Knowledge is the central focus in the discussion of skepticism. The common definition of skepticism, according to Irwin (1999), is the questioning doubt or attitude that one has towards a given set of beliefs or knowledge. Skepticism may be towards a commonly perceived knowledge or truth, or individual-based. The former implies the doubts or uncertainty that one may have towards what people commonly hold as true, while the latter could doubt towards an individual’s profession of knowledge or truth. Greeks Philosophical perception or view of skepticism has been explored from different perspectives as presented below.
Origin of Skepticism
In the Greek context, skepticism is mostly perceived with regard to the commonly held beliefs. According to Irwin (1999), the Greeks philosophy on skepticism originates from the dispute over the perception of knowledge between “naturalists” and “theologians. Of the two groups, the theologians existed first. Notable naturalists in the Greek philosophy are Heracleitus and Xenophanes, while theologians include Hesiod and Homer (Irwin, 1999). The Greeks were always concerned with natural phenomenon. They constantly sought information to explain the existence of the phenomenon. The theologians posited religious theories. Their arguments were also based on the traditional stories, otherwise known as “muthoi” which associated Greek gods with natural happenings.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Heracleitus and Xenophanes significantly dismissed the theologian view on knowledge. Instead, the naturalists offered rational proof to explain their perception of knowledge about phenomenon. Aristotle, one of the greatest and re-known philosophers, took note of the two groups and got interested more on the naturalist because of their preposition on rational proof. The point of contention as far as knowledge or truth is concerned; is reliability. While the naturalists were able to offer logical proofs about most of their claims, the theologians were unable to provide evidence of their encounter with god ( Gorman, 1994) . For the theologians held that the only way the propositions by Homer and Hesiod could hold is when the gods gave an account of their existence and having a hand in creating the features which are always subject of philosophical debate.
Among the points of contention between Hesiod and Heracleitus is the difference in days where some days have fortunes, and some have misfortune. According to Heracleitus, the nature of the day is always constant, and the happenings, including misfortunes, are only natural and are probably caused by some undiscovered factors. On the other hand, Hesiod posits that some days are bad and some good as provided by the gods (Irwin, 1995).
Many philosophers weighed in, in the knowledge dispute between the naturalists and theologians. Hippolytus wonders how most people followed Hesiod, yet he is unable to accept the difference between day and night. Plutarch, on the other hand, is undecided about whose account about day and night is right. He wonders and admits that probably some days are unlucky like Hesiod puts it. On the other hand, he questions how Hesiod would even know that some days are unlucky when he does not recognize that every time, the nature of the day is the same.
The profession of knowledge on a given subject was revered by the Greeks indeed. One hand, people were fascinated by the stories of the mythical Greek gods. To claim that the gods had manifested to Hesiod was taken by a lot of seriousness. On the other hand, many people were fascinated by the ability of Heracleitus to reasonably explain the occurrence of the phenomenon using features that could be observed, or at least verified.
Despite the knowledge profession by the two main groups, the contemptuous issue remained to be what is true and what is not; and how does one know that something is true. The attack by Heracleitus and Xenophanes on the traditional stories stirred the interest of many philosophers of the time to explore further the concept of knowledge. Plato was among the first of such philosophers. Notably, Plato sought to distinguish knowledge from belief. To achieve this objective, Plato first divides belief into false and true beliefs. The false beliefs are discarded in this procedure, as well as some true beliefs. The remaining true beliefs and knowledge are then compared (Gulley, 2013). Plato’s position defends “knowledge” and disapproves of the use of “know” for all the cases of true belief. In other words, the fact that one belief in something, and it happens: it does not imply that the person possess knowledge on the matter. For example, if one believes that it is going to rain in and it does rain; indeed, it does not mean that he or she has knowledge of rainfall. However, the distinction is based on fundamental admission that, on some occasions, people get things through luck, habit, or guesswork. According to Plato, this admission is very important in accepting that knowledge and belief are different.
To further distinguish knowledge and belief, Plato asserts that one must admit that knowledge is created through a systematic procedure of inquiry. In this proposition, Plato draws the example of craft and a random success in medical treatment. Craft, in this regard, indicates a systematic, reliable, and procedural strategy is establishing knowledge about a given subject. Aristotle also holds the same opinion (Irwin, 1999). As Aristotle asserts, knowledge is the typical feature of craft. Plato further asserts that knowledge is created if people not only accept things as a true belief but can ask the question of why and probably get the answer. In the event that the question “why” cannot be answered, then one does not have any reason to doubt the opposing proposition of the phenomenon in question.
Through metaphysics, Aristotle distinguishes between humans and animals to dispel skepticism about knowledge. Aristotle argues that animals exist by both memories and appearance, but they fundamentally lack experience. Human, on the other hand, exists through experience, memory, and appearance. On top of these, humans exist through craft and reasoning. The theory posits that memory and experience interact to produce craft and science ( Duignan, 2010) . Craft is produced when several experiences interact to form a unified and probably acceptable view about things.
Plato argues that “only when one has successfully distinguished true belief from knowledge can he or she be justified to doubt if knowledge has or can be achieved by anyone” (Irwin (1999; 69). Such doubts are the origin of skepticism. Skepticism can be of various kinds, including complete skepticism, that no justification is possible that knowledge has been found. It is essential to draw a common example in this regard. Science indicates that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way. However, a common belief in ancient times was that the earth is what goes around the sun. Such were beliefs, over time, the scientists were able to prove that it is indeed the earth that goes around the sun. The justifications for this knowledge include the explanation of day and night using analogies and verifiable examples ( Gulley, 2013) . Over the years, variations in seasons were also used to confirm that, indeed, the earth goes around the sun. According to Plato’s assertion, this is a classical case where knowledge has been clearly distinguished from the truth. Only at such a case is one at liberty to doubt the authenticity of the knowledge.
Xenophanes's attack on Homer and Hesiod provides an opportunity for skeptical arguments considering the following argument. According to Homer and Hesiod, the gods behave immorally. However, the gods cannot behave immorally. As such, Homer and Hesiod's preposition of god as immoral is wrong (Irwin, 199). To determine whether these statements fit the skepticism argument, it is essential to refer to the provision of Plato on skepticism. Plato asserts that only when knowledge has been distinguished from belief can reasonable doubt be made. None of the three statements present experience. Based on the naturalists, there is no reasonable proof of the gods regarding both their existence and hence, behaviors.
Another example offered by Xenophanes and Heracleitus is the comparison of the gods with humans in the context of both Greek and Ethiopia. The Greeks hold that their gods resemble the Greek people (Duignan, 2010). On the other hand, the Ethiopians also believe that their god looks like the Ethiopians. According to the existing knowledge, the Greeks believe that their god is certainly not the Ethiopian, and so does the Ethiopian. Both these two groups believe that their gods are universal. Based on the belief of the two groups, it is obvious that god cannot exist both for the Greeks and Ethiopians. It is, therefore, logical for a naturalist to dismiss the stories about gods.
Despite Xenophanes's attack on the traditional stories, he seems to hold skeptical philosophies as well. According to Xenophanes, even if the truth was to be found to replace the conventional story belief system, there is no guarantee that what would have been found is the ultimate truth (Irwin, 1999). According to Xenophanes, the replacement of the traditional stories should only be perceived as seemingly the truth. The underlying principle in this argument is that there is no ultimate truth in the world. Although the existing knowledge may explain a lot of the features or characteristics that can directly be observed, it does not mean that that is the ultimate knowledge that is available with regards to the subject. Xenophanes’s philosophical approach to skepticism is different from that of Plato.
According to Plato, if it has been established that the knowledge is different from any true belief, then one does not have any plausible reason to doubt the knowledge. For example, if Xenophanes disputes the traditional stories system and finds that the naturalistic approach provides more knowledge and realistic answers, he has no reason to keep on with skepticism; unless he formulates fresh true beliefs about the phenomenon (Irwin, 1995).
It is evident that Xenophanes approach advocates for a continuous search of knowledge without ever settling for the immediate outcome, however much they provide answers to the current questions. Despite Xenophanes's attack on the traditional stories, he too admits the presence of one Supreme Being, of whom he has no personal experience. By believing in a god yet castigating aspersions over other gods is a violation of his own principles.
Another feature of the Greek's philosophical approach towards skepticism was based on sense vs. criterion. Earlier on, the sense was believed to be important in judging knowledge from false or true belief. According to Guetter (2006), Sextus, one of the early students of naturalists, was among the first philosophers to dispute the sense-model and support criterion model. The philosopher used color to dispute how sense was unreliable in distinguishing knowledge from belief. According to Sextus, if both black and white colors are poured on each other, they overlap to form a different color, which can only be distinguished by the sigh sense as one color yet in reality; both the two colors are retained underneath each other.
Sextus, therefore, proposed the criterion model as crucial in distinguishing knowledge and belief. This process essentially involves establishing specific criterions on which certain outcomes can be compared to determine whether something qualifies as knowledge or belief. The problem with this method is that finding a particular criterion that is universally agreed on by everyone is a challenge. People are likely to question the very standards even before they are used to distinguish knowledge and belief.
Another fundamental philosopher who individually shapes the perception of knowledge and belief is Heracleitus. He proposes the theory of reason, the natural world, and sense. Heraclitus’s work is based on Xenophanes's work on critical reflection as a way of developing the ordinary and traditional beliefs (Shields, 2003). Heracleitus provides three standards that should be observed before making a judgment on knowledge and belief. Firstly, Heracleitus challenged the traditional perception of a dream. The traditional views posit that dreams occurred such that each person on earth woke up in his or her own world. Instead, he insists on the common world whose events influence the kind of dreams that people have while sleeping. Further, Heracleitus refutes the claims that people had a private understanding which changed their behavior. Instead, he endorses the typical reason ( Duignan, 2010) . Additionally, Heracleitus adopts a vision of the world to be comprised of processes other than collective objectives that are constantly changing.
Heracleitus revokes the argument between sense, reason, and criterion. Firstly, the fundamental principle of his theory is that the everyday world guides the three aspects mentioned above. For example, people dream and wake up to the natural world and not their private world. Even relevant is the propositions that beliefs and knowledge could all have a common source internally or externally, hence the need to view things from the common perspective. To justify the proposition of sense, Heracleitus argues that sometimes the beliefs and knowledge people have are formed by what they see, experience, and feel; all which are senses (Shields, 2011) As a result, it is essential for individual to question whether their senses are a source of knowledge; or if they only act independently. Heracleitus is, however, quick to caution on the complete reliance on sense to make a judgment. Heracleitus argue that sometimes the senses may be misleading, especially if they are not critically analyzed. As such, “it is always important to invoke reflective reasoning to determine which senses are knowledge and retain them” (Irwin, 1999).
Regarding the use of sense in making knowledge judgment, Heracleitus is very definite that the sense should be rejected. To support this, he offers an analogy of sleeping and dreaming. When one is asleep, the uncritical sense is awake. As such, a variety of faces may be presented during the dream; some may be entirely new, while some may be common. If the uncritical sense were to be used to in understanding the dream, then it would only be prudent that such persons wake up in a different and private world where the faces are only recognized to him from the dream ( Shields, 2003) . But the reality is that people always wake up in the real world, which implies that the real and the world supersedes sense and the traditional stories. In other words, the sense is always in constant communication with the individual. However, it requires critical reasoning to determine what is correct and how it can be used in understanding knowledge or truth.
A fundamental conclusion of the Heraclitus’s work is that common sense itself is a criterion for rejecting or accepting knowledge. According to Irwin (1999; 72), “things that are common in terms of appearance can always be trusted in making common judgments.” On the other hand, things that appear differently and privately to an individual should always be perceived as false.
