Pyrrho (the original) on Skepticism-Are the "Skeptics" Here Deluded?

[SteveGrenard]

The following is excepted but is not an exact copy from the article on Pyrrho (circa 360-270 BCE) in the:

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/pyrrho.htm



1. Pyrrho sees skepticism as the road to happiness

2. Pyrrho sees skepticism as an escape from the calamities of daily life.


3. The proper course of the sage, said Pyrrho, is to ask three questions:

a. First we must ask what things are and how they are constituted.

b. Second we must ask how we are related to these things.

c. Third we must ask what ought to be our attitude towards them.

(Answers .............Pyrrho not only asked questions, he also answered them):

4. As to what things are, we can only answer that we know nothing.

5. We only know how things appear to us, but of their inner substance we are ignorant.

6. The same thing appears differently to different people, and therefore it is impossible to know which opinion is right.

7. The diversity of opinion among the wise, as well as among the vulgar, proves this.

8. To every assertion the contradictory assertion can be opposed with equally good grounds, and whatever my opinion, the contrary opinion is believed by somebody else who is quite as clever and competent to judge as I am.

9. Opinion we may have, but certainty and knowledge are impossible.

10. Therefore, our attitude to things (the 3rd question), ought to be complete suspension of judgment.

11. We can be certain of nothing, not even of the most trivial assertions. Therefore we ought never to make any positive statements on any subject.

12. This absence of certainty applies as much to practical as to theoretical matters.

13. Nothing is in itself true or false. It only appears so.

14. In the same way, nothing is in itself good or evil. It is only opinion, custom, law, which makes it so.

The Pyrrhonists were also careful to use the element of doubt even with respect to the most trivial assertions. They did not say, "it is so," but "it seems so," or "it appears so to me." Each observation would be preceded with a "perhaps," or "it may be."

[Yahweh]

I like Pyrrho (the moderator), he's the "dont take s**t from anyone" kinda guy...

Back on topic...

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The following is excepted but is not an exact copy from the article on Pyrrho (circa 360-270 BCE) in the:

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/pyrrho.htm



1. Pyrrho sees skepticism as the road to happiness

2. Pyrrho sees skepticism as an escape from the calamities of daily life.


3. The proper course of the sage, said Pyrrho, is to ask three questions:

a. First we must ask what things are and how they are constituted.

b. Second we must ask how we are related to these things.

c. Third we must ask what ought to be our attitude towards them.

(Answers .............Pyrrho not only asked questions, he also answered them):

4. As to what things are, we can only answer that we know nothing.

5. We only know how things appear to us, but of their inner substance we are ignorant.

6. The same thing appears differently to different people, and therefore it is impossible to know which opinion is right.

7. The diversity of opinion among the wise, as well as among the vulgar, proves this.

8. To every assertion the contradictory assertion can be opposed with equally good grounds, and whatever my opinion, the contrary opinion is believed by somebody else who is quite as clever and competent to judge as I am.

9. Opinion we may have, but certainty and knowledge are impossible.

10. Therefore, our attitude to things (the 3rd question), ought to be complete suspension of judgment.

11. We can be certain of nothing, not even of the most trivial assertions. Therefore we ought never to make any positive statements on any subject.

12. This absence of certainty applies as much to practical as to theoretical matters.

13. Nothing is in itself true or false. It only appears so.

14. In the same way, nothing is in itself good or evil. It is only opinion, custom, law, which makes it so.

The Pyrrhonists were also careful to use the element of doubt even with respect to the most trivial assertions. They did not say, "it is so," but "it seems so," or "it appears so to me." Each observation would be preceded with a "perhaps," or "it may be."
That was then, this is now.

[Cleopatra]

As the article mentions Pyrrho introduced his doctrines as an answer to the Dogmatists.

Very ofter, in ancient texts, dogmatists are described with the term :" The heresis of the dogmatists".

The trend of Dogmatism was introduced in Alexandria by a circle of doctors who thought that they could apply a couple of principles in the interpretation of every natural phaenomenon. Soon, this "trend" broke the circle of the doctors and dogmatism was adopted by various philosophical schools in Alexandria and in Athens.

So, this is the kind of knowledge that Dogmatists claimed that they possessed. The article just mentions Dogmatists without explaining who they were.

The 10 and not 15 principles or Phyrrhonism were not listed by Pyrrho himself and neither by his student Timon of Phlius as the article implies because Timon was a satyrical poet and not a philosopher...

