Ticket 1. Philosophy, its subject matter, functions and structure.

Subject philosophy is a set of questions of a person about the world around him, the answers to which give a person the opportunity to optimize the implementation of their needs.

Functions philosophy:

Worldview (helps to form a worldview and acts as its theoretical basis)

Cognitive-theoretical (philosophy learns the world, develops new knowledge)

Critical (analysis of the world: within the framework of philosophy, an assessment of what is happening in the world is carried out on the basis of the general ideas contained in philosophy about the norm and pathology of phenomena and processes of reality surrounding a person.)

Methodological (helps to integrate knowledge into one whole, acts as a methodology, that is, in the role of teaching about the methods of cognition and transformation of reality.)

Predictive (is engaged in forecasting: many philosophers of the past acted as prophets, predicting the future.)

Structure philosophy:

historical and philosophical knowledge (means the process development of philosophy, analysis of this process as a whole and its individual stages)

theoretical philosophy, consisting of:

ontology (doctrine of being)

epistemology (about knowledge)

axiology (about values)

ethics (about morality)

aesthetics (about beauty)

anthropology (about a person)

social philosophy (about society)

metaphysics (about the origins of the world)

Ticket 2. Philosophy and worldview.

The term "philosophy" arose from the combination of two Greek words "phileo" - love and "sophia" - wisdom and means love for wisdom.

One of the functions of philosophy is worldview, which means that philosophy helps to form a worldview (a set of sensations, points of view that fit a person into this world, in other words, a person's attitude to the world around him).

Philosophy is the theoretical foundation of the worldview.

The worldview can be:

- idealistic;

- materialistic.

Materialism is a philosophical outlook that recognizes matter as the basis of being. According to materialism, the world is a moving matter, and the spiritual principle is a property of the brain (highly organized matter).

Idealism is a philosophical view that believes that true being belongs to the spiritual principle (mind, will), and not to matter.

The worldview exists in the form of a system of value orientations (spiritual and material benefits, which society recognizes as the dominant force over itself, determining the actions, thoughts and relationships of people), beliefs and beliefs, ideals, as well as the way of life of a person and society. different reasons.

The relationship between the concepts of philosophy and worldview can be characterized as follows: any philosophy is a worldview, although a worldview is not necessarily philosophy. A worldview is not just knowledge about the world and a person, but also an assessment, a person's attitude to the world.

Ticket 3. Philosophy of Ancient India and Ancient China (Confucianism and Taoism).

Ancient Indian philosophy.

Ancient Indian philosophy is conventionally divided into four periods:

Vedic

classical

postclassical

new philosophy

The main features of the philosophy of Ancient India are religiosity, morality and mysticism... Philosophy considered such problems as the development of the individual and the universe, the liberation of man from passions and material existence.

The thinkers of ancient India treated truth as multifaceted knowledge, which cannot be expressed in full, focusing your gaze only on certain sides. That is why they believed that there are many ways to improve, choosing one of which, you can develop your personality and grow spiritually.

Indian philosophy recognized the ultimate goal a person, his development and self-improvement... It is through one's own self-development that the world itself could be improved.

The main goal was achievement of truth, knowledge of the soul and essence of a person and touched upon such sections of philosophical knowledge as ontology, epistemology, metaphysics, anthropology and ethics.

Ancient Chinese philosophy.

Ancient Chinese philosophers before the first millennium BC believed that everything that exists and happens in the world depends on the predestination of heaven. Therefore, it was believed that the head of state is the "son of heaven". The people of China believed that their lives depended on the influence of certain spirits, so there were sacrifices to these spirits.

According to ancient Chinese philosophers, the world arose out of chaos. It was argued that two spirits: yin (feminine) and yang (masculine) ordered the formless chaos, giving rise to the world.

At the beginning of the 1st millennium BC, a natural philosophical concept was formed. The same spirits that influence people's lives are represented as some material forces (water, fire, wood, metal, earth).

Confucianism

The founder of Confucianism is Kun-Tzu (Confucius). He taught that heaven is a higher power, a formidable ruler, fate, fate, which is dissatisfied with the existing state of affairs. His ideals are not in the future, but in the past. Kun Tzu founded the idea of ​​"name correction". This idea was to try to bring the phenomena back to their former meanings. With all deviations from the norm, Confucius believed, one should definitely return to it.

According to Confucius, the basis of order in the country is (ceremonial, ritual, reverence, decency, and so on ...)

Confucian ethics is based on the concepts of "reciprocity", "golden mean" and "philanthropy", which constitute the "right path". The right path must be followed by every person who wants to live happily. Confucius believed that the key to governing the people lies in the strength of the moral example of superior citizens to inferior ones.

Kun Tzu seeks to eliminate cruelty, rudeness, robbery and greed.

Confucian philosophy emphasizes the idea of ​​zhong ("devotion") - the idea of ​​obedience. The need to honor the ruler, parents and elder brothers as younger was also emphasized. Confucius put forward the idea that people are inherently close to each other, that people have innate knowledge, which he considered "the highest knowledge." Also, people have other types of knowledge gained through training and direct experience.

The founder of Taoism is Lao Tzu. The central concept of the teachings of Taoism - Tao - is the universal law of the world, the fundamental principle and completion of all that exists. Tao is eternal, nameless, incorporeal and formless, inexhaustible and endless in its movement. Tao is present in all material things and leads to changes in these things, turning things into their opposites.

Taoism recognizes the independence of human actions. The cause of all adversity, according to the followers of Taoism, is a violation of the action of the Tao. Therefore, in order to get rid of adversity, you need to give up everything that has been achieved.

Reasonable behavior, according to Taoism, is the desire for calmness, for moderation. Taoism considers the concept of non-action to be the basis of the concept of management.

Cognition for the followers of the Tao teachings does not matter, since they believe that the more a person knows, the further he moves away from the true Tao.

Ticket 4. The main schools of pre-Socratic ancient philosophy.

Milesian school- is known as the first philosophical school. In it, for the first time, the question of the fundamental principles of all that exists was consciously raised. In the first place was the question of the essence of the world, and most representatives adhered to the materialistic point of view. Thales considered water to be the origin, his disciple Anaximander was apeiron (some hypothetical natural material), and Anaximander's disciple, Anaximenes, was air, his disciple Anaxagoras considered the origin of an infinite number of small material particles, qualitatively different from each other, which he calls the seeds of things. An adherent of the Milesian school, Heraclitus called fire the first principle, since not only ordinary material bodies, but also souls originate from fire. The soul is material, it is the least moist, dry fire. All things arise from fire through successive transformations.

School of Pythagoras- Number is the basis of the world. Things are changeable, and numbers are universal and regular. The achievement of the Pythagoreans was the explanation of the properties of an object through its organization, orderliness. A student of Pythagoras, Empedocles considered four elements to be the beginning of all things: fire, earth, water and air. The main elements and forces can neither arise nor be destroyed. Only the unions of the elements arise or, rather, unite and separate.

Elea school- its founder, Parmenides believed that being is pure positivity, and non-being is negativity. Being is one, outside of time, eternal, indivisible, immutable and exists only in the present, only it truly exists, and plurality, variability, discontinuity, fluidity - all this is the lot of the imaginary. (In other words, being is one, and change is illusory.) Ticket 5 Philosophy of Socrates and Plato

Socrates (about 470-399 BC), an ancient Greek philosopher, one of the founders of dialectics as a method of finding truth by asking leading questions - the so-called. the Socratic method (MAYEVTIKA (Greek maieutike, letters - midwifery), the method of Socrates to extract the knowledge hidden in a person with the help of skillful leading questions.). He was accused of "worshiping new deities" and "corrupting youth" and sentenced to death (took the poison of hemlock).

