Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Carneades

Carneades (214/213–129/128 BC), son of Cephisodorus (or Polemarchus), was a philosopher born in Cyrene who became the sixth scholarch of Plato's Academy in Athens, directing its transition to a more rigorous form of skepticism that challenged the dogmatic claims of rival schools like Stoicism. Orphaned young, he relocated to Athens, immersed himself in philosophical studies, and rose to lead the Academy after Hegesinus, holding the position for decades until resigning in 137/136 BC in favor of a younger Carneades.^[1] Under his guidance, the Academy emphasized dialectical argumentation to suspend judgment on absolute truths, prioritizing instead the "plausible" impression (pithanon) as a criterion for reasonable belief and action amid epistemic uncertainty.^[2] Carneades' influence peaked during the Athenian embassy to Rome in 155 BC, alongside Stoic Diogenes of Babylon and Peripatetic Critolaus, where he captivated audiences with virtuoso displays of rhetoric, including consecutive speeches defending and then dismantling the Stoic notion of justice as a natural and universal good—arguments that highlighted its pragmatic utility for the weak but expendability for the powerful, alarming traditionalists like Cato the Elder and prompting calls to expel the philosophers.^[3] Though he committed nothing to writing, preferring oral teaching to avoid fixed doctrines, his ideas, preserved through pupils like Clitomachus, profoundly shaped Hellenistic skepticism by undermining certitudes in perception, knowledge, and morality while advocating fallibilist standards for conduct.^[4] This approach not only fortified Academic critiques of sensory reliability and ethical absolutes but also prefigured probabilistic reasoning in later philosophy, marking Carneades as a pivotal figure in the Academy's evolution from dogmatism to methodical doubt.

Life and Career

Early Life and Education

Carneades was born around 214 BC in Cyrene, a Greek-speaking colony on the Mediterranean coast of North Africa, as the son of Epicomus—or Philocomus, according to the philosopher Alexander Polyhistor.^[5] Little is recorded of his family circumstances or initial upbringing, though Cyrene's intellectual environment, influenced by earlier philosophers like Aristippus, likely fostered his early interests in dialectic and rhetoric.^[6] He migrated to Athens in his youth, possibly in his late teens or early twenties, to engage in advanced philosophical training amid the city's vibrant schools of thought.^[5]^[4] In Athens, Carneades adopted a rigorous, eclectic approach to learning, initially sampling teachings across rival traditions rather than committing to one. He attended lectures by the Peripatetic Aristoxenus, the Megarian dialectician Diodorus Cronus, Alexinus of Elis (another dialectician noted for eristic debates), and Asclepiades of Eretria, whose school emphasized probabilistic reasoning. Carneades eventually focused on the Platonic Academy, studying under its scholarch Hegesinus of Naea, who led the institution following the death of Lacydes around 206 BC. This period honed his skills in oral argumentation and critique, as he reportedly practiced extemporaneous speeches and cross-examined opponents daily, building a reputation for intellectual stamina despite physical frailties like poor eyesight. His education emphasized skepticism toward dogmatic claims, setting the stage for his later transformation of the Academy into a hub of Academic skepticism.^[5]

Leadership of the Academy

Carneades succeeded Hegesinus of Pergamon as scholarch of the Platonic Academy in Athens sometime before 155 BCE, marking the beginning of his tenure as head of the institution founded by Plato.^[5] This transition positioned him at the helm during the Academy's most pronounced skeptical period, where he advanced the dialectical methods initiated by Arcesilaus, emphasizing the suspension of assent (epochē) in the face of conflicting arguments and sensory impressions.^[5] Under his guidance, the Academy attracted a significant following, including notable pupils such as Clitomachus of Carthage, who would later document and defend Carneades' positions through extensive writings, compensating for Carneades' own refusal to commit doctrines to text.^[5] Carneades' leadership style was characterized by extemporaneous oral instruction and rigorous debate, often delivering opposing arguments with equal persuasive force to demonstrate the indeterminacy of dogmatic claims, particularly those of the Stoics.^[5] He prioritized probabilistic judgment (to pithanon) as a practical guide for action amid uncertainty, fostering an environment where students honed skills in rhetoric and epistemology rather than adhering to fixed doctrines.^[5] This approach not only sustained the Academy's intellectual vitality but also elevated its reputation, as evidenced by Carneades' selection to lead the Athenian embassy to Rome in 155 BCE alongside Stoic and Peripatetic representatives, where his arguments on justice influenced Roman elites despite political tensions.^[5] By the late 130s BCE, advanced age—Carneades was in his late 70s—and failing eyesight prompted his resignation around 137/136 BCE, after which he informally yielded authority to associates before his death circa 129/128 BCE.^[7] His successor was initially a younger Carneades (possibly a namesake or pupil), followed by Crates of Athens, ensuring continuity of the skeptical tradition.^[8] Throughout his leadership, Carneades maintained the Academy's independence from Roman encroachment while adapting philosophical inquiry to contemporary challenges, solidifying its role as a bastion of critical inquiry against rival schools' certainties.^[5]