Pyrrho, belonged to the philosophical school of Democritus. For the Democreteans the question of knowledge was primarily connected with issue of virtue.

Pyrrho questioned the Dogmatists not in his quest for the scientific truth but in order to achieve the state of mind that will be characterized by absolute tranquillity.

Whilst Pyrrho is our legendary father, modern skepticism in not based on the teachings of Pyrrho.

Pyrrhonism was revived four centuries later by Sextus the Empiricus,( before him Aenesidemus attemped a revival of Skepticism but he didn't went very far from the the so-called doctrines of Pyrrho) a doctor who is considered today as the man who put the bases for the modern skepticism and the great great grand father of Hume :)

I was preparing a paper about ancient skepticism for TAM but It didn't turn out the way I expected,so instead of becoming a dogmatist of skepticism I thought to leave it at least for now.Maybe I need to work more on that.

I will be glad to expand though on the teaching of Sextus the Empiricus and his famous book which is considered the manifesto of modern skepticism " Outlines of Phyrronism"

So, Steve thanks for bringing the issue, have in mind though that the first thing one must do while studying ancient authors--any kind of authors-- is to put their work into the historical context.

Pyrrhonism for its era was a breakthrough but you can't compare it with modern skepticism. :)

[SteveGrenard]

Cleopatra: So, Steve thanks for bringing the issue, have in mind though that the first thing one must do while studying ancient authors--any kind of authors-- is to put their work into the historical context.

Pyrrhonism for its era was a breakthrough but you can't compare it with modern skepticism.

No, thank you Cleo. This is exactly the point I was trying to make with reference to the ancient Greek philosphers or as Pyrrho-II has said, that was then, this is now....Thank you also for that Pyrrho-II. For those who didn't see the contextual arguments about the ancient Greek philosophers, they should read pp 309-12 in Sagan's Demon Haunted World as well. They lived and thought in an idealistic society served by a dozen or more specialist gods or, as Sagan says, with a "literary" religion noted for its absence of priests or intermediaries between the common people and the deities. They built temples, worshipped and even fed their gods and relied on and trusted them to provide all their material needs.

[Cleopatra]

I don't think that Sextus the Empiricus was so much interested in Religion. You see, he was a doctor, he had studied and he was practicing medicine and he was totally absorbed by the revival of the teachings of Pyrrho.

I don't think that somebody here have said that Scepticism and Religion are enemies.

Martin Gardner is the most famous Skeptic who is not an Atheist.

Unless, Steve, I didn't understand your post and this is not what you wanted to say, correct me if I am wrong, please.

[NoZed Avenger]

No, SG just wants to say that if some parts of Greek philosophy can be said not to apply, then he is completely justified in ignoring those rules of logic that are still accepted in western debate.

If Pyrrho says that some or all ideas from his namesake don't all apply, then SG is free to use logical fallacies at will. Appeals to popularity, for example, are now perfectly acceptable as arguments because Pyrrho lived a long time ago.

That is the (all too transparent) point. That, and starting yet another thread to avoid answering questions raised in the last half dozen or so that he seems to have forgotten, or at least desperately hopes that everyone else has.

Your knowledge of the historical context is impressive, but if you are posting it for SG, don't waste time -- he got everything he wanted out of the thread as soon as he got a response allowing him to claim that any/all logical rules codified by the Greek philosphers no longer apply.

It is possible that we may even see SG declare that Geometry no longer works, using the same reasoning.

N/A

[Cleopatra]

Hmmm.... But the answer to this is so easy that I am ashamed to post it for fear that someone might be insulted for reminding people the obvious!

So, I apologize in advance :)

The fact that Pyrrho and others made a mistake in their final conclusion doesn't mean that it was because they used a false logical method, the method was correct, that's why we accept it even in our days :)

But still the main mistake Steve makes is the historical anachronism,. Historical anachronism doesn't lead to any conclusions don't even false ones...

[epepke]

6 and 7 are where this breaks down. The same thing doesn't appear completely different to different people. Even if it appears somewhat different, it is often possible to find ways that people view it the same.

A big part of the modern scientific tradition is to find or construct places where nature is simple enough that it does appear the same to multiple people looking at the same thing.

Of course, what this gives one is degrees of confidence, but never certainty. But then again, so what?

[T'ai Chi]

11. We can be certain of nothing, not even of the most trivial assertions. Therefore we ought never to make any positive statements on any subject.


However, "We can be certain of nothing" is a positive statement, as are many of the other numbered items.

Not being able to be certain of ones' own skepticism is somewhat problematic.

[SteveGrenard]

Again, for those that have it at least, I urge them to read pp 309 to 312 of Sagan's Demon Haunted World. I did not say religion and skepticism were enemies. In fact, I said that the Greek philosophers embraced their literary religion and specialist Gods for their material needs while they pontificated on what they felt were more important matters than irrigation, public works or road building ---- unless, of course, the public works were a temple to a god or the road built to allow people visit the statue of a god.
Such matters, imnstead, which occupied the great minds of the time included studying contradiction in terms like defining "logical fallacies" or the dismissal of something because it happened to be popular rather than rare or because it was espoused by an expert instead of a non-expert (appeal to authority).

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Again, for those that have it at least, I urge them to read pp 309 to 312 of Sagan's Demon Haunted World. I did not say religon and skeptgicism were enemies. In fact, I said that the Greek philosophers embraced their literary religion and specialist Gods for their material needs while they pontificated on what they felt were more important matters than irrigation, public works or road building ---- unless, of course, the public works were a temple to a god or the road built to allow people visit the statue of a god.
Such matters included contradiction in terms like defining "logical fallacies" or the dismissal of something because it happened to be popular rather than rare or because it was espoused by an expert instead of a non-expert (appeal to authority).


Steve your perception of the Ancient Greek civilization is totally mistaken.

Even when they were building temples, the Greeks were making scientific breakthroughs.

Parthenon itself is a scientific achievement although it was supposed to be built to worship Goddess Athena.

The building of this temple opened new roads to architecture and to mechanics! It gave solutions to scientific questions that they waited to be answered.

Be certain that in the time of Pericles none believed that they were building Parthenon to worship Athena...

[c0rbin]

...espoused by an expert instead of a non-expert (appeal to authority).

BZZZZZZT

Thank you for playing.

[Dancing David]

Very useful and informative, this is basicaly the basis of nihilism as well. However the appearance of the physical world seems to have some verifiable characteristics which form the basis of science. So wther or nor they are ultimatly true the 'seems to be' of verifiability is utilitarian.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
. . .the dismissal of something because it happened to be popular rather than rare or because it was espoused by an expert instead of a non-expert (appeal to authority).


You realize that neither of these formations are correct?

Appeal to popularity does -not- dismiss something "because it happen[s] to be popular, rather than rare" -- the fallacy instead states that something should not be accepted as true simply because many people believe it to be so. The difference between those two standards are distinct and substantive.

Likewise, appeal to authority does not mean the dismissal of something just because it came from an expert.

N/A

[SteveGrenard]

Cleo:
Be certain that in the time of Pericles none believed that they were building Parthenon to worship Athena...

A true skeptic is never certain. So you say none believed this was a tribute to Athena. How about citizens who might have thought it was? Do they count?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Cleo:
Be certain that in the time of Pericles none believed that they were building Parthenon to worship Athena...

A true skeptic is never certain. So you say none believed this was a tribute to Athena. How about citizens who might have thought it was? Do they count?

Whilst I do not claim the title of the "true skeptic" for myself I try not to speculate, not even when I am talking about the Past because History is actually a science :)

It's not what I think but what the ancient authors reveal. According to Plutarch and to Thucidetes, in the "Parliament" of Athens the members of which were Athenean men that had full citizenship, Pericles had received severe criticism for erecting a temple just to glorify his political party using for this purpose the Treasury of the Athenean League.

They believed and they were right that Parthenon was a medium of Pericle's political propaganda. It was indeed :)

Leaving Pathenon aside that is a striking example anyway I will mention another example where the ancient Greek skepticism was demonstrated.

You might have heard that the first trip of St.Paul in Athens was a fiasco. When he asked the Greeks who have fantasized their Gods being anthropomorphic --the ancient Greek Gods had weaknesses and flaws like human beings...-- to believe to an invisible, omnipotent God-- to base their knowledge solely on Faith, he was severely mocked.

Asking Greeks to base their knowledge about something on faith was something that even them couldn't imagine and in fact it was a concept to which they resisted passionately this is the reason why the Church Father had to adopt large portions of Ancient Greek Philosophy and especially of Plato in order that the new Religion is accepted :)

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
No, SG just wants to say that if some parts of Greek philosophy can be said not to apply, then he is completely justified in ignoring those rules of logic that are still accepted in western debate.

If Pyrrho says that some or all ideas from his namesake don't all apply, then SG is free to use logical fallacies at will. Appeals to popularity, for example, are now perfectly acceptable as arguments because Pyrrho lived a long time ago.

That is the (all too transparent) point. That, and starting yet another thread to avoid answering questions raised in the last half dozen or so that he seems to have forgotten, or at least desperately hopes that everyone else has.

Your knowledge of the historical context is impressive, but if you are posting it for SG, don't waste time -- he got everything he wanted out of the thread as soon as he got a response allowing him to claim that any/all logical rules codified by the Greek philosphers no longer apply.

It is possible that we may even see SG declare that Geometry no longer works, using the same reasoning.

N/A
Ah, well, it was not my intention to disparage the work of the ancient Pyrrho. Pyrrho of Elis, as far as I know, did not identify logical fallacies. That, according to history, was first done by Aristotle. As I have said in the other thread, this work continued to be developed and refined over the centuries by other philosophers. These tenets have stood the tests of time, and the criticism of better minds than ours. Although they are commonly tossed aside, it would benefit any debater to learn these pitfalls, if only to strengthen their arguments. Calling them "contradiction in terms" is the mark of willful ignorance.

[The Mighty Thor]

If Pericles had the Parthenon built for political reasons, does that mean he was a hypocrite or just a pragmatist?

Surely, one of the reasons for the trial of Socrates was 'failure to honour the gods.' Was this charge politically motivated?

I see many comparisons in 'tone' between 5th c. Athens and Bush's USA. Socrates would not fare well in today's highly charged partisan atmosphere.

I've enjoyed this thread, even given the perverse motivation of Steve to start it.

malc

[Ed]

Originally posted by Cleopatra




Parthenon itself is a scientific achievement although it was supposed to be built to worship Goddess Athena.

..

Cute, Cleo, cute. Working the Parthanon in like that. Don't matter though, you are still not getting back those damn marbles.:D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
A true skeptic is never certain. So you say none believed this was a tribute to Athena. How about citizens who might have thought it was? Do they count?

It is interesting to note that while Cleo pours out evidence and sound arguments based on historical knowledge, Steve appeals to ignorance by pointing to a silent majority, supposedly supporting his point. Steve, however, offers no evidence whatsoever of this, historical or otherwise.

Steve, where did these citizens express their belief that it was a tribute to Athena? Can you point to historical documents of any kind?

Or is your knowledge derived from psychic mediums channelling ancient greek fishmongers?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

Ah, well, it was not my intention to disparage the work of the ancient Pyrrho. Pyrrho of Elis, as far as I know, did not identify logical fallacies.

Certainly not but Pyrrho was the first man in History who questioned a belief of a self-proclaimed authority. His impact was so great that two centuries later the satyrist Lucianus, who was a skeptic himself, composed a famous parody of Pyrrho and his school. The existence of a satire proves the magnitude of Pyrrho's impact. I haven't found on line the "Sell of the Creed" which is a hilarious text that we must have it posted in this forum!

I will have to translate it or copy it from the LOEB's English Edition, it's just that I don't have this book, I mean the English translation. If there is anybody in this forum that has the LOEB edition it's in the second volume of the works of Lucianus of the 1968 translation.

That, according to history, was first done by Aristotle. As I have said in the other thread, this work continued to be developed and refined over the centuries by other philosophers.

I think that it was Kant who said that Logic was introduced by Aristotle but stopped to his era meaning that very few things were added by the following generations!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by malcolmdl
If Pericles had the Parthenon built for political reasons, does that mean he was a hypocrite or just a pragmatist?

Surely, one of the reasons for the trial of Socrates was 'failure to honour the gods.' Was this charge politically motivated?

I see many comparisons in 'tone' between 5th c. Athens and Bush's USA. Socrates would not fare well in today's highly charged partisan atmosphere.

I've enjoyed this thread, even given the perverse motivation of Steve to start it.

malc


Lots of stuff to address, I will try to do it briefly :)

First of all let me clarify something regarding Socrates' trial and conviction.

Socrates wasn't the first philosopher that has been accused of Atheism in Athens but it was the first philosopher who was an Athenean citizen with full citizenship ( both his parents were Atheneans) that faced in court such an accusation also, Socrates was a public persona in the public life of Athens, he was the one who established the Philosophical School of Attica and he used to exercise public and usually severe criticism to the politicians and the rhetors of the city.

So Socrates had many enemies especially among the "conservatives" of the city of Athens that were the usual targets of his criticism.

Socrates behaviour during the trial didn't make things easier for him. His courage was taken for arrogance towards the judges. You can read about the events of the trial are accurately described in the " apology" in "Crito" and in " Phaedo" of Plato.

Note that the majority convicted him with only 3 votes difference. The Atheneans changed their minds afterwards and his students worked hard for the restoration of his memory.

As for Pericles, he has been accused of Atheism too, Pheidias the creator of The Marbles and Ictinus the architect of Parthenon -- that was a... church!- were charged with similar accusations but they never faced the court.

In Athens of the 5th ce we come across a unique phenomenon in History. For the first time in human's history, it is Art that uses Religion as a medium of expression and not the contrary. That can be easily explained. The victorious Persian Wars stabilized the Greek belief that the centre of the Universe is the free citizen and not a God.

In my previous post I mentioned that the Gods of the Greeks were anthropomorphic, so when the Greeks of the 5th ce, used the image of Gods they were actually talking about their deeds.

You might ask why Atheism constituted such a serious accusation in that city that glorifies the free citizen. Well, Greeks might have dismissed the idea of a omnipotent deity but they believed that the Harmony of the Universe and the Moral Codes that were springing from this perfect Universe were created by a superior power. They weren't that interested in defying it and certainly they weren't interested in worshiping it the way we have been doing for the last 2000 :)

As to your last question I'd suggest that we avoid comparisons between USA and Ancient Athens. It's a fallacy that is called historical anachronism and I chase those fallacies in this forum :)

Sometimes when I am watching the news I wonder what Thucydites would say about the human nature if he could see TV, browse the Net and debate in discussion boards...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The following is excepted but is not an exact copy from the article on Pyrrho (circa 360-270 BCE) in the:

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/pyrrho.htm



1. Pyrrho sees skepticism as the road to happiness

2. Pyrrho sees skepticism as an escape from the calamities of daily life.


3. The proper course of the sage, said Pyrrho, is to ask three questions:

a. First we must ask what things are and how they are constituted.

b. Second we must ask how we are related to these things.

c. Third we must ask what ought to be our attitude towards them.

(Answers .............Pyrrho not only asked questions, he also answered them):

4. As to what things are, we can only answer that we know nothing.

5. We only know how things appear to us, but of their inner substance we are ignorant.

6. The same thing appears differently to different people, and therefore it is impossible to know which opinion is right.

7. The diversity of opinion among the wise, as well as among the vulgar, proves this.

8. To every assertion the contradictory assertion can be opposed with equally good grounds, and whatever my opinion, the contrary opinion is believed by somebody else who is quite as clever and competent to judge as I am.

9. Opinion we may have, but certainty and knowledge are impossible.

10. Therefore, our attitude to things (the 3rd question), ought to be complete suspension of judgment.

11. We can be certain of nothing, not even of the most trivial assertions. Therefore we ought never to make any positive statements on any subject.

12. This absence of certainty applies as much to practical as to theoretical matters.

13. Nothing is in itself true or false. It only appears so.

14. In the same way, nothing is in itself good or evil. It is only opinion, custom, law, which makes it so.

The Pyrrhonists were also careful to use the element of doubt even with respect to the most trivial assertions. They did not say, "it is so," but "it seems so," or "it appears so to me." Each observation would be preceded with a "perhaps," or "it may be."

Hmmmm . .seems a damn sight more sensible and intelligent than the person who calls himself Pyrrho on here! :eek:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Pyrrhonism for its era was a breakthrough but you can't compare it with modern skepticism. :) [/B]

Well that's right. Modern skepticism is the absolute converse. Skeptics are dogmatists who "know" the ultimate nature of reality and to hell with any reasons or evidence which suggest otherwise.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Hmmmm . .seems a damn sight more sensible and intelligent than the person who calls himself Pyrrho on here! :eek:

Interesting, Ian.

None really knows for sure what Phyrro from Elea said and you compare his sensibility and intelligence with somebody that lives 2500 after him. :)

Interesting ad hominem attack.

[hgc]

Thanks, Cleo, for the learned explication. I have often wondered about this subject.

Let me also emphasize that this is an example of cogent argument that should be emulated by all. Bring your facts to the table, and make a reasoned argument.

I am frustrated by the frequency of the "well you don't know it's not true" argument that is used to support all manner of claims around here.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well that's right. Modern skepticism is the absolute converse. Skeptics are dogmatists who "know" the ultimate nature of reality and to hell with any reasons or evidence which suggest otherwise.