He expounded his teaching orally; the main source is the writings of his students Xenophon and Plato. The goal of philosophy is self-knowledge as a way to comprehend true good; virtue is knowledge or wisdom. For subsequent eras, Socrates became the embodiment of the ideal of the sage.

Key ideas: Maieutics and irony

Socratic dialogues were a search for true knowledge, and an important step on this path was the realization of its absence, the understanding of one's own ignorance. According to legend, the Delphic pythia Socrates was called “the wisest of all the wise”. Apparently, this is due to his statement about the limitations of human knowledge: "I know that I know nothing." Using the method of irony, Socrates puts on the mask of a simpleton, asks to teach something or give advice. There is always a serious goal behind this game - to force the interlocutor to reveal himself, his ignorance, to achieve the effect of a beneficial shock of the listener.

About a human. Repeating "Know thyself" after the Delphic Oracle, Socrates addresses the problem of man, to the solution of the question about the essence of man, about his nature. You can study the laws of nature, the movement of stars, but why go so far, as Socrates says, - know yourself, delve into the close, and then, through the knowledge of available things, you can come to the same deep truths. For Socrates, man is, first of all, his soul. And by “soul” Socrates understands our reason, the ability to think, and conscience, the moral principle. If the essence of a person is his soul, then not so much his body as his soul needs special care, and the highest task of an educator is to teach people how to cultivate a soul. Virtue makes the soul good and perfect.

Socrates reveals the concept of happiness and the possibility of achieving it. The source of happiness is not in the body or in something external, but in the soul, not in enjoying the things of the external material world, but in the feeling of inner fulfillment. A person is happy when his soul is ordered and virtuous.

The soul, according to Socrates, is the mistress of the body, as well as the instincts associated with the body.

Plato (428 or 427 BC - 348 or 347), ancient Greek philosopher. Disciple of Socrates, c. 387 founded a school in Athens. The main part of Plato's philosophy, which gave the name to the whole direction of philosophy, is the doctrine of ideas (eidos), of the existence of two worlds: the world of ideas (eidos) and the world of things, or forms. Ideas (eidos) are prototypes of things, their sources. Ideas (eidos) underlie the whole multitude of things formed from formless matter. Ideas are the source of everything, but matter itself cannot generate anything. Plato depicts the human soul in the form of a chariot with a rider and two horses, white and black. The charioteer symbolizes the rational principle in man, and the horses: white - noble, highest qualities of the soul, black - passions, desires and instinctive principles. The second power, no less transforming a person and capable of raising him to the world of the gods, is Love. In general, the philosopher himself reminds Eros: he also seeks to achieve good, he is neither wise nor ignorant, but is an intermediary between one and the other, he does not have beauty and good, and that is why he strives for them. Ideas (the highest among them is the idea of ​​good) - eternal and unchanging intelligible prototypes of things, of all transient and changeable being; things are the likeness and reflection of ideas. Knowledge is anamnesis - the memory of the soul about the ideas that it contemplated before its connection with the body. Love for an idea (Eros) is the motivating cause of spiritual ascent. The ideal state is a hierarchy of three estates: rulers-wise men, warriors and officials, peasants and artisans. Plato intensively developed dialectics and outlined the scheme of the main stages of being developed by Neoplatonism. In the history of philosophy, the perception of Plato changed: "divine teacher" (antiquity); forerunner of the Christian worldview (Middle Ages); philosopher of ideal love and political utopian (Renaissance).

The works of Plato are highly artistic dialogues; the most important of them: "Apology of Socrates", "Phaedo", "Feast", "Phaedrus" (doctrine of ideas), "State", "Teetet" (theory of knowledge), "Parmenides" and "Sophist" (dialectics of categories), "Timaeus" (natural philosophy). Ticket 6. Philosophy of Aristotle Aristotle. If things do exist, then ideas of things necessarily exist; so that without an idea a thing does not exist, or the thing itself remains unknowable. There is no fundamental separation of the idea of ​​a thing from the thing itself. The idea of ​​a thing is within the thing itself. The idea of ​​a thing, being something singular, just as the thing itself is singular, at the same time is a generalization of all parts of a thing, is a kind of generality.

The commonality of a thing necessarily exists in each separate thing, and it exists each time in a different way; but this means that the generality of a thing encompasses all its separate parts and therefore is the wholeness of a thing. The integrity of a thing, when with the removal of one part of a thing, the whole thing also perishes, there is an organism of a thing, in contrast to the mechanism of a thing, when a thing remains whole, despite any removal of its individual parts and their replacement with other parts. An organism is such a wholeness of a thing, when there is one or several such parts in which the integrity is substantially present. The four-principle structure of every thing as an organism: 1. The eidos (idea) of a thing is its essence, which is in itself, and without which it is generally impossible to understand what a given thing is. 2. The matter of a thing is only the very possibility of its design, and this possibility is infinitely varied. The eidos of a thing is not its matter, and the matter of a thing is not its eidos. Matter is only the possibility of realizing eidos. 3. If things move, and for movement there must be some definite reason for the movement, then this means that it is necessary to recognize a certain self-movement, a certain reason, which is the reason for itself. There is a self-motive cause in being, and this self-mobility is reflected in one way or another in the real dependence of the movement of one thing on the movement of another thing.

Basic philosophical views. But apart from the theoretical assimilation of the material, Aristotle was characterized by their comprehension, addition, processing. Thinking about the existence of the world in all its manifestations, he names 4 reasons for the existence of any thing or object. In his philosophy, Aristotle briefly and succinctly describes these factors: matter, form, cause and purpose. God, according to his teaching, is immaterial, being the prime mover himself. The goals for each subject of being are different, the highest goal of the universe is the achievement of the Good - the highest value described by Plato. The goal of every thing, including a person, is to fulfill its purpose as fully as possible.

If we talk about the philosophy of Aristotle briefly, then its main features can be called the scientist's attention to the realized, existing world. From this position, he is often compared with Plato, who saw the purpose of man's earthly stay in striving for the Divine, which he designated by the category "One". It is believed that with Aristotle and his teacher two paths of development of European culture took shape: Western - Aristotelianism - with his desire to know God in this world and Eastern - Platonism, characterized by a craving for the sublime, unearthly. Ticket 7 Philosophy of Neoplottonism and Stoicism The founder of Stoicism in philosophy is Zeno of Kitia in Cyprus (c. 333 - 262 BC) ..

According to the Stoics, the world is a single whole. This integrity is based on universal coherence and necessary conditional interconnection. The world, according to Chrysippus, is spherical and located in an endless void, which is incorporeal.

The Stoics believed that everything in nature is in motion. Moreover, in their opinion, there are 3 types of movement: change, spatial movement and tension. Stress is viewed as a state of pneuma. Depending on the state of pneuma in bodies, four kingdoms of nature are distinguished: inorganic, flora, fauna and the world of people. Pneuma is understood not only as a physical, but also as a spiritual principle. The highest tension of pneuma as a spiritual principle is characteristic of sages. But pneuma is something divine for the Stoics, for them it acts as reason, the logos of the cosmos. The mind of God, in their opinion, is pure fire. For the Stoics, God is the highest rational force that controls everything and gives purpose to everything. In the world, according to the Stoics, a harsh necessity reigns. Its manifestation is subject to the will of God.

