Call me even more dubious of this whole enterprise than Massimo Pigliucci. Re the present post, nobody before Diogenes Laertius claimed Pyrrho got his philosophy from India. Second, identifying the "gymnosophists" as Buddhist (rather than as, say, Jains, which makes more sense based on the descriptor) is also touchy. The SEP has more on that one. Third, Diogenes also mentions the Magoi as well as gymnosophists. So, even if there is influence from the east, it can't all be traced to India, under this.
Diogenes Laertius compiled his work from texts that are now lost. Most ancient texts have not survived. Plutarch notes that Pyrrho's teacher, Anaxarchus, was part of Alexander's court on the Indian campaign.
Exactly who is being referred to by the term "gymnosophists" is irrelevant. The Greeks liked to write about the most exotic things they'd seen in foreign lands. They were not careful to import new terms into Greek to describe local groups. Besides, Pyrrho did not need to get Buddhist ideas directly from Buddhists. Anyone familiar with them could have told him about those ideas.
None of the ideas it appears that Pyrrho brought back from India were new to Greek thought. It's the arrangement of those ideas which was new - an arrangement that was much like how the ideas were arranged in Buddhism.
Well, given that Jainism and Buddhism aren't the same, that part isn't irrelevant. And, yes, I know DL was working from texts now lost. That means that we don't know how accurate he was or was not. As for what Pyrrho learned? SEP also notes some scholars raise eyebrows over language translation issues along with how much or how little Pyrrho could have learned, could have understood, or could have transcribed into Greek thought. And, of course, since Pyrrho himself didn't found Pyrrhonism as a school ...
I've seen the claim that Pyrrho didn't found Pyrrhonism. I've always considered it too silly and obtuse to bother refuting. All of the ancient texts say Pyrrho was the founder. Sextus frequently quoted Timon. There's clear continuity between what Pyrrho taught and all subsequent Pyrrhonists.
The only scholar I know of who has expressed concerns about the language barrier was Richard Bett, who has since changed his mind on the issue (see, for example, Bett's interview with Piglucci). Lots of people learn languages quickly. Have you seen that guy on Facebook who can become conversational in rare languages in just three weeks? Moreover, Matthew Neale has pointed out that Sanskrit and ancient Greek are closely related Indo-European languages, with some bits being mutually comprehensible.
Pyrrho spent a year and a half learning Indian philosophy in India. The fact that Jainism and Buddhism are not the same has nothing to do with what Pyrrho could learn in that time.
Last comment from me, and I'm likely to hit the mute button on the conversation. So, you can have the last word.
First, a year and a half isn't that long, and given that he was with other Greeks, wasn't "immersive." Sanskrit and Greek aren't THAT close, and they're from the two different main divisions of Indo-European; it's not like, say, Sanskrit and Avestan, or Greek and Lydian.
Is it possible that he could have learned that quickly? Yes. And, it's also possible not.
And, we'll continue to disagree on what tradition Pyrrho studied.
Finally? Contra Bob Wright (and others)? Buddhism is ultimately a religion.
The distinctions between religions and philosophies of life tend to be arbitrary. Early Christian apologists considered Christianity to be a philosophy in competition with the Greek philosophies of life. Socrates was sentenced to death for impiety. Epictetus' invocations of Zeus are little different from a Baptist preacher's invocations of God.
One reason people are turning towards philosophies of life such as Epicureanism and Stoicism is that they provide coherent alternatives to philosophies that involve priests, temples, and unquestioned faith; and are therefore subject to certain kinds of undesirable behaviors and conditions.
Buddhism has a philosophical foundation. Pyrrhonism shares a substantial portion of that foundation. Pyrrhonism can be viewed as a philosophical form of Buddhism that lacks the religious and mystical trappings. As such, Pyrrhonism may be uniquely suited as a philosophy of life for individuals who are psychologically allergic to religious structures.
Buddhists not only has a philosophical foundation, its adherents have been thinking and arguing about the same kind of stuff Western philosophers have been thinking and arguing about since the Ionians. Whether to call that body of work by Buddhists, philosophy, is profoundly uninteresting. The final point SocraticGadfly makes that Buddhism is ultimately a religion is both true and not true, but his intention in making that point is completely ignorant.
so what do you make of the Aristotelian and Platonic reforms aimed at Democritus?
clearly, there was an agenda behind them. we know that Plato and Aristotle were pro-oligarchy, pro-Sparta, anti-mysticism and were social revolutionaries. so what obstacle did they see in the more traditional Democritian view that had to be overcome?
This morning after writing my Saturday post, I saw, or felt, that I was more Pyrrho-adjacent than anything else. So this extract is timely, the actual book being my first exposure to neo-Pyrrhonist discussions.
