Sextus Empiricus and Greek scepticism by Mary Mills Patrick - HTML preview

PLEASE NOTE: This is an HTML preview only and some elements such as links or page numbers may be incorrect.
Download the book in PDF, ePub, Kindle for a complete version.

PREFACE

The following treatise on Sextus Empiricus and Greek Scepticism

has been prepared to supply a need much felt in the English

language by students of Greek philosophy. For while other

schools of Greek philosophy have been exhaustively and critically discussed by English scholars, there are few sources

of information available to the student who wishes to make

himself familiar with the teachings of Pyrrhonism. The aim has

been, accordingly, to give a concise presentation of Pyrrhonism

in relation to its historical development and the Scepticism of

the Academy, with critical references to the French and German

works existing on the subject. The time and manner of the

connection of Sextus Empiricus with the Pyrrhonean School has

also been discussed.

As the First Book of the _Hypotyposes_, or Pyrrhonic Sketches by

Sextus Empiricus, contains the substance of the teachings of

Pyrrhonism, it has been hoped that a translation of it into

English might prove a useful contribution to the literature on

Pyrrhonism, and this translation has been added to the critical

part of the work.

In making this translation, and in the general study of the

works of Sextus, the Greek text of Immanuel Bekker, Berlin,

1842, has been used, with frequent consultation of the text of

J.A. Fabricius, 1718, which was taken directly from the existing

manuscripts of the works of Sextus. The divisions into chapters,

with the headings of the chapters in the translation, is the

same as Fabricius gives from the manuscripts, although not used

by Bekker, and the numbers of the paragraphs are the same as

those given by both Fabricius and Bekker. References to Diogenes

Laertius and other ancient works have been carefully verified.

The principal modern authors consulted are the following:

Ritter, _Geschichte der Philosophie_, II. Auf., Hamburg, 1836-38.

Zeller, _Philosophie der Griechen_, III. Auf., Leipzig, 1879-89.

Lewes, _History of Philosophy_, Vol. I., London, 1866.

Ueberweg, _History of Philosophy_, IV. ed., translated by

Morris, 1871.

Brochard, _Les Sceptiques Grecs_, Paris, 1877.

Brochard, _Pyrrhon et le Scepticism Primitive_, No. 5, Ribot's

_Revue Phil._, Paris, 1885.

Saisset, _Le Scepticism Aenésidème-Pascal-Kant_, Paris, 1867.

Chaignet, _Histoire de la Psychologie des Grecs_, Paris, 1887-90.

Haas, _Leben des Sextus Empiricus_, Burghausen, 1882.

Natorp, _Forschungen zur Geschichte des Erkenntnisproblems bei

den Alten_, Berlin, 1884.

Hirzel, _Untersuchungen zu Cicero's philosophischen Schriften_,

Leipzig, 1877-83.

Pappenheim, _Erläuterung zu des Sextus Empiricus Pyrrhoneischen

Grundzügen_, Heidelberg, 1882.

Pappenheim, _Die Tropen der Greichischen Skeptiker_, Berlin,

1885.

Pappenheim, _Lebensverhältnisse des Sextus Empiricus_, Berlin,

1887.

Pappenheim, _Der angebliche Heraclitismus des Skeptikers Ainesidemos_, Berlin, 1887.

Pappenheim, _Der Sitz der Schule der Griechischen Skeptiker,

Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie_, I. 1, S. 47, 1887.

Maccoll, _The Greek Sceptics from Pyrrho to Sextus_, London,

1869.

My grateful acknowledgments are due to Dr. Ludwig Stein, Professor of Philosophy in the University of Bern, for valuable

assistance in relation to the plan of the work and advice in

regard to the best authorities to be consulted. Thanks are also

due to Dr. Louisos Iliou, of Robert College, Constantinople, for

kind suggestions concerning the translation.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I.

THE HISTORICAL RELATIONS OF SEXTUS EMPIRICUS ... 1

Introductory paragraph.--The name of Sextus Empiricus.

His profession.--The time when he lived.--The place of his birth.--The seat of the Sceptical School while Sextus

was at its head.--The character of the writings of Sextus

Empiricus.

CHAPTER II.

THE POSITION AND AIM OF PYRRHONIC SCEPTICISM ... 23

The subject-matter of the Hypotyposes.--The origin of Pyrrhonism.--The nomenclature of Pyrrhonism.--Its criterion.--Its aim.--[Greek: epochê] and [Greek: ataraxia].--The

standpoint of Pyrrhonism.

CHAPTER III.

THE SCEPTICAL TROPES ... 31

Origin of the name.--The ten Tropes of [Greek: epochê].-

-The

First Trope.--The Second Trope.--The Third Trope.--The Fourth

Trope.--The Fifth Trope.--The Sixth Trope.--The Seventh Trope.--The Eighth Trope.--The Ninth Trope.--The Tenth Trope.--The five Tropes of Agrippa.--The two Tropes.--

The Tropes

of Aenesidemus against Aetiology.

CHAPTER IV.

AENESIDEMUS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF HERACLITUS ... 63

Statement of the problem.--The theory of Pappenheim.--

The theory

of Brochard.--Zeller's theory.--The theory of Ritter and Saisset.--The theory of Hirzel and Natorp.--Critical examination

of the subject.

CHAPTER V.

CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PYRRHONISM ... 81

Pyrrhonism and Pyrrho.--Pyrrhonism and the Academy.

Strength and

weakness of Pyrrhonism.

* * * * *

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE PYRRHONIC SKETCHES BY SEXTUS

EMPIRICUS, TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK ... 101

CHAPTER I.

_The Historical Relations of Sextus Empiricus._

Interest has revived in the works of Sextus Empiricus in recent

times, especially, one may say, since the date of Herbart. There

is much in the writings of Sextus that finds a parallel in the

methods of modern philosophy. There is a common starting-point

in the study of the power and limitations of human thought.

There is a common desire to investigate the phenomena of sense-perception, and the genetic relations of man to the lower

animals, and a common interest in the theory of human knowledge.

While, however, some of the pages of Sextus' works would form a

possible introduction to certain lines of modern philosophical

thought, we cannot carry the analogy farther, for Pyrrhonism as

a whole lacked the essential element of all philosophical

progress, which is a belief in the possibility of finding and

establishing the truth in the subjects investigated.

Before beginning a critical study of the writings of Sextus

Empiricus, and the light which they throw on the development of

Greek Scepticism, it is necessary to make ourselves somewhat

familiar with the environment in which he lived and wrote. We

shall thus be able to comprehend more fully the standpoint from

which he regarded philosophical questions.

Let us accordingly attempt to give some details of his life,

including his profession, the time when he lived, the place of

his birth, the country in which he taught, and the general aim

and character of his works. Here, however, we encounter great

difficulties, for although we possess most of the writings of

Sextus well preserved, the evidence which they provide on the

points mentioned is very slight. He does not give us biographical details in regard to himself, nor does he refer to

his contemporaries in a way to afford any exact knowledge of

them. His name even furnishes us with a problem impossible of

solution. He is called [Greek: Sextos ho empeirikos] by Diogenes

Laertius[1]: [Greek: Hêrodotou de diêkouse Sextos ho empeirikos

hou kai ta deka tôn skeptikôn kai alla kallista' Sextou de

diêkouse Satorninos ho Kythênas, empeirikos kai autos].

Although

in this passage Diogenes speaks of Sextus the second time

without the surname, we cannot understand the meaning otherwise

than that Diogenes considered Sextus a physician of the Empirical School. Other evidence also is not wanting that Sextus

bore this surname. Fabricius, in his edition of the works of

Sextus, quotes from the _Tabella de Sectis Medicorum_ of Lambecius the statement that Sextus was called Empiricus because

of his position in medicine.[2]

Pseudo-Galen also refers to him as one of the directors of the

Empirical School, and calls him [Greek: Sextos ho empeirikos].[3] His name is often found in the manuscripts

written with the surname, as for example at the end of _Logic

II_.[4] In other places it is found written without the surname,

as Fabricius testifies, where Sextus is mentioned as a Sceptic

in connection with Pyrrho.

[1] Diog. Laert. IX. 12, 116.

[2] Fabricius _Testimonia_, p. 2.

[3] Pseudo-Galen _Isag._ 4; Fabricius _Testimonia_, p. 2.

[4] Bekker _Math._ VIII. 481.

The Sceptical School was long closely connected with the Empirical School of medicine, and the later Pyrrhoneans, when

they were physicians, as was often the case, belonged for the

most part to this school. Menedotus of Nicomedia is the first

Sceptic, however, who is formally spoken of as an Empirical

physician,[1] and his contemporary Theodas of Laodicea was also

an Empirical physician. The date of Menedotus and Theodas is

difficult to fix, but Brochard and Hass agree that it was about

150 A.D.[2] After the time of these two physicians, who were

also each in turn at the head of the Sceptical School,[3] there

seems to have been a definite alliance between Pyrrhonism and

Empiricism in medicine, and we have every reason to believe that

this alliance existed until the time of Sextus.

[1] Diog. IX. 12, 115.

[2] Brochard _Op. cit. Livre_ IV. p. 311.

[3] Diog. IX. 12, 116.

The difficulty in regard to the name arises from Sextus'

own

testimony. In the first book of the _Hypotyposes_ he takes

strong ground against the identity of Pyrrhonism and Empiricism

in medicine. Although he introduces his objections with the

admission that "some say that they are the same," in recognition

of the close union that had existed between them, he goes on to

say that "Empiricism is neither Scepticism itself, nor would it

suit the Sceptic to take that sect upon himself",[1] for the

reason that Empiricism maintains dogmatically the impossibility

of knowledge, but he would prefer to belong to the Methodical

School, which was the only medical school worthy of the Sceptic.

"For this alone of all the medical sects, does not proceed

rashly it seems to me, in regard to unknown things, and does not

presume to say whether they are comprehensible or not, but it is

guided by phenomena.[2] It will thus be seen that the Methodical

School of medicine has a certain relationship to Scepticism

which is closer than that of the other medical sects."[3]

[1] _Hyp_. I. 236.

[2] _Hyp_. I. 237.

[3] _Hyp_. I. 241.

We know from the testimony of Sextus himself that he was a

physician. In one case he uses the first person for himself as a

physician,[1] and in another he speaks of Asclepius as

"the

founder of our science,"[2] and all his illustrations show a

breadth and variety of medical knowledge that only a physician

could possess. He published a medical work which he refers to

once as [Greek: iatrika hupomnêmata],[3] and again as

[Greek:

empeirika hupomnêmata][4] These passages probably refer to the

same work,[5] which, unfortunately for the solution of the

difficult question that we have in hand, is lost, and nothing is

known of its contents.

In apparent contradiction to his statement in _Hypotyposes_ I.,

that Scepticism and Empiricism are opposed to each other, in

that Empiricism denies the possibility of knowledge, and Scepticism makes no dogmatic statements of any kind, Sextus

classes the Sceptics and Empiricists together in another instance, as regarding knowledge as impossible[6]

[Greek: all oi

men phasin auta mê katalambanesthai, hôster hoi apo tês empeirias iatroi kai hoi apo tês skepseôs phiolosophoi].

In

another case, on the contrary, he contrasts the Sceptics sharply

with the Empiricists in regard to the [Greek: apodeixeis].[7]

[Greek: hoi de empeirikoi anairousin, hoi de skeptikoi en epochê

tautên ephylaxan].

[1] _Hyp_. ii. 238.

[2] _Adv. Math_. A. 260.

[3] _Adv. Math_. vii. 202.

[4] _Adv. Math_. A. 61.

[5] Zeller _Op. cit._. iii. 43.

[6] _Adv. Math._ viii. 191.

[7] _Adv. Math._ VIII. 328.

