by Greg Goode
7 – Quantities
Things also appear different according to the quantity presented to the observer. Shavings from a goat’s horn, says Sextus, appear white, but the horn itself appears black. Silver filings, says Sextus, appear black individually, but silver itself appears white. Food eaten in moderate quantities is healthy, but in huge amounts it is unhealthy. How can we use this information to conclude how things are in themselves?
8 – Relativity
This mode does lots of work for the Pyrrhonist, because it applies not just to the so-called external physical world, but to any statement, claim or conclusion. It also incorporates the previous modes (1-7). If you had to remember just one mode, this would be one of the most fruitful ones.
A point should be made that for the Pyrrhonist, the relativity, as explained in this mode, is not the same as relativism. Relativism may be said to be the view that an object or statement or truth is not absolutely something in itself, but rather, it is what it is, only relative to some frame of reference. Pyrrhonism might seem quite similar to relativism, and indeed they use many of the same examples. But unlike the relativist, the Pyrrhonist does not conclude that things really are a certain way. Rather, based on all the relativities encountered in the inquiry, the Pyrrhonist declines to form any conclusions about how things are.
The mode of Relativity sets out how things appear different in relation to other things. Sextus separates relativity into three types.
(i) Relative to the subject. Things appear different relative to the subject judging. A modern example might be that some people think Will Ferrell is funny while others think he is obnoxious and unfunny.
(ii) Relative to other things that appear. Things appear different relative to what else appears along with them. A person seems tall among shorter people and short among taller people. One thing is to the left of another if seen from the front, but to the right of another if seen from the back. A high school athlete is the fastest runner around, and enjoys that fame and the privileges that come along with it. Then, receiving an athletic scholarship, he goes to college where he finds himself a middle-of-the-road runner. Is he fast or medium?
(iii) Relative as in modes (1) through (7). Things appear different relative to the species, senses, conditions, distances, and mixtures. This type of relativity incorporates the examples from the previous modes.
When things always appear relative to other things, can we determine how things really are in themselves? So the Pyrrhonist withholds assent and makes no judgments about how things really are.
9 – The Common and the Rare
Things appear differently according to how often they appear. Sextus gives several powerful examples. The sun is more striking than a comet, but we find a comet (which is very rare) to be much more remarkable. Earthquakes do not seem equally as upsetting to those who are used to them as they do to those who experience them for the first time. Two modern examples are: “Absence makes the heart grow fonder,” and “Familiarity breeds contempt.” Based on these oppositions, how can we ascertain whether something is noteworthy in and of itself?
10 – Customs and Persuasions
This mode can be related to what in the 21st-century we think of as cultural diversity, and in our estimation is one of the most powerful modes. People do things in different ways and have different values and assessments about things. What kinds of things exactly? Sextus lists several aspects that differ from place to place: lifestyles and customs, laws, beliefs in myth, and dogmatic suppositions. They differ so widely that it is easy for the Pyrrhonist to oppose them to each other and withhold assent to all of them.
One of the most striking examples of this mode doesn’t even come from Sextus, but from Xenophanes, who is often considered to be a precursor to the Pyrrhonists. Xenophanes wrote:
If cows and horses and lions had hands or could draw with their hands and make statues as men do, horses would draw likenesses of the gods similar to horses, cows to cows, and they would create statues in the same form as they themselves each had.
Quoted in Annas and Barnes (2003)
Ethiopians say that their gods are snub-nosed and dark, Thracians that they are pale and red-haired.
Quoted in Annas and Barnes (2003)
Sextus himself gives abundant examples, including the following:
For example, we oppose custom to custom thus: ... the Ethiopians tattoo their babies, but we do not. ... We oppose law to law thus: among the Romans, he who gives up his patrimony does not pay his father’s debts; but among the Rhodians he always pays them...
We oppose a mythical belief to a mythical belief when in one place we say that according to myth Zeus is the father of men and gods, while in another we say that it is Oceanus, referring to the line: Oceanus, the source of the gods, and Tethys, the mother.
Quoted in Annas and Barnes (2003)
These things all seem to differ according to the operative lifestyles, customs, laws, mythical beliefs and dogmatic suppositions. Can we truly determine how things are in themselves? So the Pyrrhonist simply withholds assent.
The Five Agrippan Modes
The Five Modes of Agrippa (the Five Modes) come from a shadowy early Greek figure about whom very little is known. One of the best treatments of the Five Modes is in Jonathan Barnes’ The Toils of Scepticism (Barnes 1990) listed at the end of this chapter. The idea is that each of the Five Modes represents some kind of logical flaw. If the modes are used together, then every claim about things in themselves can be seen to fall into at least one of the modes. And this leads to an impasse for the Pyrrhonist and therefore to suspension of judgment and peace of mind.
