Arcesilao: biography of this Greek philosopher

Arcesilao was a Greek philosopher and one of the founders of the so-called Middle or Second Platonic Academy.

It is known that he was a disciple of several important philosophers of his time, being the successor of Crates de Triasio in the Platonic Academy, making a transformation in that same institution weakening the positive affirmations of Plato.

He is known for bringing the Socratic method back into vogue through irony, questioning, and doubting philosophical controversies. Let's take a closer look at his story and how he was, in a way, innovative for the philosophy of his time, through a biography of Arcesilao in summary format.

• Related article: "How are Psychology and Philosophy alike?"

Brief biography of Arcesilao

Arcesilao (in classical Greek Αρκεσίλαος) was born in Pitane, in the Eólida region, present-day Turkey, by the year 315 a. C. when the region was under the rule of the prosperous Greek civilization, being the son of Scythus, also known as Seuthos or Scythos. Not much is known about his childhood, to say nothing, but it is known that although he went to study rhetoric in Athens he preferred to study philosophy.

He was a disciple of the philosopher Theophrastus and, later, of Crantor. Also, being in the city, which was the cultural center of Classical Greece, he had the opportunity to attend Polemon and Crates classes. Arcesilao not only learned about philosophy, but also had the opportunity to study mathematics with Autolico de Pitane and Hipponico, in addition to being a connoisseur of the knowledge of Plato, whom he admired deeply.

After the death of Crates, who had been the leader of the Platonic Academy, Socrates, another philosopher, assured the continuity of the institution recognizing Arcesilao as a great philosopher and decided to give him the direction of the Academy. While in the institution he transformed it, weakening Plato's positive statements and recovering skepticism and the Socratic method.. Among other figures that he could meet in life were Pirrón, Diodoro Cronos and Menedemo, although there is no absolute certainty.

Although he was a man who had to live in times of considerable stability and, in addition, he never meddled too much in politics, his personal life is another matter. Sources of the time rumored his debauchery and his courtesans. Apart from all this, not much else is known, only that it is believed that he must have died in 240 BC. C., drunk and delusional. Equally, it can be said that all this could be mere slander, since Plutarch and the stoic Cleantes offer a very different image of Arcesilao, defending him as a very responsible and compliant character homework.

An interesting aspect of his life is that, Unlike most of the philosophers of his time, he possessed a great fortune. Hellenic philosophers were not characterized by great wealth and tended to have a more ascetic lifestyle. He was also very generous and made sure of the well-being of his friends. According to Plutarco, Arcesilao was a respectful man with his adversaries.

• You may be interested in: "The contributions of Socrates the Greek to Psychology"

Philosophy of this Greek thinker

What we know of Arcesilao's philosophical opinion has not come to us from writings in his own hand. He did not dedicate himself to write and his opinions were transmitted by his contemporaries, with which it is deducible that either they could misinterpret his words or they did not pick up all the thought of Arcesilao. That is why it is difficult to evaluate the philosophy of this Greek thinker.

Scholars have interpreted his skepticism in various ways. For some his philosophy is completely negative or destructive, while others consider that nothing can be known on the basis of his philosophical arguments. There are those who claim that he does not have positive points of view on any philosophical issue, including the probability of knowledge.

The Greek philosopher Sexto Empirico stated that Arcesilao's philosophy seemed, in essence, the same as that of Pyrrho, but he also admitted that this appreciation could have been superficial. Arcesilaus is said to have restored Plato's doctrines uncorrupted, while others, such as Cicero, consider Arcesilaus's view of the knowledge is this: If Socrates said "I only know that I know nothing", then Arcesilao would have added "that he knew nothing, not even his own ignorance".

The main opponents of Arcesilao's philosophy were the Stoics. This philosopher attacked his doctrine of a convincing conception (katalêptikê phantasia), understood as a meaning between knowledge (episteme) and opinion (doxa). He considered that this could not exist and that it was simply an interpolation of the name. For him, all this implied a contradiction in his terms, since the very idea of ​​"phantasia" gives rise to the possibility of true and false conceptions of the same element.

Skepticism

Arcesilao is usually considered a skeptical philosopher. The academic skepticism of the Middle or Second Academy, essentially founded by him, distinguished itself from Pyrrho's vision. Given Arcesilao's idea that you could not even be aware of your own ignoranceIt seems that, in a sense, skepticism could not advance. However, the truth is that academic skeptics do not seem to have doubted the existence itself of reality itself, but of how human beings can obtain it in its purest and most true.

Another aspect in which he differed from Pyrrhonism was in the implementation of his doctrines. While the Pyrrhonians aimed at achieving equanimity (ataraxia), academic skeptics seem to have opted for practical life speculation. Practical restraint was the fundamental characteristic of academic skeptics since, although they questioned the ways in which knowledge was obtained, the legitimacy of each point of view was not questioned, although they do accept a certain debate.

Critique of knowledge

Arcesilao believed that, with respect to knowledge, you could only have opinions. Nothing could be said. For him the opinion is still a lack of knowledge, not wisdom, with which there is no certainty that what is known is really known. It is necessary to renounce everything since they are mere beliefs.

He was of the opinion that one cannot distinguish between real and non-real representations of the world, being the clearer demonstration of this idea are objects without existence, such as dreams, errors of the senses or craziness. We all have, supposedly, a representation of these "objects" devoid of physical space.

She says that it is impossible to trust the data of the senses to reason about true knowledge of the causes and principles of the world, both physical and immaterial. Reason, in reality, knows nothing, since there is no criterion of truth. Everything is hidden in the dark and that nothing can be really perceived or understood, with which nothing can be assured, nor affirmed nor approved of anything.

Bibliographic references:

• Laërtius, Diogenes (1925). The Academics: Arcesilaus. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. 1:4. Translated by Hicks, Robert Drew (Two volume ed.). Loeb Classical Library ..
• Brittain, Charles. Arcesilaus. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.