animals have of the same objects are demonstrated by their
different tastes, as the things desired by some are fatal to
others.[2] The practical illustrations given of this result show
a familiarity with natural history, and cognizance of the tastes
and habits of many animals,[3] but were probably few of them
original with Sextus, unless perhaps in their application; that
this train of reasoning was the common property of the Sceptic
School, we know from the fact that Diogenes begins his exposition of the first Trope in a way similar to that of
Sextus.[4] His illustrations are, however, few and meagre
compared with those of Sextus, and the scientific facts used by
both of them may mostly be found in other authors of antiquity
given in a similar way.[5] The logical result of the reasoning
used to explain the first Trope, is that we cannot compare the
ideas of the animals with each other, nor with our own; nor can
we prove that our ideas are more trustworthy than those of the
animals.[6] As therefore an examination of ideas is impossible,
any decided opinion about their trustworthiness is also impossible, and this Trope leads to the suspension of judgment
regarding external objects, or to [Greek: epochê.][7]
[1] _Hyp._. I. 54.
[2] _Hyp._. I. 55.
[3] _Hyp._. I. 55-59.
[4] Diog. IX. 11, 79-80.
[5] Pappenheim _Erlauterung Pyrr. Grundzüge Par_.
41.
[6] _Hyp_. I. 59.
[7] _Hyp_. I. 61.
After reaching this conclusion, Sextus introduces a long chapter
to prove that animals can reason. There is no reference to this
in Diogenes, but there is other testimony to show that it was a
favourite line of argument with the Sceptics.[1] Sextus, however, says that his course of reasoning is different from
that of most of the Sceptics on the subject,[2] as they usually
applied their arguments to all animals, while he selected only
one, namely the dog.[3] This chapter is full of sarcastic
attacks on the Dogmatics, and contains the special allusion to
the Stoics as the greatest opponents of the Sceptics, which has
been before referred to.[4]
Sextus claims with a greater freedom of diction than in some
apparently less original chapters, and with a wealth of special
illustrations, that the dog is superior to man in acuteness of
perception,[5] that he has the power of choice, and possesses an
art, that of hunting,[6] and, also, is not deprived of virtue,[7] as the true nature of virtue is to show justice to
all, which the dog does by guarding loyally those who are kind
to him, and keeping off those who do evil.[8] The reasoning
power of this animal is proved by the story taken from Chrysippus, of the dog that came to a meeting of three roads in
following a scent. After seeking the scent in vain in two of the
roads, he takes the third road without scenting it as a result
of a quick process of thought, which proves that he shares in
the famous dialectic of Chrysippus,[9] the five forms of
[Greek:
_anapodeiktoi logoi_,] of which the dog chooses the fifth.
Either _A_ or _B_ or _C_, not _A_ or _B,_ therefore _C_.
[1] _Hyp_. I. 238.
[2] Compare Brochard _Op. cit._ 256.
[3] _Hyp_. I. 62-63.
[4] _Hyp_. I. 65.
[5] _Hyp_. I. 64.
[6] _Hyp_. I. 66.
[7] _Hyp_. I. 67.
[8] _Hyp_. I. 67.
[9] _Hyp_. I. 69; _Hyp_. II. 166; Diog. VII. 1, 79.
The dog and other irrational animals may also possess spoken
language, as the only proof that we have to the contrary, is the
fact that we cannot understand the sounds that they make.[1] We
have an example in this chapter of the humor of Sextus, who
after enlarging on the perfect character of the dog, remarks,
"For which reason it seems to me some philosophers have honoured
themselves with the name of this animal,"[2] thus making a
sarcastic allusion to the Cynics, especially Antisthenes.[3]
[1] _Hyp_. I. 74.
[2] _Hyp_. I. 72.
[3] Diog. VI. 1, 13.
_The Second Trope_. Passing on to the second Trope, Sextus aims
to prove that even if we leave the differences of the mental
images of animals out of the discussion, there is not a sufficient unanimity in the mental images of human beings to
allow us to base any assertions upon them in regard to the
character of external objects.[1] He had previously announced
that he intended to oppose the phenomenal to the intellectual
"in any way whatever,"[2] so he begins here by referring to the
two parts of which man is said to be composed, the soul and the
body, and proceeds to discuss the differences among men in
sense-perception and in opinion.[3] Most of the illustrations
given of differences in sense-perception are medical ones; of
the more general of these I will note the only two which are
also given by Diogenes in his exposition of this Trope,[4] viz.,
Demophon, Alexander's table waiter, who shivered in the sun, and
Andron the Argive, who was so free from thirst that he travelled
through the desert of Libya without seeking a drink.
