Pyrrhonism and The Inevitability of Dogma

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3485
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Pyrrhonism and The Inevitability of Dogma

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:13 pm

"Pyrrhonism, philosophy of Skepticism derived from Pyrrho of Elis (c. 370–c. 272 bce), generally regarded as the founder of ancient Skepticism. He identified as wise men those who suspend judgment (practice epochē) and take no part in the controversy regarding the possibility of certain knowledge. He proposed the neutral position of accepting things as they appear without further analysis. Pyrrhonism profoundly influenced philosophical thought in 17th-century Europe with the republication of the Skeptical works of Sextus Empiricus, who had codified Greek Skepticism about the turn of the 3rd century ce, and its force has resounded to the present day."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pyrrhonism

The problem of a strict suspension of judgement is it still necessitates a form of judgement as a process of negation in necessititated. This negatation requires a positive act of focus, for the most part, where a thesis is supplied to act as a negative.

This may sound contradictory at first glance, using a positive as a negative, but here is one example:

A cat keeps meowing, so I bring in a dog to chase the cat away. The dog keeps barking, so I feed it and pet it to keep it quiet.

In these examples a positive localized phenomena is brought into negate another positive localized phenemona...effectively to contain it. The cat is contained through the dog, the dog is contained through good behavior towards it. The problem, effectively as some perceived absence of order, is negated by providing some limit in which to contain it.

The same occurs for the munchaussen trillema, which is solvable, where it acts as a negative set of boundaries that form positive boundaries of "still psyche" by encapsulating or giving form to perceived chaos as an absence of order.

In these respects all movements have simultaneous positive and negative qualities and dogma is unavoidable. The question is rather less one of dogma or no dogma, but the most centered dogma which gives freedom through self structuring, in these respects we are left with basic reflection as the repitition of forms which give structure and direction to action.

It appears the best approach is a direct center approach, a middle path, of both dogma and no dogma where we perceive phenomena strictly for what they are limits.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests