Hellenistic Philosophy Introductory

(Marvins-Underground-K-12) #1
268 ///-7 to ///-10
be perceived while others are not. The other premisses they defend with
a complex and lengthy discussion; these other premisses are also two in
number, first that some presentations are true while others are false, and
second that every presentation coming from something true is such that
it could also have come from something false.


  1. They do not just fly past these two propositions; rather, they
    develop them with extraordinary care and diligence. For they first subdi-
    vide [the argument] into major parts: [1] first the senses, [2] then the
    inferences which we draw from the senses and ordinary experience (which
    they want to claim is obscure), and [3] finally they come to the part in
    which they claim that even with reason and inference it is not possible
    for anything to be perceived. They divide these general arguments even
    more finely; the method you saw them using on the senses yesterday is
    also used for the other parts; for in each and every case-and they
    subdivide very finely indeed-they want to show that true presentations
    are coupled with false ones which differ in no respect from the true; and
    since they are of this nature, they cannot be grasped.


Cicero Academica 2.59-60 [III-8]



  1. But the real absurdity comes with your statement that you follow
    what is plausible, providing that you are not hindered by anything. First
    of all, how can you fail to be hindered by the very fact that falsehoods
    are not distinct from truths? Next, what criterion can there be of truth
    if it is shared with falsehood? This, necessarily, was the origin of the
    doctrine of epoche i.e., withholding of assent. Arcesilaus was more consis-
    tent on this, if what some people say about Carneades is true. For if
    nothing can be perceived-and this is what both of them thought-
    assent must be eliminated. For what is more pointless than that anything
    which is not known should be approved of? We kept hearing yesterday
    that Carneades was in the habit of slipping into the concession that the
    wise man would sometimes hold an opinion, i.e., make a [moral] mistake.
    But I am not as certain that there is something which can be grasped
    (and I have been arguing this thesis for quite some time now), as I am
    that the wise man does not hold [mere] opinions, i.e., the wise man never
    gives his assent to anything which is false or not known.

  2. There remains their claim that one ought to argue pro and contra
    everything, for the sake of discovering the truth. All right, then, I want
    to see what they have discovered. He [Carneades] says, "it is not our
    custom to set forth [our views]." Well, whatever are those mysteries?
    Why do you hide your opinion as though it were something to be ashamed

Free download pdf