An outline of the disagreements between the Pyrrohnists and the Stoics

• The stoics thought that If p then q, p, therefore q, was self-evident - other examples of self-evident truths are ‘1+1=2’; ‘A triangle is a shape with three sides’.

  • The Pyrrhonist, Timon, argued that there are no self-evident principles - all lines of reasoning are either circular or endless

• The Stoics thought that we should get evidence from our senses and that this is the foundation of the sciences. We call this empirical evidence - ‘I am breathing’, ‘the bottle is on the table’

  • The Pyrrhonists argued that things appear different to different species, different to members of the same species, and different to the same person at different times. How can we know who is right? Or it all might be an illusion

    • The stoics accepted that sometimes we can be fooled by our senses and so we need a criteria to judge what is right and wrong. They suggested that what we needed was a ‘Cognitive appearance’ - an appearance which forces us to agree with it and believe it.

      • But the Pyrrhonists argued that sometimes we feel forced to agree with experiences which turned out to be wrong. How would we ever know whether we had found the criteria? Surely, we’d need a criteria for judging whether the criteria is right? And on and on and on....