Pappenheim thinks that Sextus belonged to the Methodical School,

both from his strong expression in favor of that school in

_Hyp_. I. 236, as above, and also because many of his medical opinions, as found in his works, agree with the teachings of the Methodical School, more nearly than with those

of the Empiricists. Pappenheim also claims that we find no

inconsistency with this view in the passage given where Sextus

classes the Sceptics with the Empiricists, but considers that

statement an instance of carelessness in expressing himself, on

the part of Sextus.[1]

[1] _Lebensverhältnisse des Sex. Em._ 36.

The position of Pappenheim is assailable for the reason that in

dealing with any problem regarding an author on the basis of

internal evidence, we have no right to consider one of his

statements worthy of weight, and another one unworthy, on the

supposition that he expressed himself carelessly in the second

instance. Rather must we attempt to find his true standpoint by

fairly meeting all the difficulties offered in apparently

conflicting passages. This has been attempted by Zeller, Brochard, Natorp and others, with the general result that all

things considered they think without doubt that Sextus belonged

to the Empirical School.[1] His other references are too strong

to allow his fidelity to it to be doubted. He is called one of

the leaders of Empiricism by Pseudo-Galen, and his only medical

work bore the title [Greek: empeirika hupomnêmata.] The opinion

of the writers above referred to is that the passage which we

have quoted from the _Hypotyposes_ does not necessarily mean

that Sextus was not an Empiricist, but as he was more of a

Sceptic than a physician, he gave preference to those doctrines

that were most consistent with Scepticism, and accordingly

claimed that it was not absolutely necessary that a Sceptic

physician should be an Empiricist. Natorp considers that the

different standpoint from which Sextus judges the Empirical and

Methodical Schools in his different works is accounted for on

the supposition that he was an Empiricist, but disagreed with

that school on the one point only.[2] Natorp points out that

Sextus does not speak more favourably of the medical stand of

the Methodical School, but only compares the way in which both

schools regarded the question of the possibility of knowledge,

and thinks that Sextus could have been an Empiricist as a

physician notwithstanding his condemnation of the attitude of

the Empirical School in relation to the theory of knowledge.

This difference between the two schools was a small one, and on

a subtle and unimportant point; in fact, a difference in philosophical theory, and not in medical practice.

[1] Brochard _Op. cit. Livre_ IV. 317; Zeller _Op.

cit_.

III. 15; Natorp _Op. cit._ p. 155.

[2] Natorp _Op. cit_. 157.

While we would agree with the authors above referred to, that

Sextus very probably recognized the bond between the Empirical

School of medicine and Pyrrhonism, yet to make his possible

connection with that school the explanation of his name, gives

him more prominence as a physician than is consistent with what

we know of his career. The long continued union of Empiricism

and Scepticism would naturally support the view that Sextus was,

at least during the earlier part of his life, a physician of

that school, and yet it may be that he was not named Empiricus

for that reason. There is one instance in ancient writings where

Empiricus is known as a simple proper name.[1] It may have been

a proper name in Sextus' case, or there are many other ways in

which it could have originated, as those who have studied the

origin of names will readily grant, perhaps indeed, from the

title of the above-named work, [Greek: empeirika hupomnêmata.]

The chief argument for this view of the case is that there were

other leaders of the Sceptical School, for whom we can claim far

greater influence as Empiricists than for Sextus, and for whom

the surname Empiricus would have been more appropriate, if it

was given in consequence of prominence in the Empirical School.

Sextus is known to the world as a Sceptic, and not as a physician. He was classed in later times with Pyrrho, and his

philosophical works survived, while his medical writings did

not, but are chiefly known from his own mention of them.

Moreover, the passage which we have quoted from the _Hypotyposes_ is too strong to allow us easily to believe that

Sextus remained all his life a member of the Empirical School.

He could hardly have said, "Nor would it suit the Sceptic to

take that sect upon himself," if he at the same time belonged to

it. His other references to the Empirical School, of a more

favorable character, can be easily explained on the ground of

the long continued connection which had existed between the two

schools. It is quite possible to suppose that Sextus was an

Empiricist a part of his life, and afterwards found the Methodical School more to his liking, and such a change would

not in any way have affected his stand as a physician.