Some have
reasoned from the presence of the first of these illustrations
in the exposition of the Tropes, that a part of this material at
least goes back to the time of Pyrrho, as Pyrrho from his
intimacy with Alexander, when he accompanied him to India, had
abundant opportunities to observe the peculiarities of his
servant Demophon.[5] The illustration of Andron the Argive is
taken from Aristotle, according to Diogenes.[6]
[1] _Hyp_. I. 79.
[2] _Hyp._ I. 8.
[3] _Hyp._ I. 80.
[4] Diog. IX. 11, 80-81.
[5] Compare _Pyrrhon et le Scepticism primitive, Revue
phil._, Paris 1885, No. 5; Victor Brochard, p.
521.
[6] Diog. IX. 11, 81.
Passing on to differences of opinion, we have another example of
the sarcastic humor of Sextus, as he refers to the
[Greek:
physiognômonikê sophia][1] as the authority for believing that
the body is a type of the soul. As the bodies of men differ, so
the souls also probably differ. The differences of mind among
men is not referred to by Diogenes, except in the general
statement that they choose different professions; while Sextus
elaborates this point, speaking of the great differences in
opposing schools of philosophy, and in the objects of choice and
avoidance, and sources of pleasure for different men.[2]
The
poets well understand this marked difference in human desires,
as Homer says,
"One man enjoys this, another enjoys that."
Sextus also quotes the beautiful lines of Pindar,[3]
"One delights in getting honours and crowns through
stormfooted horses,
Others in passing life in rooms rich in gold, Another safe travelling enjoys, in a swift ship, on a wave of the sea."
[1] _Hyp._ I. 85.
[2] _Hyp._ I. 87-89.
[3] _Hyp._ I. 86.
_The Third Trope_. The third Trope limits the argument to the
sense-perceptions of one man, a Dogmatic, if preferred, or to
one whom the Dogmatics consider wise,[1] and states that as the
ideas given by the different sense organs differ radically in a
way that does not admit of their being compared with each other,
they furnish no reliable testimony regarding the nature of
objects.[2] "Each of the phenomena perceived by us seems to
present itself in many forms, as the apple, smooth, fragrant
brown and sweet." The apple was evidently the ordinary example
given for this Trope, for Diogenes uses the same, but in a much
more condensed form, and not with equal understanding of the
results to be deduced from it.[3] The consequence of the incompatibility of the mental representations produced through
the several sense organs by the apple, may be the acceptance of
either of the three following propositions: (i) That only those
qualities exist in the apple which we perceive. (ii) That more
than these exist. (iii) That even those perceived do not exist.[4] Accordingly, any experience which can give rise to
such different views regarding outward objects, cannot be relied
upon as a testimony concerning them.
[1] _Hyp._ I. 90.
[2] _Hyp._ I. 94.
[3] Diog. IX. 11 81.
[4] _Hyp._ I. 99.
The non-homogeneous nature of the mental images connected with
the different sense organs, as presented by Sextus, reminds us
of the discussion of the same subject by Berkeley in his _Theory
of Vision_.
Sextus says that a man born with less than the usual number of
senses, would form altogether different ideas of the external
world than those who have the usual number, and as our ideas of
objects depend on our mental images, a greater number of sense
organs would give us still different ideas of outward reality.[1] The strong argument of the Stoics against such
reasoning as this, was their doctrine of pre-established harmony
between nature and the soul, so that when a representation is
produced in us of a real object, a [Greek: katalêptikê phantasia],[2] by this representation the soul grasps a real
existence. There is a [Greek: logos] in us which is of the same
kind, [Greek: syngenos], or in relation to all nature.
This
argument of pre-established harmony between the faculties of the
soul and the objects of nature, is the one that has been used in
all ages to combat philosophical teaching that denies that we
apprehend the external world as it is. It was used against Kant
by his opponents, who thought in this way to refute his teachings.[3] The Sceptics could not, of course, accept a theory
of nature that included the soul and the external world in one
harmonious whole, but Sextus in his discussion of the third
Trope does not refute this argument as fully as he does later in
his work against logic.[4] He simply states here that philosophers themselves cannot agree as to what nature is, and
furthermore, that a philosopher himself is a part of the discord, and to be judged, rather than being capable of judging,
and that no conclusion can be reached by those who are themselves an element of the uncertainty.[5]
[1] _Hyp._ I. 96-97.
[2] _Adv. Math._ VII. 93.
[3] Ueberweg _Op. cit._ 195.
[4] _Adv. Math._ VII. 354.
[5] _Hyp._ I. 98-99.
_The Fourth Trope_. This Trope limits the argument to each
separate sense, and the effect is considered of the condition of
body and mind upon sense-perception in relation to the several
sense-organs.[1] The physical states which modify sense-perception are health and illness, sleeping and waking,
youth and age, hunger and satiety, drunkenness and sobriety. All
of these conditions of the body entirely change the character of
the mental images, producing different judgments of the color,
taste, and temperature of objects, and of the character of
sounds. A man who is asleep is in a different world from one
awake, the existence of both worlds being relative to the
condition of waking and sleeping.[2]
The subjective states which Sextus mentions here as modifying
the character of the mental representations are hating or
loving, courage or fear, sorrow or joy, and sanity or insanity.[3] No man is ever twice in exactly the same condition
of body or mind, and never able to review the differences of his
ideas as a sum total, for those of the present moment only are
subject to careful inspection.[4] Furthermore, no one is free
from the influence of all conditions of body or mind, so that he
can be unbiassed to judge his ideas, and no criterion can be
established that can be shown to be true, but on the contrary,
whatever course is pursued on the subject, both the criterion
and the proof will be thrown into the _circulus in probando_,
for the truth of each rests on the other.[5]
[1] _Hyp._ I. 100.
[2] _Hyp._ I. 104.
[3] _Hyp._ I. 100.
[4] _Hyp._ I. 112.
[5] _Hyp._ I. 117.
Diogenes gives in part the same illustrations of this Trope, but
in a much more condensed form. The marked characteristic of this
train of reasoning is the attempt to prove that abnormal conditions are also natural. In referring at first to the
opposing states of body and mind, which so change the character
of sense-perception, Sextus classifies them according to the
popular usage as [Greek: kata physin] and [Greek: para physin].
This distinction was an important one, even with Aristotle, and
was especially developed by the Stoics[1] in a broader sense
than referring merely to health and sickness. The Stoics,
however, considered only normal conditions as being according to
nature. Sextus, on the contrary, declares that abnormal states
are also conditions according to nature,[2] and just as those
who are in health are in a state that is natural to those who
are in health, so also those not in health are in a state that
is natural to those not in health, and in some respects according to nature. Existence, then, and non-existence are not
absolute, but relative, and the world of sleep as really exists
for those who are asleep as the things that exist in waking
exist, although they do not exist in sleep.[3] One mental
representation, therefore, cannot be judged by another, which is
also in a state of relation to existing physical and mental
conditions. Diogenes states this principle even more decidedly
in his exposition of this Trope. "The insane are not in a
condition opposed to nature; why they more than we? For we also
see the sun as if it were stationary."[4] Furthermore, in
different periods of life ideas differ. Children are fond of
balls and hoops, while those in their prime prefer other things,
and the aged still others.[5] The wisdom contained in this Trope
in reference to the relative value of the things most sought
after is not original with Sextus, but is found in the more
earnest ethical teachings of older writers. Sextus does not,
however, draw any moral conclusions from this reasoning, but
only uses it as an argument for [Greek: epochê].
[1] Diog. VII. 1, 86.
[2] _Hyp._ I. 103.
[3] _Hyp._ I. 104.
[4] Diog. IX. 11, 82.
[5] _Hyp._ I. 106.
_The Fifth Trope_. This Trope leaves the discussion of the
dependence of the ideas upon the physical nature, and takes up
the influence of the environment upon them. It makes the difference in ideas depend upon the position, distance, and
place of objects, thus taking apparently their real existence
for granted. Things change their form and shape according to the
distance from which they are observed, and the position in which
they stand.[1]
The same light or tone alters decidedly in different surroundings. Perspective in paintings depends on the angle at
which the picture is suspended.[2] With Diogenes this Trope is
the seventh,[3] and his exposition of it is similar, but as
usual, shorter. Both Sextus and Diogenes give the illustration[4] of the neck of the dove differing in color in
different degrees of inclination, an illustration used by
Protagoras also to prove the relativity of perception by the
senses. "The black neck of the dove in the shade appears black,
but in the light sunny and purple."[5] Since, then, all phenomena are regarded in a certain place, and from a certain
distance, and according to a certain position, each of which
relations makes a great difference with the mental images, we
shall be obliged also by this Trope to come to the reserving of
the opinion.[6]
[1] _Hyp._ I. 118.
[2] _Hyp._ I. 120.
[3] Diog. IX. 11, 85.
[4] _Hyp._ I. 120; Diog. IX. 11, 86.
[5] _Schol. zu Arist._ 60, 18, ed. Brandis; Pappen.
_Er.
Pyrr. Grundzüge_, p. 54.
[6] _Hyp._ I. 121.
_The Sixth Trope_. This Trope leads to [Greek: epochê]
regarding
the nature of objects, because no object can ever be presented
to the organs of sense directly, but must always be perceived
through some medium, or in some mixture.[1] This mixture may be
an outward one, connected with the temperature, or the rarity of
the air, or the water[2] surrounding an object, or it may be a
mixture resulting from the different humors of the sense-organs.[3] A man with the jaundice, for example, sees
colors differently from one who is in health. The illustration
of the jaundice is a favorite one with the Sceptics.