At the heart of Stoic ethical discourse is not the concept of happiness, but the concept of duty. The Stoics, developing their original ethics, saw a duty in the pursuit of moral perfection, which is achieved when a person lives in accordance with nature and obeys fate. A person, the Stoics believed, cannot make this world perfect, but he can arrange a perfect world in himself, acquire a proud dignity, and follow the high requirements of morality. Striving for perfection lies on the paths of knowing the world and exercising in virtuous behavior. Inner freedom is achieved by knowing the need to follow the requirements of unquestioned duty.

The Stoics believed that the path to bliss was in equanimity. They paid close attention to the analysis of passions, demanding their submission to reason. Passions were divided into four types: sadness, fear, lust and pleasure.

Sadness, according to the Stoics, is manifold. It can be caused by compassion, envy, jealousy, ill will, anxiety, grief, etc. Stoics viewed fear as a premonition of evil. They understood lust as the unreasonable striving of the soul. Pleasure was perceived by the Stoics as an irrational use of desires. The Stoics shunned pleasure. For them, the ideal was an impassive person, an ascetic.

Passion, according to the Stoics, is a source of evil, which can act in the form of foolishness, cowardice, immoderation and injustice.

The Stoic seeks to rise above the passions. This is achieved by understanding the essence of good and evil, between which, as they believed, lies a vast field of the morally indifferent.

The Stoics taught moderation, patience, courageous endure of the blows of fate. They proclaimed: be a man both in poverty and in wealth, preserve your dignity and honor, no matter what it costs you, if fate intended you poverty, ill health, homelessness, endure them without lamenting, if you are rich, handsome, smart, be moderate in the use of these benefits, remember that tomorrow you may be poor, sick, persecuted.

The largest representatives of middle stoicism are Panetius (about 185 - 110/109 BC) and Posidonius (135 - 51 BC). They softened the rigor of the original Stoicism.

NEOPLATONISM is the last stage in the development of ancient Platonism, the fundamental novelty of which, in comparison with average Platonism, should be considered the recognition of the super-being nature of the principle and the identity of mind-being as its first manifestation, which was first clearly presented in the philosophy of Plotinus (3rd century). Neoplatonism closes the middle Platonism, absorbs Neo-Pythagoreanism and, starting with Plotinus's pupil Porfiry, uses Aristotelianism as an introduction - Ch.O. logical - in the teachings of Plato. Ancient Neoplatonism gravitated towards the school organization and existed primarily in the form of a number of schools focused primarily on the interpretation of Plato's dialogues and the systematization of his teachings. True, the Plotinus school in Rome was a circle of listeners, which disintegrated during the life of the teacher. Nevertheless, it was in Plotinus and his students Amelia and Porfiry that the basic concepts of the neo-Platonist system were developed: at the head of the hierarchy of being is the super-existent single-good, comprehensible only in super-intelligent ecstasy and expressed only by means of negative (apophatic) theology; further, in the order of disclosing the one and as its main manifestations (hypostases) in the sphere of being (cf. Emanation), being-mind (nus) follows with ideas in it, the soul (psyche), turned to the mind and to the sensual cosmos, eternal in its temporary existence (third hypostasis). However, in the school of Plotinus there was still no clear basis for the interpretation of Plato's dialogues. Amelius, for example, carried out a threefold division of the mind and taught about three minds and three demiurges, believing that these are the "three kings" of the 2nd "Letter" of Plato, while Plotinus understood the "three kings" as one, mind and soul ... Porfiry, unlike Plotinus and Amelia, believed that by the demiurge of Plato one can understand not the mind, but the soul.

Ticket 8Philosophy of Epicureanism A well-known destination in philosophy the Hellenistic era was Epicureanism. His ancestor Epicurus (c. 342/341 - 270/271 BC) was born on the island of Samos. The works of the thinker have come down to us incompletely in the form of several letters and a significant number of fragments from his works.

Philosophy Epicurus understood as an activity that gives people, through reflection, a happy life devoid of suffering. The goal of his philosophy is not to change the world, but to adapt to it.

The philosophy of Epicurus is divided into three parts Chief among them is ethics, which teaches how to achieve happiness. The second part of philosophy is physics. It gives an idea of ​​the natural world, frees one from fear of it and serves as the basis for ethics. Both of these parts are based on the canon, a kind of theory of knowledge and the methodology of science, serving as the third part. In Epicurus, cognition is possible on the basis of sensations. Repetitive sensations, sinking deeply into the consciousness of a person, form concepts. Epicurus viewed feelings as infallible, and deduced errors from wrong judgments.

In physics, Epicurus proceeded from the recognition of the eternity and non-creation of the world. He, following Democritus, adhered to the idea of ​​the atomic structure of matter... Pointing to knowledge as a means of subordinating necessity to a rational acting person, Epicurus thereby pointed to a real way of raising above necessity, subordinating it to one's interests. This circumstance allowed the philosopher to regard man in the world not as a puppet, but as a free creator of his actions, of his destiny. In other words, Epicurus sees the path to freedom in the cognition of phenomena that occur due to necessity and chance.

Prudence, as a human ability, is formed through upbringing. It relieves a person of boundless absurd passions and fear, which is an indispensable and first condition for gaining the ability to think happily and avoid unhappiness. Epicurus believed that the achievement of happiness should involve the release of a person from the bonds of social activity, meaning participation in political activity.

Dealing with Ethics Issues, which in the system of philosophizing Epicurus occupies a dominant place, and comparing the state of ataraxia and serenity with happiness, serenity (ataraxia) in him is only a condition for one of the types of pleasures, which he divided into active and passive or the pleasures of rest. The latter are, according to Epicurus, the result of serenity. Achieving happiness presupposes the realization of many desires. The philosopher believed that the combination of desires free from mistakes when choosing a line of behavior largely depends on the personality itself. According to Epicurus, the organization of a happy life does not require the free manifestation of knowledge, but its precise implementation within predetermined limits. In other words, one must observe the measure in realizing desires and receiving pleasure. The latter can be obtained only by observing the measure of needs realized in desires. The problem of pleasure holds a special place in the ethics of Epicurus.... In it, the thinker recognized that pleasure is the highest for man. This point of view is characteristic of hedonistic ethics. In doing so, pleasure is recognized as the beginning and end of a happy life. Epicurus associated pleasure with the absence of suffering. Epicurus understood pleasure as a borderline beyond which suffering begins.... Moderation in everything, including pleasures, is viewed by the thinker as an independent and significant benefit. According to the philosopher, one who is accustomed to moderation will not suffer when there is not much and one has to be content with little. Epicurus included among the most important conditions for a happy life, first of all, such seemingly elementary needs, but extremely important for maintaining life, such as the need for food and warmth. In his opinion, the satisfaction of these needs gives rise to the most pleasant pleasures.

Question 9: The Philosophy of Ancient Skepticism

Skepticism arises as a trend in philosophy, obviously, in connection with the collapse of some of the educated people of hopes for the previous claims of philosophy. Skepticism is based on a position based on doubt about the existence of any reliable criterion of truth.

Focusing on the relativity of human knowledge, skepticism played a positive role in the fight against various forms of dogmatism. Within the framework of skepticism, a number of problems of the dialectics of cognition were raised. However, skepticism had other consequences, since unrestrained doubts about the possibilities of knowing the world led to pluralism in understanding social norms, to unprincipled adaptability, servility, on the one hand, and disregard for human institutions, on the other.

