IV. And although authors commonly represent to us, some subtil
philosophers of antiquity, as obstinately persisting in suspending their
assent to every thing that was proposed to them, and which was evident
both to their reason, and their senses, and likewise represent them, as
earned defenders of universal scepticism, to which opinion they refuse to
admit of the least exception; yet for all this, it is very doubtful to
me, whether these were their real sentiments; and I am rather inclined to
think, they did it, to shew their ingenuity, and to display their talent
for disputing; or that from some other motive, they spoke differently
from what they thought. The most famous among this tribe, were
Archesilaus, Carneades, and Pyrrho. But the first, if we believe Sextus
Empericus, was in reality a Platonist, and only a sceptic in appearance;
whose method it was, always to dispute problematically upon every thing
in public, but was ever careful to suggest in private, to such of his
disciples as he found were the most capable, the Platonic doctrine.
Cicero says, that his zeal for contesting every thing that was advanced
by his school-fellow and rival Zeno, carried him to the dangerous
extreme, of endeavouring, although it was against the conviction of his
own mind, to refute whatever was advanced by Zeno. We may add to this,
that according to the testimony of Diogenes Laertius, Archesilaus never
went to the extreme of doubting the evidence of his senses, but rather
treated with contempt and derision, those who carried scepticism to that
length.
V. Carneades was a most subtil philosopher, and so eminent as an orator,
that Cicero in various parts of his works speaks of him with admiration
and envy; and assures us, that by the keenness of his ingenuity, and
the fertile torrent of his elocution, he could persuade his hearers to
believe whatever he thought fit, and Quintilian, and Numenius, declare
the same; and it is probable, that his propensity for disputation, and
his ambition of shewing his ingenuity, excited him to contest the most
established axioms; which together with his affecting to distrust the
evidence of his senses, made him pass for a rigorous sceptic. But we may
venture to assert, that if an historical anecdote which is related of him
by Numenius is to be credited, Carneades believed his eyes as much as any
man living; for having surprized a concubine of his in the embraces of
his beloved disciple Mentor, he was so offended at his treachery, that he
broke with him for ever, and excluded him from being the successor to his
academy. How happened it then, that like a good sceptic, he did not doubt
whether the representation of that obscenity, might not be a _deceptio
visus_? I for my own part am inclined to think, that there never yet was
a sceptic in the world, who after the exhibition of such evidence, could
maintain his heart and his mind in a state of suspence.
VI. It is commonly said of Pyrrho, who was by so much the most famous
of all the sceptics, that he in a manner obscured the others, by giving
his name to the system of universal doubt, which at this day is called
Pyrrhonism, and the sectaries of it Pyrrhonists; and he was so positive
in maintaining, that we should suspend our opinion, with respect to all
we saw, or felt, that he would not turn the least aside, to avoid being
run over by a mad horse, or bit by a mad dog; nor would he slacken his
pace, although he was warned that he was advancing near the edge of a
precipice; and that he would have perished a thousand times by these
dangers, if his friends, who were attentive to his safety, had not
prevented his running headlong into them. But although this account of
him is much vulgarized, I do not know whether any other antient author,
except Antigonus Carystius, a Greek historian, who was contemporary with,
or lived very nearly in the days of Pyrrho, has vouched the truth of it;
at least the learned La Mothe de la Vayer, quotes him as the only author,
who attests the relation; and it is even doubtful whether Antigonus
Carystius asserts the thing positively, because in the _Præparat. Evang.
lib. 14. cap. 18._ of Eusebius, we find this author quoted for a fact,
which contradicts that relation; which is, that Pyrrho, when a dog was
once about to run at him, climbed up a tree to get out of his way, and
avoid the danger. Upon which occasion, those who were present, raillied
him upon the difference there was between his doctrine and his practice.
VII. But let Antigonus Carystius, who is an author I have not seen,
or any other whatever, say what they will, to give sanction to this
relation, we may without the apprehension of being accused of injustice,
condemn as incredible, the account of Pyrrho’s having carried his
extravagance to such a length. This philosopher lived to the age of
ninety, and through the whole course of so long a life, it is not
probable, he should always have friends at his elbow, ready to save
him from the many dangers, to which a man of so rash a conduct must
unavoidably have been very frequently exposed, and especially, in the
long voyage he made to India to consult the Gymnosophists. Diogenes
Laertius, who is the person that gives us the account of the great age to
which Pyrrho lived, and of his voyage to India, assures us, that Pyrrho
led a very solitary and retired life, which is not very compatible with
his having always been attended by his friends, nor is it reasonable
to conclude, that a man who was so very ridiculous as he is described
to have been, could have very many, or very sincere ones. Finally, the
citizens of Elis, his countrymen, elected him the high priest of their
religion. Now how is it credible, that they should have confided such an
employment to a person, who if his scepticism had been carried to the
length we have mentioned, they must certainly have looked upon as a mad
man? From this circumstance, it may also be inferred, that the charge of
impiety, which was generally imputed to him, was an unjust one; because
his countrymen would hardly have elected him the supreme minister of
their religion, if they had known that he professed to be of no religion
at all, and that he doubted the existence of a deity. What devotion or
zeal could they expect for the service of the temple, from a man, who
either was ignorant of, or doubted whether the object of their worship
existed?