Arcésilas de Pitane

Life

It studied rhetoric with Athens, took taste with philosophy and became the disciple of Théophraste, then of Crantor. It followed also the courses of Polémon and Cratès. Perhaps he knew Pyrrhon, Diodore and Ménédème. He had learned the Mathématiques with Autolycos and Hipponicus, and studied Plato for which he had a great admiration. After the death of Cratès, Socratides, recognizing the superiority of Arcésilas, left him the direction of the Academy. There was hardly event in its life and it kept away from the public affairs.

On its private life, rumors speak about vices and courtesans. He would have died in 75 years, drunk and delirious. But if it had many adversaries which perhaps calumniated it, Plutarque and stoical the Cléanthe offers a quite different image of it to us:

“Somebody tells him Cléanthe once Arcésilas neglected its duties: “You thus Conceal, says it, and do not blame it, because, if he hardly pronounces the word duty, he recommends it by his acts”. ”
Diogène Laërce, Lives, Doctrines and sentences of the famous philosophers , VII, 171

An originality of Arcésilas is its fortune, at one time when the majority of the philosophers were poor. It was extremely generous besides, and took care of the wellbeing of his friends. Plutarque describes it to us like a right and respectful man of its adversaries.

Doctrines

Skilful speaker, admired Cicéron, it did not cease fighting against stoicism in the person of his former school-fellow, Zénon de Citium (nevertheless, the dates seem to contradict this assumption that Zénon and Arcélisas were both disciples of Polémon). Thus, if he did not write anything, he left the memory of large a dialectician, which destabilized dogmatism serious and serious Stoïcien S. Its thought was put in writing by its successor, Lacydes, and by one of its disciples, Pythodore.

He was undoubtedly influenced by skepticism as testifies it worms to them to Ariston:

“Plato at the front, Pyrrhon behind, Diodore for the remainder. ”

But it is probable that it was strongly distinguished from the skeptics by certain sides, because Timon of Phlionte hated it, and it is known that this last hated all those who were not skeptics. According to Cicéron, Arcésilas took again the uses of the old Academy, i.e. he randomly spoke about all subject of the discussions and undertook to refute the theses exposed by questionings or speeches.

Critical of knowledge

We know his thought only by the debate on the criterion of the truth which opposed all hellenistic philosophies. The stoical ones admitted several degrees in knowledge:

the understanding representation, which is a clear and distinct representation;
the approval, which is the act of the heart which tests a true impression;
comprehension ( catalepsis ).

The wise one is then, according to Zénon, that which gives its approval only to understanding representations, it has only certainty.

However Arcésilas denies that one can give his approval to a representation; one gives it, according to him, only with a Jugement. Much more, there is no understanding representation, and the wise one will be thus that which refuses anything to affirm. The alternative posed is thus the following one: or the wise one has Opinion S, or he does not affirm anything. Zénon cannot accept the first part, since the opinion is not wisdom, but a lack of knowing as for what one affirms. Consequently, if there is no certainty, it is necessary to give up all Croyance.

Its principal argument consists in saying that one cannot distinguish between the true representations and the others, bus of the objects without existence also make on us clear and distinct impressions. It is possible that Arcésilas thought here of the Rêve S, with the errors of the directions, the madness, etc But to say that, it is to say that it is impossible to be based on the data of the directions to rise by the reasoning with a true knowledge of the causes and principles of the things. The reason thus does not do anything to us to know, since there is no criterion of the Vérité.

As for the criticism of the Physical and stoical Theology by Arcésilas, we hardly have information. It seems to be made fun about it. It remains to examine the Morale, where Arcésilas encountered a difficulty suitable for the skepticism.

Morals

This difficulty is the same one as one opposed to the former skeptics. If we are informed neither nor belief, how can we still act? To suspend its judgment, that seems well to be also to suspend its action: the action is impossible without belief. It is Cicéron which brings back to us this argument against the skeptics, and Arcésilas in particular. But it does not inform us on the ideas morals of this last.

The answer of Arcésilas is that the criterion of our actions is in the reasonable one ( εὔλογος / eulogos ). The duty is thus something of reasonable which we must follow by prudence, to be happy. The question is to know which direction to allot to the Greek word εὔλογος .

First of all, we know that this word does not have for Arcésilas the direction of “probable”. That is logical if it is considered that for him there is no criterion of truth, and that no representation can thus be more credible than another; according to which criterion, indeed, would be it? Moreover, the probable one is a form of approval; however Arcésilas rejects any form of approval. The probabilism which one makes the official doctrines of the Nouvelle Academy appears in fact only with Carnéade.

The reasonable one of Arcésilas indicates simply justifiable actions whose reasons are coherent: it is a subjective agreement of the representations which does not imply any dogmatic assertion. Arcésilas, contrary to the skeptics, thus preserves a role for the reason and consequently rejects the adiaphorie and the ataraxie pyrrhoniennes.

Conclusion

The theses of Arcésilas which we know are hardly original and Épicure reproached him anything for saying again. Its skill oratory and the pleasure expresses that it took to discourse of do everything to doubt if it were a Philosophe or a Sophiste. It is not known if it were a true skeptic or if it dogmatized in secrecy. According to Sextus Empiricus, its pyrrhonism was a frontage which enabled him to evaluate the spirit of its pupils before initiating them with the true dogmas of the Master. It would have pretends anything to believe and its doubt was also a protection against the attacks of its adversaries.

It is however difficult to believe that a large dialectician could have such fears. All testimonys of which we lay out (Cicéron, Sextus Empiricus, Augustin d' Hippone) have a dubitative form and it will be also pointed out that Timon of Phlionte spoke funeral in praise of Arcésilas. Arcésilas was thus, according to any probability, a skeptic spirit of the New Academy which one must distinguish from probabilism to come.

Sources

Cicéron, Academic the .
Sextus Empiricus, Drafts pyrrhoniennes and Against the professors .
.
Eusèbe de Césarée, evangelic Preparation , delivers XIV.

Random links: