of sea dogs. How'd he do it? Outstanding self (and philosophical) control, or lots of alcohol.
As you might have guessed, without the use of sensory information to dictate our responses and thoughts, Pyrrho must have been a very emotionally repressed individual. How could a person who lived like this possibly be happy? As it turns out (with very little suprise), happiness is a very relative term.
By rejecting the validity of his senses and dampening down the potential impact any danger could have on him, our group believed that Pyrrho also rejected his chances for greater sadness and happiness in his life. Because, for him to reject the validity of one emotion would have required him to reject them all, and we believed that this wholehearted rejection of the senses and emotion was one of the most important factors that would keep a majority of the world from ever prescribing to his philosophy.
However, the main focus of our discussion was centered around the concept of happiness, and how it is something that we ultimately define. Through our day-to-day experiences with others and ourselves, the emotions that arise usually end up having a noticeable effect on our mannerisms and demeanor. This things wouldn't have affected a person like Pyrrho, but for us it causes to feel a range of emotions, and to ultimately seek out the ones that bring us pleasure. And while everyone in our group readily admitted that life is a fluid, ever-changing, pot of emotions, the concept of finding true happiness, true joy, was a divisive issue that came down to the relativity argument once again. After all, whose to say that being a skeptic isn't exactly what Pyrrho wanted? In the end, the answer will have to come from inside himself.
Freebies of the Day!
Something to Chew On - Is true happiness something that can ever be achieved? Recent readings have identified it as a lifelong struggle, but Pyrrho clearly asserts that, at least through his methods, one can become content and ultimately happy with their lives. Penny for your thoughts below?
The Quizzler - As a Skeptic, Pyrrho believed what?
The Quizzler - As a Skeptic, Pyrrho believed what?
Answer: Pyrrho beleived that you should doubt anything you hear, because everything can be questioned
Unitl next time!
Another beautiful post, Morgan. I'm also really hoping the group name sticks all semester. Kudos on referring to how sidetracked we got when talking about Pyrrho as well. His philosophy is so far-reaching it's hard to discuss it without addressing many other outlets of philosophy as well. It was pretty tough to stay focused.
ReplyDeleteFor my Discussion Question I'm just going to bring up the fact that it never talked about how Pyrrho handled good situations, so how would you think he would handle these? And if he allowed a good situation to leave him happy or overjoyed, would that contradict his philosophy, since he didn't allow bad situations to ever get him down?
A Factual Question: Can one claim that there is absolutely no certainty in the world?
- Of course not. If that's a person's stance, then they couldn't make that claim with 100% certainty.
And finally, a link. This is the lead singer of my favorite band reciting one of his favorite stories (for the first half of the video). He's a great guy though, it's worth the watch. So, could Pyrrho be the man with the horse?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZJJtw2DHfY
EDIT: "it" in the second paragraph refers to the text.
DeleteThat's a great question Logan! This kind of makes me question even more if Pyrrho could have been truly happy.. If he didn't let bad things get him down, and he didn't let good things make him overly excited, he was just kind of there.. seems like a really boring way to live to me.
DeletePyrrho was a very interesting man to read about. I found it interesting how he would fall off a cliff just because he did not know for sure that hitting the rocks at the bottom of the cliff would hurt him. Pyrrho was very open to doing anything. To me he almost sounds like Julian Savulescu. I know it may not seem right to put these two together, but I feel like they are similar in their ideas. Both of these men think that you need to try something to really find out whether or not it is good or bad for you (Or a logical or scientific explanation would work, too).
ReplyDeleteOnce again Morgan, your post is glorious! Keep it up. In my floating yesterday I found that most groups were having a similar discussion all with their own little twist
ReplyDeleteThe one question I had about Pyrrho from our group was could he have been truly happy? He claimed that by doubting everything and never taking a firm stand with any idea he was happier, but I don't believe I could be truly happy without something to believe in, something to support.
In my discussion with group 2 about Epicurus we continued to discuss the idea of happiness. Is happiness better found by exploring and being curious and asking questions, or is ignorance truly bliss? In my own reflections I found that sometimes the truth is ugly and sometimes you don't really want to know, but I also found that there is an overwhelming sense of curiosity in the human brain and that simply avoiding the truth because some may be unpleasant is a boring way to live. Perhaps finding a "happy" medium is best.
With group 3 we discussed moral relativism. I realized that relativism is accepting that your beliefs might be wrong. This doesn't mean that you stop believing them, but rather to be open to at least listening to the beliefs and ideas of others. It was here that we found that everyone must be just a little bit of a relativist in order for there to be civility in this world.
Finally, with group 4 we moved to a completely different subject with the debate on Performance Enhancing Drugs. Where do we draw the line between an enhancement necessary for good health and an enhancement simply used for athletic advantages? My opinion is that once the cons out weigh the pros, you've crossed that line. If the enhancement can be more detrimental to your health than you would be without it than I cannot condone it.
Trevor Smith
H01 Group 1 (Trollface Socrates)
By the way my question about Pyrrho, "Could he have been truly happy?", is my discussion question for you all to think about.
ReplyDelete"By rejecting the validity of his senses and dampening down the potential impact any danger could have on him, our group believed that Pyrrho also rejected his chances for greater sadness and happiness in his life. Because, for him to reject the validity of one emotion would have required him to reject them all, and we believed that this wholehearted rejection of the senses and emotion was one of the most important factors that would keep a majority of the world from ever prescribing to his philosophy."
ReplyDeleteYes, yes, and yes. One of my favorite quotations from Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is, “You cannot protect yourself from sadness without protecting yourself from happiness.” And it's true. Moreover, you need one in order to appreciate the other. But I don't think that kind of protection is what humanity is aiming for. If it were, we could do it simply enough, but we don't—we want an existence which soars above the earth, which questions the cosmos and threatens to eclipse the energy of stars. We don't want neutral existence, no matter how well it may shield us from disappointment.
I don't even think it's really happiness that we're searching for; rather, it's wholeness, a life which experiences both the miserable and the sublime, and which, instead of questioning the meaning of the world, gives that world meaning.
His happiness was possibly derived from his lack of choice in matters. By not choosing a side, maybe he believed he was immune to any retribution or guilt from the outcomes of whatever events were occurring that he was involved in. As the band Rush said in "Freewill," "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." By not choosing, he was absolved of any problems coming afterward, but he also had little impact in his life or any others. A life of little involvement yields little reward, in my opinion. I came across an article on relativism and tolerance that seemed to relate to the ability, or inability, to choose sides in a conflict:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/the_myth_of_relativism_and_the.html
Mason Riley
this is a great post! for the freebie of the day, i think happiness can be achieved simply because happiness is completely relative to each individual. what one person sees as happiness may be very different from what another sees as being true happiness. but happiness is really an emotion so it can be felt by anyone that has ever been content!
ReplyDeleteThe topic of Pyrrho and his personal philosophy to question everything was a really interesting one. Everyone seems to be questioning if that is something you can truly find happiness with. If you spend your life questioning everything can you ever find happiness? At the same time, though, don’t we all find happiness in different activities? Maybe Pyrrho found “happiness” in the questioning of everything. Or, maybe, he didn’t believe in the notion of happiness since it would rely on our senses and emotions. Could it be that, to Pyrrho, happiness may not exist the way we believe it to?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe it exists, but then again I’m an optimist. What I really want to point out about Pyrrho’s philosophy, though, is the power it assumes the mind has. One of my teachers from high school always used to challenge my class. He’d always ask us if the wall the we could clearly see in front of us was actually there? To me, that’s exactly what Pyrrho is saying. Is that wall actually there? Or has society made us believe it to be? Is the strength of the belief that the wall is there keeping the wall from not being there? I know that was a mouthful sentence but it’s a good question. Could everything around us truly be one massive trick of the imagination?
My discussion question is: Do you think Pyrrho could have believed in happiness when he said we should never trust our senses and emotions?
Link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12587a.htm
(To Pyrrho, happiness was questioning everything.)
Great post as usual Morgan! I'm sorry I missed your conversation yesterday, but as for the freebie, I think happiness is dependent not only upon the person, but upon the situation as well. And one can have multiple forms of happiness. For example, you may be happy in your relationship but unhappy at work. Does that make you overall happy or overall unhappy? No. In my opinion, that plays to the goal of philosophy which is achieving a greater truth. I think happiness is part of that greater truth and one is always attempting to balance one;s life to achieve an ideal happiness in all aspects. This plays to a well rounded and positive person, and can be essential in attempting to achieve that higher order of being.
ReplyDelete