Arcesilaus 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 of Triasius in the Platonic Academy, carrying out a transformation in that same institution, weakening Plato’s positive statements.
He is known for bringing the Socratic method back into vogue through irony, questioning and doubting philosophical controversies. Let’s look a little deeper into his history and how he was, in a way, innovative for the philosophy of his time, through a biography of Arcesilaus in summary format.
Arcesilaus (in classical Greek Αρκεσίλαος) was born in Pitane, in the region of Aeolis, present-day Turkey, around the year 315 BC. C. when the region was under the rule of the prosperous Greek civilization, being the son of Scythos, also known as Seuthos or Scythos. Not much is known about his childhood, to say the least, 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 Furthermore, being in the city, which was the cultural center of Classical Greece, he had the opportunity to attend the classes of Polemon and Crates. Arcesilaus not only learned about philosophy, but also had the opportunity to study mathematics with Autolycus of Pitane and Hipponico, in addition to being familiar with the knowledge of Plato, whom he deeply admired.
After the death of Crates, who had been leader of the Platonic Academy, Socratides, another philosopher, ensured the continuity of the institution by recognizing Arcesilaus as a great philosopher and decided to give him the direction of the Academy. Being in the institution he transformed it, weakening Plato’s positive statements and recovering skepticism and the Socratic method Among other figures that he was able to meet during his lifetime were Pyrrho, Diodorus Cronus and Menedemus, although there is no absolute certainty.
Although he was a man who lived in times of considerable stability and, in addition, never got too involved in politics, his personal life is another matter. Sources of the time rumor about his and his courtesans’ debauchery. Apart from all this, not much else is known, only that it is believed that he must have died in 240 BC. C., alcoholic and delusional. Likewise, it should be said that all of this could be simple slander, since Plutarch and the Stoic Cleanthes offer a very different image of Arcesilaus, defending him as a very responsible character who fulfilled his duties.
An interesting aspect of his life is that, Unlike most philosophers of his time, he possessed a large fortune Hellenic philosophers were not known for possessing 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 Plutarch, Arcesilaus was a man respectful of his adversaries.
Philosophy of this Greek thinker
What we know of Arcesilaus’s philosophical opinion has not come to us from writings in his own handwriting. He did not dedicate himself to writing and his opinions were transmitted by his contemporaries, so it can be deduced that they either misinterpreted his words or did not capture all of Arcesilaus’ thoughts. 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 views on any philosophical topic, including the probability of knowledge.
The Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus claimed that Arcesilaus’ philosophy seemed essentially the same as Pyrrho’s, but he also admitted that this assessment may have been superficial. Arcesilaus is said to have restored Plato’s doctrines uncorrupted, while others, such as Cicero, consider Arcesilaus’ view of knowledge to be as follows: If Socrates said “I only know that I know nothing,” then Arcesilaus would have added “ “that he knew nothing, not even his own ignorance.”
The main opponents of Arcesilaus’ 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 terms, since the very idea of “phantasia” gives rise to the possibility of true and false conceptions of the same element.
The skepticism
Arcesilaus is usually considered a skeptical philosopher. The academic skepticism of the Middle or Second Academy, essentially founded by him, was distinguished from Pyrrho’s vision. Given Arcesilaus’s idea that one could not even be knowledgeable about one’s own ignorance, it seems that, in a certain sense, skepticism could not advance. However, the truth is that academic skeptics do not seem to have doubted the existence of reality itself, but rather how human beings can obtain it in its purest and truest form.
Another aspect in which it differed from Pyrrhonism was in the implementation of its doctrines. While the Pyrrhonians aimed at achieving equanimity (ataraxia), academic skeptics seem to have opted for practical life speculation Practical moderation 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 did accept some debate.
Arcesilaus believed that, with respect to knowledge, one could only have opinions. It was not possible to affirm anything. For him, opinion is still a lack of knowledge, not wisdom, so there is no certainty that what is known is really known. It is necessary to renounce everything since they are mere beliefs.
He believed that one cannot distinguish between real and non-real representations of the world, the clearest demonstration of this idea being non-existent objects, such as dreams, errors of the senses or madness. We all supposedly have a representation of these “objects” lacking physical space.
Say what it is impossible to rely on sense data 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 darkness and nothing can be truly perceived or understood, so nothing can ever be assured, nothing affirmed or anything approved.