Skepticism is contradictory in nature, it encouraged some to an in-depth search for truth, and others to militant ignorance and amoralism.

The founder of skepticism was Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360 - 270 BC). The philosophy of skeptics has come down to us thanks to the writings of Sextus Empiricus. His works give us an idea of ​​the ideas of the skeptics Pyrrho, Timon, Carnead, Clitomachus, Enesidem.

According to the teachings of Pyrrho, a philosopher is a person who strives for happiness. It, in his opinion, consists only in equanimity, combined with the absence of suffering.

Anyone who wants to achieve happiness must answer three questions:

what things are made of;

how to treat them;

what benefit we are able to get from our relationship to them.

Pyrrho believed that no answer could be given to the first question, nor could it be argued that something definite exists. Moreover, any statement about any object can be opposed with equal right by a statement that contradicts it.

From the recognition of the impossibility of unambiguous statements about things, Pyrrho deduced an answer to the second question: a philosophical attitude towards things consists in abstaining from any judgments... This is due to the fact that our sensory perceptions, although they are reliable, cannot be adequately expressed in judgments. This answer also predetermines the answer to the third question: the benefit and benefit arising from abstaining from all kinds of judgments consists in equanimity or serenity. This state, called ataraxia, based on the denial of knowledge, is viewed by skeptics as the highest degree of bliss.

The efforts of the skeptics Pyrrho, Enesidem and Agrippina, aimed at shackling human curiosity with doubt and slowing down the movement along the path of progressive development of knowledge, were in vain. The future, which was presented to skeptics as a terrible punishment for believing in the omnipotence of knowledge, nevertheless came and was not stopped by any of their warnings.

Question 10 Philosophy of Patristics.

A characteristic feature of the stage of medieval philosophy Patristics (2nd - 8th centuries), is that thinkers in order to confirm their ideas refer to the most authoritative and ancient source - the Bible.

Patristics is the direct successor of the apostolic tradition, which has the highest authority after the Old Testament. The philosophy created by the apostolic tradition was the first in time in Christianity. And by virtue of the traditionalism of thinking of representatives of patristics, it is considered as a prototype of any future philosophizing and its classic model. Based on this, they build their writings as an explanation of certain provisions of the Old and New Testaments.

A feature of the writings of the church fathers of the patristic period is that, along with knowledge of the texts of Scripture, they reflect all the richness and diversity of ancient philosophy. Patristics created a tradition that found its continuation in scholasticism. This makes it possible to consider patristics and scholasticism as phenomena of the same order, firstly, due to the common way of philosophizing for them, and secondly, due to the reliance on the same principles that mediate the content of philosophical writings. These principles include:

theocentrism (monotheism) - recognition as the source of all that exists God;

creationism - recognition that God created everything out of nothing;

providentialism - recognition that God rules over all;

personalism - recognition that man is a "person", created by God in his own image and endowed with a conscience;

revelationism - the recognition that the most reliable way of knowing the most important truths for a person is to comprehend the meaning of Scripture;

eschatology - the history of mankind is the struggle for the salvation of the world, since man turns away from God;

the dual nature of Jesus Christ - both God (works miracles) and man (possesses a human body).

At the patristic stage, such fathers of the Christian Church made a great contribution to the development of philosophy as: Tertullian (160 - 220), Origen (c. 185 - 253/254), Cyprian of Carthage (after 200 - 258), Eusebius Pamphilus (c. 260 - 339), Athanasius the Great (295 - 373), Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzen) (329/330 - 390), Basil the Great (about 330 - 379), Ambrose of Mediolan (333/334 - 397), Gregory of Nyssa (335 - after 394), Jerome of Stridonsky (347 - 419/420), Augustine the Blessed (354 - 430) and others.

The range of problems that interested the representatives of patristics was wide. And yet it remained in the foreground the problem of man and his device in the world... Significant here was the problem of the relationship between knowledge and faith... Faith was given priority. At the same time, knowledge was often viewed as a means to strengthen faith. Another important issue discussed during the Patristic period and later is the problem of free will. At the same time, some medieval philosophers denied free will, others admitted it, but limited it to the possible intervention of God, and still others defended the idea that people are free in their will, but the world is not free from the will of God.

Another widely discussed range of problems related to ethics. One of them was the problem of good and evil in the world... Many Christian philosophers of the Patristic period believed that evil in the world has its source in the deeds of people, which are the realization of their free will, struck by delusions. Other thinkers saw the source of evil in the machinations of the devil.

The Greek word skepticism combines, as it were, three meanings - consideration, doubt, and refraining from judgment. Skeptics have always seen and still see their goal in refuting the dogmas of all schools of thought.

Skepticism has taken place in Greek philosophy before. In the Hellenistic era, its principles were formed, for skepticism was determined not by methodological guidelines in the impossibility of further knowledge, but by the rejection of the possibility of reaching the truth. And this refusal becomes a program. Skepticism denied the truth of any knowledge. Refraining from judgment is his main thesis. Therefore, "the skeptics believed their goal was to refute the dogmas of all schools, but they themselves ... they did not define anything, did not determine what they did", eventually rejecting the very statement "not to assert anything."

Skepticism gravitated more towards the philosophy of the sophists. Along with the creation of large state associations, new systems of justification ceased to be created. There is also an appeal to the personality, only this time to the personality of the atomistic sense. It is necessary to substantiate the ideal of inner freedom; the position of man in this new world, the world of monarchy (despotic regime), is being substantiated.

In a huge sociality, a person could no longer influence the world, he obeyed him, large social associations are characterized not by the problem of man's influence on the world, but by the problem of calming down, consoling a person. It is necessary to bring a person to the level of nature - an understanding of civilization.

The problem of personal happiness is brought to the fore, then ataraxia (equanimity of the spirit) can be achieved - this is a natural state of a person, which allows him to endure the blows of fate. Epicurus proposed this way of substantiating personal happiness: happiness is pleasure. Pleasure is the ability to be content with what you have.

Arguments against the correctness of both sensory perceptions and "cognition of thought", that is, arguments explaining why it is necessary to refrain from judgments, skeptics have combined into ten theses - tropes. Probably, their author is Enesidem. In the first of these theses, the propositions about the reality of differences in the physiological structure of animal species, in particular their sensory organs, are questioned.

The second emphasizes the individual differences of people from the point of view of physiology and psyche. The third speaks of the difference in sensory organs, in which the same things cause different sensations (for example, wine appears red to the eyes, tastes tart, etc.).

The fourth draws attention to the fact that cognition is influenced by various states (bodily and mental) of the perceiving subject (illness, health, sleep, wakefulness, joy, sadness, etc.). The fifth thesis reflects the influence of distance, position and spatial relations on perception (what seems small from afar is large up close).

The sixth says that no perception is isolated to our feelings without the admixture of other factors. The following trope indicates different effects of different amounts of the same substance or matter (which in a small amount is useful, and in a larger amount it can be harmful).

The eighth relies on the fact that the definition of relationships between things is relative (for example, what is relative to one thing "to the right" may be relative to another "to the left"). The penultimate trope reflects the fact that "familiar and unusual things" evoke different feelings (for example, an eclipse of the sun as an unusual phenomenon, a sunset as a habit). The tenth trope supports the belief that nothing can be positively asserted - neither the existence of different rights, nor habits, nor beliefs, nor manifestations of faith, etc.