The previous Ten Modes (except for modes 8 and 10) mostly concern the perception of physical objects. But these Five Modes are a bit more abstract and logical. They are designed to be able to apply to any statement or claim whatsoever. The modes are as follows:
1 – Disagreement
Unresolved diversity of opinion. In matters of religion, philosophy, culture, politics, law and science, there are disagreements. The disagreements are not only among everyday people, but also among experts who devote their lives to finding the truth about these matters. No one view has come to be accepted by all as true.
For example, some say that the world is made of quanta. Some say that it is energy. Some say that it is awareness. Others say that there is no world. Some say that there is a God. Some say that God is transcendent. Some say that God is immanent. Some say that God is within each and every one of us. Some say that the guru is greater than God. Some say that existence is God. Others say that there is no God. The Pyrrhonist opposes one of these claims against the others. Being unable to choose or disqualify any of the claims, the Pyrrhonist suspends judgment about them all.
2 – Infinite Regress
“A” depending on “B” which depends on “C” then “D.” This is the situation in which one statement depends on another statement which depends on another statement in a sort of unending logical chain. Examples could include stories about what supports the earth:
“What supports the earth?”
“The earth rests on the back of a turtle.”
“And what supports the turtle?”
“Well, that turtle stands on the back of another turtle.”
“And what does that turtle stand on?”
“Well, it’s turtles all the way down.”
Another example might be an explanation of the current situation of your life:
“Why is my life like this?”
“Because of the decisions you made in your previous life.”
“And why did I make those decisions in that life?”
“Because of the lifetime before that one.”
And so forth. When statements lead to infinite regresses, it is easy to suspend judgment about them.
3 – Relativity
Statements or appearances relative to other things. Relativity here is like Mode #8 from the Ten Modes covered above. Things appear the
way they do relative to the subject observing, and relative to the other things that appear along with them. If something is observed as being relative to other things, then the Pyrrhonist can oppose the different appearances to each other and suspend judgment on how things are in themselves.
4 – Hypothesis
A statement with no support. This is the mode in which statements are offered by themselves, without supporting evidence or logical backup. Sometimes statements are offered for belief because they are “self-evident.” Sometimes it is hoped by the speaker that the statements are convincing enough by themselves not to need any support. But this does not always happen. The statements do not always come across in this way.
For example, I (Greg) used to ask my parents why I couldn’t stay up later and watch TV. “Why?” I would ask. They always answered, “Because I said so!” Other familiar examples come from non-dual spiritual teachings:
“Awareness created existence in order to know itself experientially.”
“All there is, is Consciousness.”
“The purpose of life is to realize that you are the Self.”
If the statements do not have support, then the Pyrrhonist may or may not resonate with them. In either case, there is no obligation to believe. The Pyrrhonist may oppose different statements to the ones offered and withhold assent from all of them.
5 – Reciprocity (Circular Reasoning)
Statements fall into this mode when one statement depends on another one, which in turn depends on the first. There can be other statements in between, but whenever a single statement ends up depending on itself for support, then the mode of Reciprocity applies to it.
Examples include another one from my parents:
“Dad, why can’t I go to the movies tonight?”
“Because your mom said no.”
“Mom, why can’t I go to the movies tonight?”
“Because your dad said no.”
Other examples come from spiritual teachings:
“The Bible is the word of God.”
“How can I know that?”
“Because the Bible says so.”
“But how do I know that what the Bible says is true?”
“Because the Bible is the word of God.”
If a statement is found to depend on itself and fall into the Reciprocal mode, there is no rational obligation to believe it, and the Pyrrhonist can easily withhold assent to it.
Contemplating Spiritual Teachings
The target of Pyrrhonism is the attitude of belief towards statements. As we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, we are defining belief as a strong, stable attitude towards a statement, an attitude that might even involve defense against opposition.
The meditations in this section target several matters of belief pertaining to spiritual teachings. Pyrrhonism can be of immediate benefit in these areas. Why? Because the activity of considering various spiritual teachings often involves us in exactly the kinds of issues that Pyrrhonism was designed to help us with.
Pyrrhonism and Spiritual Teachings
Looking at various teachings can make us feel pressured to find truth in a large field of conflicting claims. The conflicts involve claims about God, the self, rebirth, life, death, freedom, happiness, worlds, origins, goals and purposes, as well as about methods or non-methods of achievement. These things create a classic case of the impasse that the Pyrrhonist calls aporia.
The pressures and anxieties can show up in different ways. If we are motivated to find a teaching, we often look for one that we feel is true, whatever that means to us. This can cause us to examine several candidates and choose one of them. Or we may feel divided between head and heart. We may feel attracted to a teaching but concerned that its views aren’t true. Or we may not feel attracted to a teaching even though we believe its views. Or we may feel ambivalent about a teaching we’re already following; we may move back and forth between belief and doubt. And if proponents of the various teachings tell us, “Kill the mind,” “Have faith,” “Surrender,” or “Believe and you shall receive,” we may feel suspicious.
By emancipating us from belief itself, Pyrrhonism can free us from all the anxieties related to choosing and participating in a teaching.
