Sextus Empiricus and Greek Scepticism Part 1

s.e.xtus Empiricus and Greek Scepticism.

by Mary Mills Patrick.

PREFACE

The following treatise on s.e.xtus 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 s.e.xtus Empiricus with the Pyrrhonean School has also been discussed.

As the First Book of the _Hypotyposes_, or Pyrrhonic Sketches by s.e.xtus 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 s.e.xtus, 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 ma.n.u.scripts of the works of s.e.xtus. The divisions into chapters, with the headings of the chapters in the translation, is the same as Fabricius gives from the ma.n.u.scripts, 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 princ.i.p.al 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 Aenesideme-Pascal-Kant_, Paris, 1867.

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

Haas, _Leben des s.e.xtus 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, _Erlauterung zu des s.e.xtus Empiricus Pyrrhoneischen Grundzugen_, Heidelberg, 1882.

Pappenheim, _Die Tropen der Greichischen Skeptiker_, Berlin, 1885.

Pappenheim, _Lebensverhaltnisse des s.e.xtus Empiricus_, Berlin, 1887.

Pappenheim, _Der angebliche Herac.l.i.tismus des Skeptikers Ainesidemos_, Berlin, 1887.

Pappenheim, _Der Sitz der Schule der Griechischen Skeptiker, Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie_, I. 1, S. 47, 1887.

Maccoll, _The Greek Sceptics from Pyrrho to s.e.xtus_, London, 1869.

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

CHAPTER I.

_The Historical Relations of s.e.xtus Empiricus._

Interest has revived in the works of s.e.xtus Empiricus in recent times, especially, one may say, since the date of Herbart. There is much in the writings of s.e.xtus 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 s.e.xtus' works would form a possible introduction to certain lines of modern philosophical thought, we cannot carry the a.n.a.logy farther, for Pyrrhonism as a whole lacked the essential element of all philosophical progress, which is a belief in the possibility of finding and establis.h.i.+ng the truth in the subjects investigated.

Before beginning a critical study of the writings of s.e.xtus 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 s.e.xtus 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: s.e.xtos ho empeirikos] by Diogenes Laertius[1]: [Greek: Herodotou de diekouse s.e.xtos ho empeirikos hou kai ta deka ton skeptikon kai alla kallista' s.e.xtou de diekouse Satorninos ho Kythenas, empeirikos kai autos]. Although in this pa.s.sage Diogenes speaks of s.e.xtus the second time without the surname, we cannot understand the meaning otherwise than that Diogenes considered s.e.xtus a physician of the Empirical School. Other evidence also is not wanting that s.e.xtus bore this surname. Fabricius, in his edition of the works of s.e.xtus, quotes from the _Tabella de Sectis Medicorum_ of Lambecius the statement that s.e.xtus 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: s.e.xtos ho empeirikos].[3] His name is often found in the ma.n.u.scripts 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 s.e.xtus 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 Ha.s.s 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 s.e.xtus.

[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 s.e.xtus' own testimony. In the first book of the _Hypotyposes_ he takes strong ground against the ident.i.ty 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 relations.h.i.+p 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 s.e.xtus 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 ill.u.s.trations 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 hupomnemata],[3] and again as [Greek: empeirika hupomnemata][4] These pa.s.sages 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, s.e.xtus cla.s.ses the Sceptics and Empiricists together in another instance, as regarding knowledge as impossible[6] [Greek: all oi men phasin auta me katalambanesthai, hoster hoi apo tes empeirias iatroi kai hoi apo tes skepseos phiolosophoi]. In another case, on the contrary, he contrasts the Sceptics sharply with the Empiricists in regard to the [Greek: apodeixeis].[7]