To these ten theses, Agrippa and his disciples added five more. The first of the new tropes argues for differences of views or opinions. The second criticizes the endless chain of evidence. The third emphasizes that any limitation always refers only to something specific. The fourth criticizes the acceptance of premises that are not subsequently proven. The fifth trope warns against circular proof. He points out that each proof, in turn, requires proof, this proof requires its own proof, and so on in a circle to the starting point. And although these new trails are more abstract, some of them can be reduced to early trails, just as some of the early trails are based on more or less similar principles.

Based on the no-claim principle, backed up by tropes, skeptics rejected any evidence. In contrast to the Epicurean and Stoic philosophy, in which the achievement of happiness necessarily presupposed the knowledge of the phenomena and laws of nature, that is, the knowledge of things, the philosophy of skepticism in the literal sense of the word rejects this knowledge. The main representative of the skepticism of ancient Rome was Enesidemus of Knossos, in his views he was close to the philosophy of Pyrrho.

Enesidem saw skepticism as a way to overcome the dogmatism of all existing philosophical trends. He paid great attention to the analysis of contradictions in the teachings of other philosophers. The conclusion from his skeptical views is that it is impossible to make any judgments about reality based on immediate sensations.

The most prominent representative of younger skepticism was Sextus Empiricus. His teaching also comes from Greek skepticism. In his works, he sets out the methodology of skeptical doubt, based on a critical assessment of the basic concepts of the then knowledge. Critical assessment is directed not only against philosophical concepts, but also against the concepts of mathematics, rhetoric, astronomy, grammar, etc. His skeptical approach did not escape the question of the existence of gods, which led him to atheism.

In his works, he seeks to prove that skepticism is an original philosophy that cannot be confused with others. philosophical directions... Sextus Empiricus shows that skepticism differs from all other philosophical currents, each of which recognizes some essences and excludes others, in that it simultaneously questions and admits all essences.

Roman skepticism was a specific expression of the progressive crisis of Roman society. Searches and studies of contradictions between statements of previous philosophical systems lead skeptics to a broad study of the history of philosophy. And although it is in this direction that skepticism creates a lot of value, on the whole it is already a philosophy that has lost the spiritual strength that lifted ancient thinking to its heights. In essence, skepticism contains more outright rejection than methodological criticism.

One of the first trends in the philosophy of Hellenism, which was destined to have a long life, is ancient skepticism. The term "skepticism" comes from the ancient Greek word "skepticism", which means "consideration", "hesitation". Skepticism asserts the impossibility of reliable knowledge or doubts about its achievement. Doubt, criticism, in one way or another, are always companions of philosophical reflection, therefore skepticism, to varying degrees, is inherent in many philosophical movements (for example, the Sophists or Democritus). But for the first time, skepticism reaches its consistent and full development in the 4th century. BC. in the writings of Pyrrho (365-275 BC), the founder of the "skeptics" movement.
Skepticism is associated with agnosticism - the denial of the knowability of the world or its individual aspects. There can be various degrees of agnosticism; when they are taken into account, one can distinguish complete and partial, extreme and moderate skepticism (1, 521). Partial skepticism as a form of doubt was characteristic of the Eleatic school, which asserted the division of the world into a genuine world (the world of being, reason and truth) and an inauthentic world (the world, in the opinion, is a changeable and sensual world). The Sophists also asserted the subjectivity of human cognition. Democritus spoke about the sensory qualities of things that are deceptive, but did not deny the possibility of reaching truth through reason. Likewise, Plato taught about the sensory illusory nature of a changeable world, but he considered the world to be a cognizable mind. Extreme skepticism is characteristic of Pyrrho, who denied the knowability of the world, and moderate - for his follower Arkesilaus, who only denied the existence of absolute truth, but not in general the knowability of the world.
Pyrrho, together with his teacher Anaxarchs, a follower of Democritus, took part in the eastern campaign of Alexander the Great, which then reached India. Pyrrho in India talked with gymnosophists, Indian philosophers. From them, apparently, he took on the doctrine of the vanity and inauthenticity of the world. And from the comparison of different cultures, religions, philosophical teachings, different structures of peoples' life, the idea of ​​the relativity of everything followed. Pyrrho did not write anything and information about his philosophy has come down to us from his student Timon (320-230 BC). The most famous of the skeptics are also Arkesilaus (315-240 BC), who headed the Platonic Academy, and synthesized skepticism with Platonism; as well as Carneades (II century BC), Enesidem (I century AD) and Sextus Empiricus (II century AD).
Pyrrho's focus is on the practical goal of achieving happiness. How can you achieve happiness? For this, it is necessary to answer three questions, Pyrrho believed: 1) what are the things that surround us, by their nature; 2) what should be our attitude towards them; 3) what result and benefit will we get from this attitude to things? (4, 303).
We cannot get a reliable answer to the first question, since all things are the same, indistinguishable and changeable. Nothing definite can be said about them. Everything is relative, everything should be doubted. Any thing is not more “this” than “that”. Knowing things, philosophers contradicted each other in everything. Nothing can be said for sure that this is the truth, and this is a lie. Hence the answer to the second question: our attitude to things should consist in abstaining (“era” (Greek) - stop, delay) from any judgments about them, asserting the truth or falsity of something. They say that the provocative question: "Have you died, Pyrrho?" Pyrrho answered firmly: "I do not know." This is followed by the practical result of such a theory (the answer to the third question) - the possibility, with such convictions, to achieve "apathy" (dispassion) and "ataraxia" (equanimity of spirit, composure, peace). In other words, you need to try to live without your own opinions, not to definitely affirm or deny anything, and when the need arises to act, you just need to follow the customs and laws of the country in which you are.
Diogenes Laertius tells the legend of how one day Pyrrho, being on a ship during a storm, set up a pig as an example to his disciples, which continued to eat calmly even in the storm, and maintain "dispassion" like a sage. He encouraged them to follow this example. Another legend is connected with Pyrrho. Once, when Pyrrho's teacher Anaxarchs was drowning in a swamp, Pyrrho passed by and did not help him. People were outraged by his behavior, but the escaped Anaxarchus nevertheless praised his disciple for his indifference and lack of love, which skeptics believed in the properties of the behavior of an ideal sage.
The famous researcher of ancient philosophy A.F. Losev believes that Pyrrho's skepticism and “this famous“ equanimity ”or“ ataraxia ”, this“ indifference ”to everything that exists, and even complete“ dispassion ”, apathy testify to an unprecedented rejection of any personal initiative in antiquity, an unprecedented reconciliation with the environment and about uncomplaining obedience to the prevailing social and political forces ”(6, 184). Let us add that the spread of skepticism is always a sign of a certain fatigue of culture and society from too great upheavals and transformations. Skepticism in antiquity was a manifestation of the crisis and a certain decline of ancient thought, because here it abandoned what was the cornerstone of classical ancient culture - the cult of reason and confidence in the cognizability of the world. What Socrates insisted on was denied in skepticism. After all, Pyrrho has no positive program at all, everything is based only on doubt and denial. But what about positive values?
The skeptical ideal of the sage is not very sympathetic: he is ready to betray a friend in trouble, he becomes like an animal in egoism and does not strive for anything high, he is reconciled with everything, even with injustice and evil. This is what a person can reach in his pursuit of self-preservation. The Epicurean, despite his indifference to society, still strives for knowledge and enjoys the truth, and the Stoic, in addition to developing philosophical reason and virtue, demonstrates steadfastness and courage in the face of fate, and is active in protecting the state. The Stoic ideal is preferred by society. Thanks to this ideal, Ancient Rome conquered half of the world and withstood the attacks of the barbarians on its borders for a long time. The Roman Empire lasted for almost five centuries. With the predominance of skeptical and epicurean imperatives in society, ancient culture was doomed to degeneration and death. But this is not the last word in ancient philosophy. Its final word was neo-Platonism, which revived the noble teaching of Plato already at the end of the ancient world.

