What If We Stopped Believing In Everything?

A look at the peculiar, ancient school of thought known as Pyrrhonism.

What if you woke up one day, and refused to believe that any sort of “truth” could exist? 

Now, I’m not solely talking about common, everyday “truths” - like whether or not we tell the truth about our gym habits or our response to the dentist when they ask us if we’ve been flossing - I’m talking about denying the truth in everything and anything.

Enter Pyrrhonian skepticism.

---

Pyrrhonian skepticism, also known as Pyrrhonism, is a branch of philosophical skepticism that advocates for the suspension of judgment when it comes to all beliefs.

Philosophical skepticism = a school of thought that questions the possibility of knowledge

In other words, Pyrrhonists refuse to believe that any form of “truth” can exist, so they stop making truth-based judgment claims about everything. From the existence of their morning cup of coffee, to the fact that the sun rises everyday, and anything else - Pyrrhonian skeptics refuse to confirm nor deny anything being true. Pyrrhonian skepticism is an extreme form of philosophical skepticism, so extreme that Pyrrhonian skeptics don’t even believe in probabilism, which is the belief that some things are more probable than others.

Pyrrhonians can’t even believe in skepticism itself, because the very notion of saying “skepticism is a good way to approach the world” would be breaking their own rule of not affirming or denying truth claims.

The History of Pyrrhonism

Pyrrhonian skepticism is a philosophical approach inspired by a guy named Pyrrho of Elis. Little is known about Pyrrho, mainly due to the fact that he lived over 2 millennia ago and didn’t produce any written work, but what we do know is that he inspired the creation of Pyrrhonian skepticism and that his ideas and teachings were carried forward by his students.

I’m not going to dive too deep into the history of Pyrrhonian skepticism, mainly because little is concretely known about the philosophy’s origin, and many pieces of information are heavily debated by scholars. Although Pyrrho is credited with being the main source of inspiration behind Pyrrhonism, there are many other key thinkers, such as Aenesidemus, Timon of Phlius, Sextus Empricus, and others, all of whom contributed significantly to the development of the philosophy.

What’s the goal of Pyrrhonism?

Pyrrhonians are in pursuit of something called ataraxia, which can be described as a sense of tranquility which arises from suspending judgment about all beliefs. In other words, they are seeking a sense of peace that is produced by halting all attempts at trying to determine what is the truth and what is not. I guess this is similar to the relief I feel when I stop scrolling through Twitter.

Interestingly, Pyrrhonians disagree that any philosophical approaches to the world have managed to find truth about non-evident matters. They would practically label any non-Pyrrhonian as someone who engages in dogma.

Dogma = a belief or set of beliefs held unquestioningly and with undefended certainty.

The Pyrrhonians were a fascinating bunch. Although they refrained from making any truth claims about the world, they were pretty good at synthesizing arguments. Two Pyrrhonian philosophers in particular - Aenesidemus and Agrippa - were especially good at this. They both created multiple sets of arguments known as “modes” which argued for the suspension of judgment over all truth claims. These two probably could’ve made a career out of social media, had they been born a couple thousand years later.

The Ten Modes of Aenesidemus

Aenesidemus was a smart dude. He developed the following ten “modes” as a way to advocate for Pyrrhonism and for everyone to suspend their judgment about all things. In other words, he was trying to highlight why we can’t truly know if anything is “true” or not. Keep in mind, as with all things that are this old, it still isn’t concretely known whether he himself invented these modes or simply helped make them popular.

1. Different animals manifest different modes of perception.

2. Similar differences are seen among individual men.

3. For the same man, information is perceived with the senses is self-contradictory.

4. Furthermore, it varies from time to time with physical changes.

5. In addition, this data differs according to local relations.

6. Objects are known only indirectly through medium of air, moisture, etc.

7. These objects are in a condition of perceptual change in colour, temperature, size and motion.

8. All perceptions are relative and interact one upon another.

9. Our impressions become less critical through repetition and custom.

10. All men are brought up with different beliefs, under different laws and social conditions.

Another interesting set of “modes”, which are in my opinion stronger than Aenesidemus’ arguments, are Agrippa’s five modes. I find Agrippa’s five modes to be particularly interesting because they are still very relevant today, and they highlight the fact that the attainment of objective truth may just be a pipe dream.

These five modes were first introduced by Sextus Empiricus in his Outlines of Pyrrhonism, and they are attributed to Agrippa, an ancient Greek philosopher. It can be argued that all forms of “truth” suffer from one of these modes, which supports Pyrrhonism in asserting that it is impossible to make truth-based judgment claims about anything and everything.

Agrippa’s Five Modes

1. Dissent - The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.

2. Infinite Regress - All proofs rest on matters themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity.

3. Relation - All things are changed as their relations become changed, or as we look upon them from different points of view. 

4. Assumption - The truth asserted is based on an unsupported assumption

5. Circularity - The truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs.

This is all interesting, but why is Pyrrhonian Skepticism important?

Personally, I believe that the Pyrrhonian approach to the world is quite unrealistic, and to most, it probably sounds a bit stupid. With this being said, I do believe that the philosophical approach holds some importance.

I think Pyrrhonism’s importance lies more so with its effects on philosophy as a whole, rather than the school of thought itself. Since most of the ancient texts connected to Pyrrhonism were lost, much of what we know about this peculiar approach to the world is thanks to someone named Sextus Empiricus. His works on Pyrrhonian skepticism were recovered and published in the late 1500s, which led to them having a resurgence in popularity. This led to Pyrrhonism garnering the attention of various prominent thinkers at the time. Due to Empiricus’ works, Pyrrhonian skepticism went on to inspire philosophers such as Michel de Montaigne, Pierre Gassendi, and many others. It’s even thought that Pyrrhonism influenced Rene Descartes, whom many consider to be the founder of modern philosophy, especially a branch known as epistemology; the study of knowledge.

Pyrrhonism, as unrealistic and outlandish as the philosophy may seem, has actually played an important role in the development of philosophy as a whole. The point of today’s post wasn’t to try and convince you to stop believing in the existence of your morning cup of coffee or the rising sun, but rather, to highlight the fact that even the most far-fetched philosophies, no matter how old, have typically played an important role in the development of the field as a whole. Interestingly enough, Pyrrhonism is even credited to have influenced and played a role in the creation of fallibilism, which is a foundational element within the scientific method and within the development of science as a whole, as it strengthens scientific theories and pieces of information by ensuring that they can be proved to be false.

All in all, I think Pyrrhonian skepticism can teach us that even the most outlandish schools of thought within philosophy can go on to have a profound impact on the world, and it also serves as a sobering reminder that what we hold to be the “truth” probably isn’t as certain as we tend to believe.