The Roman Embassy of 155 BC

In 155 BC, Athens dispatched an embassy to Rome comprising three prominent philosophers—Carneades, head of the Platonic Academy; Diogenes of Babylon, leader of the Stoic school; and Critolaus, scholarch of the Peripatetic tradition—to petition for mitigation of a substantial fine levied against the city.^[5]^[9] The penalty, originally set at 500 talents by Roman-allied Sicyonian arbitrators, stemmed from Athens' military incursion into Oropos, a Boeotian border town, which violated prior agreements and escalated regional tensions.^[10]^[11] This delegation leveraged the philosophers' rhetorical expertise not only for diplomatic advocacy but also to engage Roman elites and youth through public discourses on ethical and philosophical themes.^[9] The philosophers' lectures drew massive crowds, showcasing Hellenistic dialectical methods that captivated audiences unaccustomed to such systematic argumentation.^[5] Carneades, in particular, delivered contrasting speeches on justice: on successive days, he first extolled its absolute moral necessity, then dismantled the same arguments to portray justice as a conventional expedient rather than an inherent good, aligning with his probabilistic skepticism that emphasized fallible human perceptions over dogmatic certainties.^[11]^[5] These performances, preserved in fragments via later Roman authors like Cicero and Plutarch, highlighted Carneades' prowess in arguing both sides of a thesis (dissoi logoi), influencing young Romans like Scipio Aemilianus while provoking unease among traditionalists.^[11] The embassy's intellectual display alarmed conservative figures, notably Marcus Porcius Cato (Cato the Elder), who viewed Greek philosophy as a corrosive influence on Roman virtus and mos maiorum.^[5] Cato reportedly advocated hastening the Senate's deliberation on the Athenian appeal—ultimately reducing the fine to 120 talents—and expediting the philosophers' departure to avert further "seduction" of the youth, as recounted in Plutarch's Life of Cato the Elder.^[10]^[9] This reaction underscored early Roman ambivalence toward Hellenistic thought, prioritizing pragmatic statecraft over speculative inquiry, though the event inadvertently accelerated philosophy's transmission into Roman culture.^[5]

Philosophical Positions

Skepticism and Epistemology

Carneades, as scholarch of the Academy from 155/4 to 129/8 BCE, advanced a dialectical form of skepticism that systematically undermined dogmatic claims to certain knowledge, particularly those of the Stoics.^[5] He contended that sensory impressions (phantasiai) cannot reliably distinguish truth from falsehood, as indistinguishable false impressions—such as those in dreams, madness, or optical illusions—undermine any purported criterion of certainty like the Stoic katalêpsis, which requires an impression that only arises from what is true and is grasped infallibly by the mind.^[5] For instance, Carneades invoked cases like the "eggshell" delusion, where a mad person perceives an eggshell as a city, mirroring a sane person's veridical perception in structure yet differing in truth value, thus rendering no impression immune to error.^[12] In epistemology, Carneades extended this critique to reason itself, arguing that rational faculties are equally fallible, prone to equipollent (equally persuasive) arguments on opposing sides of any proposition, leading to epochê (suspension of judgment) as the prudent response to avoid rash assent.^[5] Drawing on Socratic elenchus but intensifying it against Stoic epistemology, he concealed personal doctrines to expose inconsistencies in opponents' views, as reported by Cicero in Academica, where Carneades is depicted arguing that no sage can achieve cognitive certainty without risking error.^[12] This approach rejected both dogmatic affirmation and outright denial, positioning skepticism not as nihilism but as a therapeutic dialectic to dismantle overconfident epistemology, though ancient reports vary on whether Carneades held private beliefs or adhered strictly to undecidability.^[5] Carneades' skepticism thus prioritized causal realism in assessing impressions—emphasizing their origins in unreliable senses and mutable circumstances—over idealized criteria, influencing later probabilism while maintaining that absolute epistemological foundations elude human grasp.^[5] His method, preserved fragmentarily through intermediaries like Cicero and Sextus Empiricus, highlighted the Academy's shift from Platonist dogmatism to critical inquiry, challenging the era's prevailing assumption of indubitable truths derivable from either perception or deduction.^[12]