The last major trend in Hellenistic philosophy was skepticism. It appeared almost simultaneously with Stoicism and Epicureanism at the turn of the 4th and 3rd centuries. BC e. Skeptics did not create schools as such, as the Stoics and Epicureans did, but the ideas of skepticism persisted and developed for about five centuries. Skepticism stood somewhat apart from other schools and opposed all of them its own philosophical doctrines, philosophers of other directions created theories, while skeptics only criticized and denied them. They called their opponents "dogmatists", or "asserting philosophers", and themselves - "abstaining from judgments" (effectors), only "seekers" (seitetics) or "considering" (skeptics). The last name was fixed, and skepticism began to be called a philosophical position that denies the possibility of knowing the truth. In antiquity, this position was more often called "pyrrhonism" after the name of its creator, and its less radical form, which developed at the Academy, was called "academicism."

Predecessors. The main predecessors of skepticism were the sophists, led by Protagoras. They prepared skepticism by their relativism and conventionalism. The Sophists, as well as the younger Eleatics, provided, in the opinion of skeptics, models of argumentation. But other philosophers also prepared skepticism with a critical part of their theory. Democritus, who presents sensually perceived qualities as subjective, and even Plato, a harsh critic of sensory knowledge, put their weapons in the hands of skeptics. The last; striving to spread their family tree even further, they considered Heraclitus and Xenophanes to be their ancestors.

Development. Ancient skepticism went through many changes and phases in its development. At first, it had a practical character, that is, it acted not only as the most true, but also as the most useful and advantageous position in life, and then turned into a theoretical doctrine; initially he questioned the possibility of any knowledge, then criticized knowledge, but only obtained by the previous philosophy. Practical and radical skepticism was proclaimed by the Pyrrhonists, and theoretical and critical - by representatives of the Academy. Ancient skepticism can be divided into three periods:

1) Senior Pyrrhonism, developed by Pyrrho himself and his student Timon of Fliunt, refers to the III century. BC At that time skepticism was of a purely practical nature: its core was ethics, and dialectics was only an outer shell; from many points of view, it was a doctrine analogous to early Stoicism and Epicureanism; however, Pyrrho, who was older than Zeno and Epicurus, came out with his teachings before them and, most likely, he influenced them, and not vice versa.

2) Academicism. As a matter of fact, during the period when a number of Pyrrho's disciples were interrupted, the skeptical tendency prevailed in the Academy; it was in the 3rd and 2nd centuries. BC e. "In the Middle Academy", the most prominent representatives of which were Arkesilaus (315-240) and Carneades (214-129 BC).

3) Junior pyrrhonism found his supporters when skepticism left the walls of the Academy. Studying the work of representatives of the Academy of a later period, it can be seen that they systematized skeptical argumentation. The original ethical position faded into the background, epistemological criticism came to the fore. The main representatives of this period were Enesidem and Agrippa. In this last period, skepticism gained many adherents among the doctors of the "empirical" school, among whom was Sextus Empiricus.

Skepticism, which, although it remained true to its original position, underwent significant changes in the course of development: the demanding, moralizing skepticism of Pyrrho found its application over the course of many centuries in positivist empiricism.

Founders. Pyrrho lived in about 376-286. BC e., was an artist and already in adulthood took up philosophy. The formation of his views was most influenced by the teaching Democritus(he was a student of Anaxarch of Abdera, who, in turn, was a student of Metrodorus, a student of Democritus), then he was influenced by Indian magicians and ascetics, whom he met when he took part in Alexander's campaign in Asia; in their indifference to life and suffering, Pyrrho saw the best means to achieve happiness. He developed this idea not only in theory, but was also guided by it in his own life. The attitude of indifference, the quintessence of the wisdom of the East, was that alien motive that, with the help of Pyrrho, was introduced into the philosophy of the Greeks.

Returning from Asia, he settled in Elis and founded a school there. With his life, he earned universal respect, and thanks to him, the inhabitants of Elis freed philosophers from taxes, and he himself, a skeptic, was elected the highest priest. Pyrrho left no work behind him, because he believed that knowledge cannot be obtained. He became the patron saint of later skeptics, and they attributed their own ideas to him, just as the Pythagoreans did to Pythagoras. Pyrrho's disciples rather inherited his style of life, his theory was developed only by Timon from Fliunt. He lived for 90 years (325-235 BC), studied in Megara, but, having met Pyrrho, moved to Elis. Later he settled in Athens, where he lived until the end of his life. Timon made his living teaching rhetoric and philosophy. He was a man of a different kind from Pyrrho. His skepticism had, as it were, a twofold source: on the one hand, a Pyrrhic education, and on the other, his inherent sarcasm told him that one should suspect a lie in everything. Unlike Pyrrho, he wrote a lot, not only philosophical treatises, but also tragedies, comedies and satirical poems.

Arkesilaus(315-241 BC), head of the Academy. which introduced skepticism into her. He was the younger age of Timon and a student of the Peripatetic Theophrastus. The Academy and Lyceum fought for a talented philosopher with each other. The Academy pulled him to their side, but then Arkesilaus pulled the Academy to the side of Pyrrho. He represented a different type of personality than the esteemed Pyrrho and the sarcastic Timon; he was a type of skeptic - a socialite, and because of this grace should have been the dominant feature of his thinking. Arkesilaus was a man who knew how to arrange his life, was a lover of beauty, art and poetry, was known for his independent and chivalrous character.

Carnead was the head of the Academy about a hundred years later than Arkesilaus (214-129 BC). After Pyrrho, he did the most to develop skepticism. Many of the strongest skeptical arguments go back to him, and in particular the criticism of religious dogmatism. He represented another type of personality: this skeptic was busy fighting dogmatism and, in accordance with ancient customs, did not have time to cut his beard and nails. Carneades, like Pyrrho and Arkesilaus, did not write. But as Pyrrho had Timon, Arkesilaus - Lacida, so he had his own Kleitomakh, who wrote for him. There is no personal information about later skeptics.

Works. From the works of skeptics, the works of a late representative of the school have survived Sixth, nicknamed Empiricist, who lived in the III century. Two of his works, which have come down to us in full, provide a clear and systematic overview of ancient skepticism. One of these works, Pyrrhian Provisions, was written in three books in the form of a textbook, where Sextus set out the views of skeptics, first comparing their general arguments in favor of the impossibility of knowledge in general, and then consistently demonstrating the impossibility of logical, physical and ethical knowledge. The second work - "Against Mathematicians" - in eleven books has a similar content, but it is polemical in form and consists of two parts: five books - are directed against the dogmatism of philosophers and six books - against the dogmatism of scientific specialists in the field of mathematics, astronomy, music , grammar and rhetoric.

Views. Initially, the foundations of skepticism were of a practical nature: Pyrrho took a skeptical position in philosophy, saying that only she alone will provide happiness, will give calmness, and happiness lies in calmness. It is the skeptic who, convinced that he is not capable of satisfactory solution of any issue, has no voice anywhere, and this restraint provides him with peace of mind. Pyrrho's teachings included two elements: an ethical doctrine of tranquility and an epistemological skeptical doctrine. The first testified to the principled position of Pyrrho in philosophy, the second was its proof. The first became a general characteristic of Hellenistic philosophy, and the second became the specialty of Pyrrho and his students.

Pyrrho posed three fundamental questions: 1) What are the qualities of things? 2) How should we behave in relation to things? 3) What are the consequences of our behavior towards them? And he answered: 1) We do not know what are the qualities of things. 2) Therefore, we must refrain from judging about them. 3) This abstinence brings peace and happiness. For Pyrrho, the latter position was most important, but his followers shifted the center of gravity to the first position. It provides the rationale for the entire doctrine, and it was in it that the originality of skepticism lay, and not in eudemonism, which was in the spirit of the times and to which other schools, especially the Epicureans, were inclined. A separate problem faced by skeptics at that time was the criticism of human knowledge, the opinion that knowledge is impossible in any form and in any sphere. In accordance with this task, skeptics brought up critical, negative, destructive qualities of the mind and tried to cultivate these "skeptical abilities" in themselves. From the reserved position of Pyrrho, his followers went over to the defiant position.

They rejected scientific judgments, for they are all untrue. Only the skeptics did not try to question the judgments about the phenomena. For example, if I eat something sweet or hear some sound, then this is undoubtedly. But science and our ordinary judgments do not concern phenomena, but their real basis, that is, what is their cause. Honey is not what my sweetness is. Knowing only one's own state, there is no need to assume something about its similarity to anything, since knowing only the portrait, there is no way to know whether it is similar or not similar to the original. The causes of phenomena - as opposed to the phenomena themselves - are unknown to us, and therefore judgments about them are always untrue.

The ancient skeptics substantiated their position not with the help of a psychological analysis of the human mind, since such an analysis would demonstrate the inability of the mind to cognize, but through the logical analysis of statements. Their general attitude was as follows: each judgment must be opposed by a judgment that has "not great" strength, "not great" truth. The result of their criticism, in the most general sense, was the isosthenia or "equivalence of judgments." No judgment is logically stronger or more true than another. The method of skeptical understanding of them is based on the fact that, wishing to question any statement, skeptics opposed it with a different, contrary to it, but "equivalent" judgment. In addition to this general method, later skeptics developed certain special persistent arguments for refuting judgments, which they called "tropes" or ways.

These arguments were once reduced to two ("two paths" were formulated, possibly, by Menodotus); any judgment, if true, is such either directly or indirectly, but, firstly, direct truth does not exist due to the diversity and relativity of views, and secondly, mediated there can be no truth, since there are no immediately true judgments that could serve as premises for proof.

Each of these tropes was specially developed by the skeptics: 1) immediate truth cannot be sought: a) not through perception; b) neither by means of concepts and 2) indirectly: a) nor by means of deduction; b) not by induction; c) not through the application of criteria.

I. A) Arguments against the possibility of knowing things with the help of feelings gave Enesidem in their classic ten tropes:!) The same things will be perceived differently by different kinds of creatures. A person perceives differently than an animal, since he has other senses, a differently arranged eye, ear, tongue, skin. It is impossible to decide whose perception is better suited to the perceived thing, since there is no reason to give preference to a person. 2) The same things are perceived differently by different people. There is also no reason to give preference to one over the other. 3) The same things are perceived differently by different senses. One and the same person perceives a thing quite differently, depending on which sense organ is used, there is no reason to give preference to one feeling over another. 4) The same things are perceived differently, depending on the subjective states of the perceiver. Therefore, even with the same feeling, one can perceive the same thing in different ways: to a patient with jaundice, honey seems bitter, and when he is healthy, it seems sweet. 5) The same thing is perceived differently, depending on its position and distance to the perceiver. The oar is straight in the air, and half-submerged in the water has a kink; the tower looks round from a distance, but from a distance it looks multifaceted; we must consider each object from a certain distance, in some circumstances and in every position, and at a certain distance we will perceive it differently, and there is also no reason to assume that this, and not another position, is, and not a different distance gives the true image of a thing. 6) Things are perceived not directly, but through the environment that is between them and the perceiver, and because of this, no thing can be perceived in its pure form. 7) The same things cause different impressions depending on how much they are and what their structure is: sand in a small amount is hard, and in a large amount it is soft. 8) Any perceptions are relative and depend on the nature of the perceiver and on the conditions in which the perceived thing is located. 9) Things are perceived differently, depending on how often we perceived them before. 10) A person's judgments about things depend on his upbringing, customs, faith and beliefs.

These tropes can be reduced, and later skeptics reduced them to one - to the relativity of perceptions. The meaning of understanding is the same everywhere: one cannot be satisfied with perception, since the perceptions of one and the same thing differ from each other, and there is no such meaning for the sake of which one can be satisfied with one perception, and not another; perceptions are different from each other because they are relative and dependent on both subjective (paths 1-4) and objective (5-9) conditions.

B) Arguments against the possibility of knowing things by means of concepts. Here is another argument. The object that we must know through concepts is the species. A species either includes or does not include all eligible units. The latter assumption cannot be accepted, for if he did not include them, he would not be a species. But the first is also impossible, since, embracing all units, the species would have to have the characteristics of all of them, for example, a tree would have to be both a sycamore and a chestnut tree, have needles, and leaves, leaves - both round and pointed. And since each tree belongs to a certain type of tree, then each should have all the qualities of the species, but qualities that are not connected and contradict each other. Consequently, the view is somewhat contradictory, and therefore insignificant. Consequently, no object corresponds to concepts, and we do not know anything with the help of concepts. Consequently, the method of cognition with the help of concepts, proclaimed by the majority of philosophers, in particular Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, must be rejected.

II. No method of indirectly substantiating judgments is satisfactory - neither deductive nor inductive.

A) Deduction refutes some of Agrippa's tropes. There are five of these tropes: 1) contradictory views; 2) incompleteness of the proof; 3) the relativity of perception; 4) the use of insufficient conditions; 5) the presence of a false circle in the proof.

These positions were formulated later than those of Enesidem, and cover more material in fewer tropes. Here the first trail corresponds to the last at Enesidem, and the third trail corresponds to the other nine. The three remaining, having no analogues in the provisions of Enesidem, are directed against the possibility of deduction and proof. The second and fourth present a dilemma. Looking for reasons for consequences from any judgment, we interrupt further proof and in this case we leave all the proofs on unreasonable premises (4th trope), or we do not interrupt the proofs, but then we are forced to go to infinity, but we cannot realize any infinity (2nd trope). But this is not enough: in accordance with the fifth trope, in every proof we go on a false circle in the case when the conclusion is already contained in the premises. In accordance with this statement, if all people are mortal, then we conclude that Dion is mortal, however, in the statement that all people are mortal, there is already a judgment that Dion is mortal.

These questions did not call into question the relation of succession between premises and inference, but they touched on the premises themselves, which are never them, so that they could be used as the basis of reasoning; they are specifically directed against the Aristotelian doctrine of directly true premises.

B) The argument against induction of skeptics was as follows: induction is either complete or incomplete, but complete induction is impossible (since it has no final solution, therefore it is not feasible), and incomplete induction costs nothing (due to the fact that the case not provided for by it can negate the results obtained).