You can't really compare the movement of Ancient Skepticism with the modern one. I assure you because this is what I have been trying to do during the last months and I concluded that this is not possible.

In order to compare them you will have to take them off their historical context, something that's absolutely wrong.

Modern Skepticism is the developed form of Ancient Skepticism.

Both are rings that they belong to the same chain.

[The Mighty Thor]

Cleo said:
In my previous post I mentioned that the Gods of the Greeks were anthropomorphic, so when the Greeks of the 5th ce, used the image of Gods they were actually talking about their deeds

Thanks for your illuminating responses to my questions. I don't want to divert from the subject of the thread too much, but I did not quite understand the quote above.

When you say 'their deeds', do you mean the achievements of the Greeks?

I agree with your point about historical anachronism, but the 'those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it' quotation was in my mind when I drew comparisons with the USA. Your point is well-taken, though.

On your thought about Thucydides and modern media, I heard a BBC radio play that looked at the Alcibiades affair as though being reported on modern radio news. It was a fascinating exercise.

Do you believe that the ravages of the plague led many Athenians to 'disbelieve' in the gods, as Thucydides suggests? The word I kept coming across regarding the Greeks and their gods was 'ambivalence'. But I have to admit I still do not understand how they reconciled belief in gods with the growing rationalism of the age. And I understand there is no 'they' as such, but a variety of attitudes and beliefs at play. The trouble is that tutors tend to ask 'wide' questions like:

'What role did belief in the traditional gods play in the Periclean rebuilding program?'

I wish I had had contact with you when I was doing my 5th c. Athens course last year. I got a 'distinction', but I believe I could have upset a few applecarts in my essays had I some of the insight you appear to have :)

Thanks for your time.

malc

[Cleopatra]

When you say 'their deeds', do you mean the achievements of the Greeks?

Exactly! Everytime they wanted to depict a victorius event they used Mythology. For example the Persian Wars were represented on the Parthenon by the "Gigantomachia". Do they want to praize the ideal of beauty? They erect a statue of a God! Religion is used as a medium of artistic expression.


Do you believe that the ravages of the plague led many Athenians to 'disbelieve' in the gods, as Thucydides suggests? The word I kept coming across regarding the Greeks and their gods was 'ambivalence'. But I have to admit I still do not understand how they reconciled belief in gods with the growing rationalism of the age. And I understand there is no 'they' as such, but a variety of attitudes and beliefs at play. The trouble is that tutors tend to ask 'wide' questions like:

'What role did belief in the traditional gods play in the Periclean rebuilding program?'

Thucidetes remarks regarding the Atheneans are very accurate. They started disbelieving on their Gods and especially in their good luck.

Why are you surprise? Today, that Science has triumphed,that we know things people ignore thousands of years before there are people who believe in Creationism :)

Ancient Greeks religious beliefs were more rational that ours. They didn't believe in any omnipotent, perfect God. Their God looked and behaved pretty much at they did. When St.Paul asked them to base their belief on an omnipotent God on Faith they laughed at him.Of course a lot of prejudices existed, also, in some rural areas they used to practice magic.

As to your question:

"What role did belief in the traditional gods play in the Periclean rebuilding programme?"

If you consider that those that inspired the whole building programe on the rock of the Acropolis were considered atheists you could say that Gods were solely used an an inspiration but when those Gods resemble so much to humans you start wondering about who was the real source of inspiration: the citizen or the God who looked exactly like him?

On your thought about Thucydides and modern media, I heard a BBC radio play that looked at the Alcibiades affair as though being reported on modern radio news. It was a fascinating exercise.

This sounds fascinating! When did you hear that?


I wish I had had contact with you when I was doing my 5th c. Athens course last year. I got a 'distinction'

Have you read Victor Hanson's and J. Heath's book : " Who killed Homer?"

Another excellent reading that is not only about Classical Antiquity is another one of Victor Hanson : "Carnage and Culture"

[The Mighty Thor]

Cleo
Have you read Victor Hanson's and J. Heath's book : " Who killed Homer?" Another excellent reading that is not only about Classical Antiquity is another one of Victor Hanson : "Carnage and Culture"

Thanks, Cleo, for the clear analysis.

Both books noted for purchase.

malc

[Cleopatra]

I have just had this idea and I thought to share it.

I think that at the end what made Pyrrho important was the fact that although he had a perfect social profile, people respected him tremendously for his status and he could use his "ignore button" for the things and people that bothered him he chose not to.

This is how Skepticism was established. By not using the "ignore button".