Arcesilaus | |
|---|---|
 Arcesilaus and Carneades | |
| Born | 316/5 BC |
| Died | 241/0 BC |
| Philosophical work | |
| Era | Hellenistic philosophy |
| Region | Western philosophy |
| School | Academic Skepticism |
| Main interests | Epistemology |
| Notable ideas | Founder ofAcademic Skepticism |
Arcesilaus (/ˌɑːrsɛsɪˈleɪ.əs/;Ancient Greek:Ἀρκεσίλαος; 316/5–241/0 BC)[1] was aGreekHellenisticphilosopher. He was the founder ofAcademic Skepticism and what is variously called the Second or Middle or New Academy – the phase of thePlatonic Academy in which it embracedphilosophical skepticism.
Arcesilaus succeededCrates of Athens as the sixthscholarch of the academy around 264 BC.[2] He did not preserve his thoughts in writing, so his opinions can only be gleaned second-hand from what is preserved by later writers.
In Athens Arcesilaus interacted with thePyrrhonist philosopher,Timon of Phlius,[3] whose philosophy appears to have influenced Arcesilaus to become the first Academic to adopt a position ofphilosophical skepticism, that is, he doubted the ability of thesenses to discovertruth about the world, although he may have continued to believe in the existence of truth itself. This brought in theskeptical phase of the academy. His chief opponent was his contemporary,Zeno of Citium, the founder ofStoicism, whosedogma ofkatalepsis (i.e., that reality could be comprehended with certainty) Arcesilausdenied.
Arcesilaus was born inPitane inAeolis. His early education was provided byAutolycus themathematician, with whom he migrated toSardis. Afterwards, he studiedrhetoric inAthens. He then studied philosophy, becoming a disciple first ofTheophrastus and afterwards ofCrantor.[4] He also attended the school ofPyrrho, whosephilosophy he maintained, except in name.[5] He subsequently became intimate withPolemo andCrates of Athens, who made Arcesilaus his successor asscholarch (head) of thePlatonic Academy.[6]
Diogenes Laërtius says that, like his successorLacydes, Arcesilaus died of excessive drinking, but the testimony of others (e.g.Cleanthes, who said that he lived a dutiful life) and his own precepts discredit the story.[7] He is known to have been much respected by the Athenians.[6]
| Part ofa series on |
| Pyrrhonism |
|---|
 |
Similar philosophies |
Modern influence |
 Philosophy portal |
Arcesilaus committed nothing to writing. His opinions were imperfectly known to his contemporaries, and can now only be gathered from the statements of later writers. This makes his philosophy difficult to evaluate and partly inconsistent. This led scholars to see his skepticism in several ways. Some see his philosophy as completely negative or destructive of all philosophical views. Others regard him as taking the position that nothing can be known on the basis of his philosophical arguments. Others claimed he held no positive views on any philosophical topic, including the possibility of knowledge.[8]
Arcesilaus' contemporary,Aristo of Chios, described Arcesilaus as being: "Plato the head of him,Pyrrho the tail, midwayDiodorus"[9] meaning that Arcesilaus presented himself as aPlatonist, the substance of what he taught was the dialectics of Diodorus, but his actual philosophy was that ofPyrrhonism.[10]Eusebius, probably quotingAristocles of Messene, reported that Arcesilaus studied in Pyrrho's school and adhered, except in name, to Pyrrhonism.[11]Numenius of Apamea said "Arcesilaus accompaniedPyrrho. He remained Pyrrhonist in his rejection of everything, except in name. At least the Pyrrhonists Mnaseas, Philomelos andTimon call him a Pyrrhonist, just as they were themselves, because he too rejected the true, the false, and the persuasive."[12]Sextus Empiricus said that Arcesilaus' philosophy appeared essentially the same as Pyrrhonism, but granted that this might have been superficial.[13]
On the one hand, Arcesilaus professed to be no innovator, but a reviver of thedogma-free dialectic that had characterized the academy under Plato.[14] Thus he is said to have restored the doctrines ofPlato in an uncorrupted form. On the other hand, according toCicero,[15] he summed up his opinions in the formula, "that he knew nothing, not even his own ignorance." There are two ways of reconciling the difficulty: either we may suppose him to have thrown out such aphorisms as an exercise for his pupils, asSextus Empiricus,[16] who calls him a "skeptic", would have us believe; or he may have really doubted the esoteric meaning of Plato, and have supposed himself to have been stripping his works of the figments of theDogmatists, while he was in fact taking from them all certain principles.[17]
Cicero attributes the following argument to Arcesilaus:
(i) it is rash and shameful to assent to something false or unknown, but since(ii) nothing can be known (and obviously we shouldn't do what is rash and shameful),(iii) we should suspend judgment about everything[18]
Zeno of Citium and the otherStoics were the chief opponents of Arcesilaus. He attacked theirdogma ofkatalêptikê phantasia (i.e., a convincing conception) as understood to be a mean betweenepisteme (knowledge) anddoxa (opinion). He argued that this mean could not exist. It involved a contradiction in terms, as the very idea ofphantasia implied the possibility of false as well as true conceptions of the same object. As such, it was merely the interpolation of a name.[19]
ThePyrrhonist philosopher and contemporary of Arcesilaus,Timon of Phlius ridiculed Arcesilaus in hisSilloi, but also praised him inFuneral Banquet of Arcesilaus.[3] Fragments from Timon about Arcesilaus include:
The GreekMiddle Platonist philosopher, historian, biographer, essayist, and priestPlutarch wrote (Adversus Colotem, section 26):
"But the reputation of Arcesilaus, who was the best beloved and most esteemed of all the philosophers in his time, seems to have been no small eyesore toEpicurus; who says of him that, delivering nothing peculiar to himself or of his own invention, he imprinted in illiterate men an opinion and esteem of his being very knowing and learned. Now Arcesilaus was so far from desiring any glory by being a bringer-in of new opinions, and from arrogating to himself those of the ancients, that the sophisters of that time blamed him for attributing toSocrates,Plato,Parmenides, andHeraclitus the doctrines concerning the retention of assent, and the incomprehensibility of things; having no need so to do, but only that he might strengthen them and render them recommendable by ascribing them to such illustrious personages."
Blaise Pascal wrote of Arcesilaus in hisPensées (1669, para. 375):
I have seen changes in all nations and men, and thus after many changes of judgement regarding true justice, I have recognized that our nature was but in continual change, and I have not changed since; and if I changed, I would confirm my opinion. The skeptic Arcesilaus, who became a dogmatist.
Laërtius, Diogenes."The Academics: Arcesilaus" .Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Vol. 1:4. Translated byHicks, Robert Drew (Two volume ed.). Loeb Classical Library. § 35.; and Sextus Empiricus,Outlines of Pyrrhonism.
This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Arcesilaus".Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 2 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
This article incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Smith, William, ed. (1870). "Arcesilaus".Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology.