C) Consequently, we cannot obtain knowledge either directly or indirectly, or by means of feelings, or by means of concepts, or by means of deduction, or by means of induction. We are doomed only to enumerate the multitude of existing judgments that contradict each other, and are not able to choose among them those that are true. No judgment is true in itself; not there are external differences, which would separate true judgment from false. (This statement was directed against the Stoics and their cataleptic beliefs.) Also there are no external criteria, which would be the measure of the truth of the judgments. The doctrine of criteria, which was developed by the Hellenistic theory of knowledge, according to skeptics, leads to extraordinary difficulties,

1. The criterion must be supplemented with proof that it is true. However, in proving its truth, we either use it and then fall into a false circle of proof; or we apply another criterion, which in turn we have deduced, and so on ad infinitum, until we fall into an error of proof, into infinity.

2. There are various views on the criterion, and each school offers its own, but there is no criterion for choosing between them. A choice must be made, but who can be the judge, what power of reason should judge, and according to what norm? And at the same time, there is no way to solve these problems.

III. Not content with a general denial of the possibilities of knowledge, skeptics tried to refute particular theories and judgments both in theology and in natural science, both in mathematics and in ethics.

l.Bse theological problems are very contradictory, since they contain, as a rule, contradictory statements. Some theologodogmatists consider deity to be corporeal, others - incorporeal; some consider it immanent to the world, others - transcendental. Neither of these views can be preferred.

Hence, the concept of deity is full of contradictions. If the deity is perfect, then it is unlimited, if it is unlimited, then it is motionless, if it is motionless, then it is soulless, and if it is soulless, then it is imperfect. If it is perfect, then it must have all the virtues. And some virtues (for example, patience in suffering is a manifestation of imperfection, since only imperfection can be subjected to suffering). The concept of divine providence contains special difficulties. If providence only extended to some people, it would be unfair, since it is only possible for everyone. The universal divine providence is revealed as follows: God either wants and can, or can, but does not want, or wants, but cannot. The three indicated possibilities do not correspond to divine nature, and the first does not correspond to the facts, namely: the fact of the existence of evil in the world .. Any evidence of the existence of God (through universal consent, harmony of the world, statements of obviously absurd consequences, for example, that there would be faith in God without existence God) are insufficient. However, skeptics did not argue that there is no God: because the evidence for the absence of God is as insufficient as the evidence for his existence.

There remains only one existence in things, the same as in the characterization of the deity: to admit that we know nothing about them, and to refrain from conclusions and judgments.

2. The basic concepts of natural science are no less contradictory than theological ones. As far as matter is concerned, there is a great variety of views on its nature; the recognition of all these views as sufficient leads to absurdity, and the recognition of only a few leads to the need to highlight a criterion and, consequently, to an erroneous circle or to infinity in the proof.

The notion of cause most used by natural scientists is also controversial. It can be interpreted in one of three ways: either as simultaneous with the effect, or taking place before it, or after it. It (the cause) cannot be simultaneous, because something cannot be created if it already exists; it cannot manifest itself earlier, for in this case there would be no connection between cause and effect: there is no effect as long as the cause exists, and there would be no cause as long as the effect exists; especially since the cause cannot manifest itself later than the effect, that would be even greater nonsense. If none of these three cases is possible, then the existence of causes is impossible. In a similar way, skeptics sought to show that neither bodily, nor out-of-body, nor movable, nor motionless, nor acting independently, nor in combination with others, is a cause. Therefore, the cause is something about which we think and speak, but about which we really do not know anything. On the other hand, the denial that causes operate in nature also leads to absurd consequences. Nothing can be affirmed or denied.

Skeptics found similar difficulties both in the recognition and in the denial of other initial concepts of natural science that relate to motion, time and space.

3. The reasoning of mathematicians is also untrue, their concepts are also full of contradictions. A point is contradictory, a line is contradictory as a set of points, a line is a quantity devoid of width, a plane is devoid of depth.

4. In ethics, skepticism was based on the same arguments. Above all, the diversity that takes place in both moral customs and ethical theories; there is nothing that can be recognized as good by all. Therefore, no one knows what good is, since no one can define it; the definitions that are given either have no relation to the good at all, or refer only to things that are associated with it (for example, when it is defined as a benefit), or are so abstract (when they define it as happiness) that everyone manages to interpret it according to your own discretion. Finally, there is nothing that is by its nature a good, so definite, such as, for example, things that are either hot or cold by nature, because, for example, fire always heats everyone, and snow always cools everyone, and none of the so-called blessings always and everywhere gives the feeling of goodness.

Ultimately, good, as well as evil, is unknowable, like God, nature, or a mathematical figure; everyone has a different idea of ​​them. The only acceptable attitude towards him is to refrain from judgment. Ultimately, this concerns theoretical knowledge, a thing, and not a phenomenon: there is a doubt that a given thing is good, but, undoubtedly, we take it for good.

In any case, it is necessary to somehow live and coexist with other people; skeptics did not recognize any principles of knowledge, but they had to have and did have certain principles of life, namely: they were content with what natural inclinations and customs lead to each of them. In practical life, confidence is not required, a reasonably understood plausibility is enough.

In such a probabilistic spirit, the development of academic skepticism, as well as later pyrrhonism, proceeded; probability later penetrated the theory. Carneades argued that in fact no judgment is true, but it is equally untrue. There are levels of truth: 1) only true judgments; 2) true and consistent; 3) true, consistent and confirmed. Carneades believed that it is not necessary to refrain from judgments, you can express them if they are true. Because of this, the nature of the teachings of the skeptics has undergone a change: it has lost its radicalism and approached common sense.

The meaning of skepticism. Despite this, the tasks that the skeptics set themselves were negative. Their works were not about establishing the truth, but about revealing lies and demonstrating the untruth of human judgments, their role in philosophy was rather positive and even significant. They discovered many misconceptions and mistakes in the recognized philosophical views; used and systematized everything that was in the critical thought of Greece, increasing their fame. They were the "theoretical conscience" of their era, raised the level of evidence of science as a whole. Developing their views over several centuries with scrupulous systematicity, they have collected a true treasury of skeptical ideas and arguments, from which later eras have learned much.

Opposition, directed against skepticism, because of the difficulty of a direct attack, fought it, as a rule, in a roundabout way: 1) tried to demonstrate a lack of consistency in a skeptical position; show that the life of a skeptic cannot develop in accordance with his theory; 2) accused skeptics of using hidden, dogmatic principles, without which their argumentation lost its force; 3) exposed the clearly destructive moral consequences of skepticism.

Influence of pyrrhonism. Pyrrhonism emerged from antiquity and, in addition to its own school, influenced others. In addition to the Academy, in its "middle period" (III and II centuries BC), under his influence was the "empirical school" of healers who applied in medicine the principled idea of ​​skeptics: symptoms.

Antique skepticism was the culmination of skepticism; in later times it was supplemented only in particulars, and was never developed further. He was not so influential, but consistent skepticism found its supporters. In the Middle Ages, skepticism acted as an auxiliary doctrine serving dogmatic thought: in order to strengthen faith, some scholastics skeptically humiliated knowledge. In its purest form, skepticism manifested itself in modern times during the Renaissance directly in France in the 16th century. in the views of Montaigne. Strictly speaking, starting from that time, skepticism had supporters in all centuries (Beyle - at the beginning of the 18th century, Schulze - at the end of the 18th century), in all cases these were individual thinkers who did not have a large number of supporters and an influential skeptic schools. The ideas of ancient skepticism were used not only by supporters of skepticism, but also by criticism: Descartes, Hume and Mill updated the interpretation and argumentation of skeptics, but did not draw such extreme conclusions as they did.