Pyrrhonism and Nihilism
We should say one more thing before we begin the meditations. When used with spiritual teachings, Pyrrhonism might seem to take all the life out of spirituality. If I am using Pyrrhonism in a Christian context, must I actually maintain a literal belief that “after I die I must actually go to heaven or hell” or that “Jesus was the only begotten son of God”? Am I losing something essential to the Christian experience without believing these statements in a literal sense? It might seem that nothing is left of spirituality if we don’t believe its claims. Must it happen this way? Of course, some members of orthodox religions might state that belief in their doctrines is absolutely necessary. But is this really true? This requirement of belief is itself a claim that the Pyrrhonist can inquire into. What is possible, according to Sextus, is that the Pyrrhonist can resonate with a form of spirituality as an example of what he calls the fourfold “ordinary regimen of life.” This includes the guidance of nature, the compulsion of the states of your mind, the handing down of laws and customs, and instruction in the arts and crafts.
The goal of Pyrrhonism is to achieve ataraxia or peace of mind in matters of belief. With Pyrrhonism, the middle way is freedom from belief. But we can find ourselves on either side of the middle way. If we retain beliefs about how we are, how the world is, then we have strayed onto the essentialist side of the middle way. As Pyrrhonism sees it, we will become anxious about the beliefs we have, and anxious about other beliefs that are needed to support them. On the other hand, if we acquire “negative beliefs” (after the Pyrrhonist’s epithet “negative dogmatism”), then we may begin to believe that “Nothing can be decided or known,” “It’s all no use,” “Spiritual teachings won’t help,” or “I’ll never be happy anyway.”
Both extremes are due to beliefs. For example, if you feel defensive or anxious to solidify or improve a position, or judgmental about people with different positions, then there are some beliefs related to that position that you have taken on. Be courageous and look into everything about that position’s statements. If you feel despair, hopelessness or withdrawal from others, then there are nihilistic beliefs to look into.
So as you proceed with these modes (or with any meditations in this book), if you feel greater joy, lightness, enthusiasm, love, caring, or connection with others, then you’re on the middle way.
But if you notice yourself being more argumentative, defensive or judgmental, or if you find yourself using these inquiries to gain advantage over others, then there are beliefs to be looked into. You can look more closely.
Or you can set the Pyrrhonist (or any) investigation aside and go dancing. Do something completely different. Go for a long jog or walk in nature. Go to a concert. Book a trip to someplace you’ve always wanted to visit. Call an old friend and talk on the phone. Then see what happens next....
Spiritual Teachings – Guided Meditations
Meditation – Rebirth
“There is rebirth. I will come back in another life.”
and:
“There is no rebirth. I will never come back in another life.”
Use the Agrippan Mode of Disagreement on this pair of statements. Take a moment and think of the various religions and traditions that posit rebirth.... Now take a moment and think of the various scientific or materialist views that do not agree with this. Many prominent Buddhist teachers believe in rebirth, and many others believe that rebirth is false. The experts disagree about these issues. Try to put yourself in the position of not assenting to either side of the issue. It’s not a matter of trying to split the difference and believe something in between the two extremes. Rather, try to withhold assent from any of these alternatives. And then try to notice at least a tiny bit of relief or an influ
x of peace of mind. Try to feel the freedom from having to believe or reject spiritual teachings based on the truth of this statement.
Meditation – Awareness and Biology
“Awareness is that in which the world, body and brain appear.”
and:
“Awareness is a biological function created by brain chemistry.”
Again, this is a pair of statements seemingly at odds, perfect for the Agrippan mode of Disagreement. In addition, check for the kinds of support offered for these statements. The first statement (“Awareness is what the world, body and brain appear in”) is supported by a certain kind of non-dual teaching. In general, what makes this teaching’s statements true about things in themselves? We might even feel that this first statement is true because we feel that it is our experience. It may seem like it is your experience, just like it seems that the honey really is sweet. But what makes this seeming into something that is true?
Consider for a moment the mode of Relativity. You are the one who is passing judgment on the truth of your experiences. Someone else might judge their own experiences (or even yours) in a different way, such as that there are both awareness and things outside of awareness that are not appearances in awareness. Both of you have claims that seem to be true. The claims are relative to the one making the claim, yet they purport to be true of the entire world and all its people. How can you both be correct?
The second statement (“Awareness is a biological function created by brain chemistry”) can be approached in a similar way. What supports this statement is a certain body of science. What supports this scientific approach? Each statement can be examined according to the various Pyrrhonist modes. This second statement may seem as though it is true. But apart from this seemingness, is it really true? Again, recall the stock Pyrrhonist example of the honey tasting sweet. Consider for a moment the mode of Places and Positions. Can you ever be in a place or a position to observe whether awareness is created by brain chemistry? How is awareness observed? Does it have a shape or a color or a weight? What does this process of creation look like? Exactly what and where are the chemical components and reactions that give rise to awareness, and where can we stand to observe the emergence of awareness from these reactions? Have you ever seen anything like it?