Diogenes
uses it several times in his presentation of Scepticism, and it
occurs in Sextus' writings in all, as an illustration, in eight
different places.[4] The condition of the organ of the
[Greek:
hêgemonikon], or the ruling faculty, may also cause mixtures.
Pappenheim thinks that we have here Kant's idea of _a priori_,
only on a materialistic foundation.[5] A careful consideration
of the passage, however, shows us that Sextus' thought is more
in harmony with the discoveries of modern psychiatry than with
the philosophy of Kant. If the sentence, [Greek: isôs de kai
autê (hê dianoia) epimixian tina idian poieitai pros ta hypo tôn
aisthêseôn anangellomena],[6] stood alone, without further
explanation, it might well refer to _a priori_ laws of thought,
but the explanation which follows beginning with
"because" makes
that impossible.[7] "Because in each of the places where the
Dogmatics think that the ruling faculty is, we see present
certain humors, which are the cause of mixtures." Sextus does
not advance any opinion as to the place of the ruling faculty in
the body, which is, according to the Stoics, the principal part
of the soul, where ideas, desires, and reasoning originate,[8]
but simply refers to the two theories of the Dogmatics, which
claim on the one hand that it is in the brain, and on the other
that it is in the heart.[9] This subject he deals with more
fully in his work against logic.[10] As, however, he bases his
argument, in discussing possible intellectual mixtures in
illustration of the sixth Trope, entirely on the condition of
the organ of the intellect, it is evident that his theory of the
soul was a materialistic one.
[1] _Hyp._ I. 124.
[2] _Hyp._ I. 125.
[3] _Hyp._ I. 126.
[4] See Index to Bekker's edition of Sextus.
[5] Papp. _Er. Pyr. Gr._ p. 55.
[6] _Hyp._ I. 128.
[7] _Hyp._ I. 128.
[8] Diog. VII. 1, 159.
[9] _Hyp._ I. 128.
[10] _Adv. Math._ VII. 313.
_The Seventh Trope_. This Trope, based upon the quantities and
compositions of objects, is illustrated by examples of different
kinds of food, drink, and medicine, showing the different
effects according to the quantity taken, as the harmfulness and
the usefulness of most things depend on their quantity.
Things
act differently upon the senses if applied in small or large
quantities, as filings of metal or horn, and separate grains of
sand have a different color and touch from the same taken in the
form of a solid.[1] The result is that ideas vary according to
the composition of the object, and this Trope also brings to
confusion the existence of outward objects, and leads us to
reserve our opinion in regard to them.[2] This Trope is illustrated by Diogenes with exceeding brevity.[3]
[1] _Hyp._ I. 129-131.
[2] _Hyp._ I. 134.
[3] Diog. IX. 11, 86.
_The Eighth Trope_. The Trope based upon relation contains, as
Sextus rightly remarks, the substance of the other nine,[1] for
the general statement of the relativity of knowledge includes
the other statements made. The prominence which Sextus gave this
Trope in his introduction to the ten Tropes leads one to expect
here new illustrations and added[2] arguments for
[Greek:
epochê]. We find, however, neither of these, but simply a
statement that all things are in relation in one of two ways,
either directly, or as being a part of a difference.
These two
kinds of relation are given by Protagoras, and might have been
used to good purpose in the introduction to the Tropes, or at
the end, to prove that all the others were really subordinate to
the eighth. The reasoning is, however simply applied to the
relation of objects to each other, and nothing is added that is
not found elsewhere where as an argument for [Greek: epochê].[3]
This Trope is the tenth by Diogenes, and he strengthens his
reasoning in regard to it, by a statement that Sextus does not
directly make, _i.e._, that everything is in relation to the
understanding.[4]
[1] _Hyp._ I. 39.
[2] _Hyp._ I. 135-140.
[3] _Hyp._ I. 135-140.
[4] Diog. IX. 11, 88.
_The Ninth Trope_. This is based upon the frequency and rarity
of events, and refers to some of the phenomena of nature, such
as the rising of the sun, and the sea, as no longer a source of
astonishment, while a comet or an earthquake are wonders to
those not accustomed to them.[1] The value of objects also
depends on their rarity, as for example the value of gold.[2]
Furthermore, things may be valuable at one time, and at another
not so, according to the frequency and rarity of the occurrence.[3] Therefore this Trope also leads to
[Greek:
epochê]. Diogenes gives only two illustrations to this Trope,
that of the sun and the earthquake.[4]
[1] _Hyp._ I. 141-142.
[2] _Hyp._ I. 143.
[3] _Hyp._ I. 144.
[4] Diog. IX. 11, 87.
_The Tenth Trope_. We have already remarked on the difference in
the character of the tenth Trope, dealing as it does, not with
the ideas of objects, like the other nine Tropes, but with
philosophical and religious