Call me even more dubious of this whole enterprise than Massimo Pigliucci. Re the present post, nobody before Diogenes Laertius claimed Pyrrho got his philosophy from India. Second, identifying the "gymnosophists" as Buddhist (rather than as, say, Jains, which makes more sense based on the descriptor) is also touchy. The SEP has more on that one. Third, Diogenes also mentions the Magoi as well as gymnosophists. So, even if there is influence from the east, it can't all be traced to India, under this.
Diogenes Laertius compiled his work from texts that are now lost. Most ancient texts have not survived. Plutarch notes that Pyrrho's teacher, Anaxarchus, was part of Alexander's court on the Indian campaign.
Exactly who is being referred to by the term "gymnosophists" is irrelevant. The Greeks liked to write about the most exotic things they'd seen in foreign lands. They were not careful to import new terms into Greek to describe local groups. Besides, Pyrrho did not need to get Buddhist ideas directly from Buddhists. Anyone familiar with them could have told him about those ideas.
None of the ideas it appears that Pyrrho brought back from India were new to Greek thought. It's the arrangement of those ideas which was new - an arrangement that was much like how the ideas were arranged in Buddhism.
Well, given that Jainism and Buddhism aren't the same, that part isn't irrelevant. And, yes, I know DL was working from texts now lost. That means that we don't know how accurate he was or was not. As for what Pyrrho learned? SEP also notes some scholars raise eyebrows over language translation issues along with how much or how little Pyrrho could have learned, could have understood, or could have transcribed into Greek thought. And, of course, since Pyrrho himself didn't found Pyrrhonism as a school ...
I've seen the claim that Pyrrho didn't found Pyrrhonism. I've always considered it too silly and obtuse to bother refuting. All of the ancient texts say Pyrrho was the founder. Sextus frequently quoted Timon. There's clear continuity between what Pyrrho taught and all subsequent Pyrrhonists.
The only scholar I know of who has expressed concerns about the language barrier was Richard Bett, who has since changed his mind on the issue (see, for example, Bett's interview with Piglucci). Lots of people learn languages quickly. Have you seen that guy on Facebook who can become conversational in rare languages in just three weeks? Moreover, Matthew Neale has pointed out that Sanskrit and ancient Greek are closely related Indo-European languages, with some bits being mutually comprehensible.
Pyrrho spent a year and a half learning Indian philosophy in India. The fact that Jainism and Buddhism are not the same has nothing to do with what Pyrrho could learn in that time.
Last comment from me, and I'm likely to hit the mute button on the conversation. So, you can have the last word.
First, a year and a half isn't that long, and given that he was with other Greeks, wasn't "immersive." Sanskrit and Greek aren't THAT close, and they're from the two different main divisions of Indo-European; it's not like, say, Sanskrit and Avestan, or Greek and Lydian.
Is it possible that he could have learned that quickly? Yes. And, it's also possible not.
And, we'll continue to disagree on what tradition Pyrrho studied.
Finally? Contra Bob Wright (and others)? Buddhism is ultimately a religion.
The distinctions between religions and philosophies of life tend to be arbitrary. Early Christian apologists considered Christianity to be a philosophy in competition with the Greek philosophies of life. Socrates was sentenced to death for impiety. Epictetus' invocations of Zeus are little different from a Baptist preacher's invocations of God.
One reason people are turning towards philosophies of life such as Epicureanism and Stoicism is that they provide coherent alternatives to philosophies that involve priests, temples, and unquestioned faith; and are therefore subject to certain kinds of undesirable behaviors and conditions.
Buddhism has a philosophical foundation. Pyrrhonism shares a substantial portion of that foundation. Pyrrhonism can be viewed as a philosophical form of Buddhism that lacks the religious and mystical trappings. As such, Pyrrhonism may be uniquely suited as a philosophy of life for individuals who are psychologically allergic to religious structures.
Buddhists not only has a philosophical foundation, its adherents have been thinking and arguing about the same kind of stuff Western philosophers have been thinking and arguing about since the Ionians. Whether to call that body of work by Buddhists, philosophy, is profoundly uninteresting. The final point SocraticGadfly makes that Buddhism is ultimately a religion is both true and not true, but his intention in making that point is completely ignorant.
so what do you make of the Aristotelian and Platonic reforms aimed at Democritus?
clearly, there was an agenda behind them. we know that Plato and Aristotle were pro-oligarchy, pro-Sparta, anti-mysticism and were social revolutionaries. so what obstacle did they see in the more traditional Democritian view that had to be overcome?
Fascinating essay.
This morning after writing my Saturday post, I saw, or felt, that I was more Pyrrho-adjacent than anything else. So this extract is timely, the actual book being my first exposure to neo-Pyrrhonist discussions.