It is essential to reiterate the fact that only when things appear different to individuals privately should they be considered as false. For example, people are accustomed to the four weather seasons – autumn, winter, summer, and spring. These seasons always come at a specific time of the year, and people always prepare for the same. In the event that one-time spring comes instead of summer, then this cannot be perceived as false since it is not only different to individuals differently.
Hippolytus confirms the perceptions of Heracleitus. Hippolytus argues that he only has the honor and recognizes the things and people he can see or hear (Gorman, 1994). Perhaps the assertions of Hippolytus are the reason why he is also a staunch opponent of the traditional stories of the Greek gods. Nobody had ever seen nor heard the gods. Diogenes also confirms the assertions of Heracleitus and Hippolytus that, however, much an individual learns, it is not enough to understand everything if one cannot use common sense. Plutarch challenges the Heracleitus by explaining the concept of superstition in dreams. According to Plutarch, superstitious people do not have a common world. It is so because they don’t use either their intelligence or common sense when they wake. Such people always dream with their fear awake, from which he or she does not have an escape.
Stobaeus also supports the concept of common sense. He asserts that people who speak with a great sense of understanding always rely mainly on what is familiar to most people around him or her. Parmenides also provides a critical perspective on the philosophical approach towards skepticism. He draws his work from those of Xenophanes and Heracleitus. While the latter proposes that the false belief should be rejected, Parmenides argues that the false may not entirely be false. Instead, they are only false in principle (Popkin et al., 2007). Instead, they provide the reality of a potentially new change or reality that is barely explored. Unfortunately, the prevailing rotational arguments, which are based on common sense, make the potential change only to remain elusive.
The quest for knowledge and distinction of it from belief was indeed of great concern to the Ancient Greek philosopher. It is important to note herein that the debate on skepticism led to the development of the two dominant research paradigms that have guided how research is conducted. The two main philosophies are the positivist and interpretivist ( Shields, 2011) . The positivist philosophy posits that knowledge should be established through a systematic strategy, which is similar to the proposition of craft and science by Plato. On the other hand, the interpretivist philosophy provides for a more liberal quest for knowledge. Reasoning, common sense, and rationale of the researcher are inherent parts of the study process, which is often criticized for research bias.
From the evidence presented in this paper, it is clear that majority of the Ancient Greek philosopher relied more on reason, common sense, and critical thinking to decide what was knowledge and belief. Knowledge was more preferred by the Greek philosophers, including Heracleitus, Xenophanes, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, and Diogenes. Further, the origin of the skepticism philosophical approach in Greek originated from the ideological struggle between the theologians who were perceived to base their actions non-reason, irrational, and non-verifiable features. The naturalists led the attack based on their explanation of phenomenon founded on reason and rationale’ perhaps this explains why many philosophers adopted a philosophical approach that is more based on common sense and logic.
References
Duignan, B. (Ed.). (2010). Ancient philosophy: From 600 BCE to 500 CE . Britannica Educational Publishing.
Gorman, R. (1994). Poets, Playwrights, and the Politics of exile and asylum in ancient Greece and Rome. International Journal of Refugee Law , 6 (3), 402-424.
Guetter, D. L. (2006). Review of “Classical Philosophy: A Contemporary Introduction”. Essays in Philosophy , 7 (1), 5.
Gulley, N. (2013). Plato's Theory of Knowledge (Routledge Revivals) . Routledge.
Irwin, T. (1999). Classical philosophy.
Irwin, T. (Ed.). (1995). Classical Philosophy: Aristotle: metaphysics, epistemology, natural philosophy (No. 7). Taylor & Francis.
Popkin, R. H., Neto, M., & Raimundo, J. (2007). Skepticism: an anthology.
Shields, C. (2003). Classical philosophy: a contemporary introduction . Routledge.
Shields, C. (2011). Ancient philosophy: A contemporary introduction . Routledge.