[1] Pappenheim _Leb. Ver. Sex. Em_. 6.

In regard to the exact time when Sextus Empiricus lived, we gain

very little knowledge from internal evidence, and outside

sources of information are equally uncertain. Diogenes Laertius

must have been a generation younger than Sextus, as he mentions

the disciple of Sextus, Saturninus, as an Empirical physician.[1] The time of Diogenes is usually estimated as the

first half of the third century A.D.,[2] therefore Sextus cannot

be brought forward later than the beginning of the century.

Sextus, however, directs his writings entirely against the

Dogmatics, by whom he distinctly states that he means the

Stoics,[3] and the influence of the Stoics began to decline in

the beginning of the third century A.D. A fact often used as a

help in fixing the date of Sextus is his mention of Basilides

the Stoic,[4] [Greek: alla kai oi stôikoi, ôs oi peri ton

Basileidên]. This Basilides was supposed to be identical with

one of the teachers of Marcus Aurelius.[5] This is accepted by

Zeller in the second edition of his _History of Philosophy_, but

not in the third for the reason that Sextus, in all the work

from which this reference is taken, _i.e. Math_. VII.-

XI.,

mentions no one besides Aenesidemus, who lived later than the

middle of the last century B.C.[6] The Basilides referred to by

Sextus may be one mentioned in a list of twenty Stoics, in a

fragment of Diogenes Laertius, recently published in Berlin by

Val Rose.[7] Too much importance has, however, been given to the

relation of the mention of Basilides the Stoic to the question

of the date of Sextus. Even if the Basilides referred to by

Sextus is granted to have been the teacher of Marcus Aurelius,

it only serves to show that Sextus lived either at the same time

with Marcus Aurelius or after him, which is a conclusion that we

must in any case reach for other reasons.

[1] Diog. IX. 12, 116.

[2] Ueberweg _Hist. of Phil._ p. 21.

[3] Hyp. I. 65.

[4] _Adv. Math_. VII. 258.

[5] Fabricius _Vita Sexti._

[6] Zeller _Op. cit_. III. 8.

[7] Brochard _Op. cit_. IV. 315.

The fact that has caused the greatest uncertainty in regard to

the date of Sextus is that Claudius Galen in his works mentions

several Sceptics who were also physicians of the Empirical

School,[1] and often speaks of Herodotus, supposed to be identical with the teacher of Sextus given by Diogenes Laertius,[2] but makes no reference whatever to Sextus.

As

Galen's time passes the limit of the second century A.D., we

must either infer that Sextus was not the well-known physician

that he was stated to be by Pseudo-Galen, and consequently not

known to Galen, or that Galen wrote before Sextus became prominent as a Sceptic. This silence on the part of Galen in

regard to Sextus increases the doubt, caused by Sextus'

own

criticism of the Empirical School of medicine, as to his having

been an Empiricist. The question is made more complicated, as it

is difficult to fix the identity of the Herodotus so often

referred to by Galen.[3] As Galen died about 200 A.D. at the age

of seventy,[4] we should fix the date of Sextus early in the

third century, and that of Diogenes perhaps a little later than

the middle, were it not that early in the third century the

Stoics began to decline in influence, and could hardly have

excited the warmth of animosity displayed by Sextus. We must

then suppose that Sextus wrote at the very latter part of the

second century, and either that Galen did not know him, or that

Galen's books were published before Sextus became prominent

either as a physician or as a Sceptic. The fact that he may have

been better known as the latter than as the former does not

sufficiently account for Galen's silence, as other Sceptics are

mentioned by him of less importance than Sextus, and the latter,

even if not as great a physician as Pseudo-Galen asserts, was

certainly both a Sceptic and a physician, and must have belonged

to one of the two medical schools so thoroughly discussed by

Galen--either the Empirical or the Methodical.

Therefore, if

Sextus were a contemporary of Galen, he was so far removed from

the circle of Galen's acquaintances as to have made no impression upon him, either as a Sceptic or a physician, a

supposition that is very improbable. We must then fix the date

o