- 著者
-
金山 弥平
- 出版者
- 日本哲学会
- 雑誌
- 哲学 (ISSN:03873358)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.2003, no.54, pp.71-91,239, 2003-04-01 (Released:2009-12-09)
Ancient and modern skepticism are said to be different in that (1) ancient skeptics attacked beliefs, while modern skeptics are challenging knowledge (justified true belief); (2) ancient skeptics considered it possible to live without beliefs, following 'appearances', while modern philosophers consider it impossible, as is typically represented by Hume's judgement; (3) ancient skeptics took skepticism to be the best way to attain happiness, while such a demand may be incredible to philosophers today. But are these differences really substantial? As to (1), the state of mind to which justified true belief corresponds in Greek philosophy is doxa (belief) rather than episteme (knowledge); modern skeptics may be regarded by ancient skeptics as challenging belief rather than knowledge. As to (2), when e.g. a car rushes toward them, Pyrrhonists and Humeans will both evade the car, with the processes in their minds being almost the same, and different only in names ('appearances' and 'beliefs'). However, there is at least one substantial difference: if ancient skeptics' claim in (3) is true, Pyrrhonists can lead a better life than Humeans, by following appearances of moral virtues and also suspending judgement about the sufferings their moral activities may cause to them. To Humeans, who hold that reason is the slave of the passions, Pyrrhonists' claim to achieve happiness by rationally suspending judgement may appear to be the result of neglecting observation. But the reason's power that enables men to lead a good life, in which ancient skeptics believed, was what Socrates actually observed in his own mind and handed down to posterity.