Criterion of the Probable (Pithanon)

Carneades posited the pithanon, or criterion of the probable, as a practical guide for action within the framework of Academic skepticism, which denies the possibility of infallible cognitive impressions (kataleptikai phantasiae) as claimed by the Stoics.^[2] This criterion consists of a persuasive impression (pithanē phantasia) that appears true and convincing to a rational observer, serving to direct behavior without requiring dogmatic commitment to its veracity.^[13] By relying on the pithanon, the skeptic maintains suspension of judgment (epochē) on ultimate truth while enabling effective living, as impressions of this sort prove reliable in most circumstances despite occasional deceptions.^[2] Sextus Empiricus outlines three escalating degrees of the pithanon, each building greater confidence for practical endorsement without epistemic certainty.^[13] The basic level is the simply probable impression, one that initially seems true based on its intrinsic vividness or sensory force (Sextus, Adversus Mathematicos 7.173).^[2] The second degree incorporates being undiverted (akatastatos), where the impression withstands scrutiny from potential contraries or conflicting perceptions, remaining undisturbed (Adversus Mathematicos 7.176).^[13] The highest, truth-like form (perilēptikon) demands thorough testing (Adversus Mathematicos 7.182), involving cross-examination against multiple impressions, contextual factors, and dialectical probing to confirm consistency and resilience (Adversus Mathematicos 7.166–183).^[2] This graded structure addresses the Stoic objection of apraxia (inability to act), demonstrating that skeptics can navigate life methodically by approving the strongest available pithanon as if true, akin to prudent navigation amid uncertainty.^[13] Cicero elaborates that Carneades differentiated such approval from full assent, insisting nothing can be grasped infallibly yet the probable suffices for rational conduct (Academica 2.101, 104).^[2] Thus, the pithanon functions not as a mark of truth but as an interim epistemic tool, prioritizing persuasive force over indubitable proof to sustain agency in doubt.^[13]

Ethical Dialectics and Justice

Carneades applied his skeptical method to ethics through dialectical argumentation, systematically examining opposing views to undermine claims of certain knowledge about moral ends and virtues, rather than asserting dogmatic positions. He categorized possible ethical goals (teloi) into nine frameworks, drawing on natural impulses toward pleasure, absence of pain, or preservation of natural advantages, often combined with or subordinated to virtue, thereby challenging the Stoic insistence on virtue as the sole end.^[5] This classification aimed to demonstrate that multiple coherent alternatives existed, each capturing legitimate human motivations, without privileging any as indubitably true.^[5] A pivotal illustration of his ethical dialectics occurred during the Athenian embassy to Rome in 155 BCE, where Carneades delivered speeches advocating for and against justice on consecutive days. In the argument contra justice, he contended that no act is both just and truly beneficial, positing justice as a human convention devised for mutual advantage rather than a natural or universal imperative, with laws varying by circumstance to suit expediency.^[5] ^[14] This critique targeted dogmatic defenses, such as those from Plato and Aristotle, by revealing equipollent counterarguments that rendered certainty unattainable, though his aim was not to promote injustice but to expose the fragility of ethical absolutes.^[14] Carneades reconciled ethical skepticism with practical action by extending his epistemological criterion of the pithanon (the probable or persuasive) to moral decision-making, endorsing tentative assent to impressions that withstand scrutiny for consistency, undefeatedness by opposites, and thorough examination.^[5] In ethical contexts, this probabilism supported behaviors aligned with social utility, such as adhering to justice for communal stability and self-interest, without committing to its metaphysical status as inherently good or known with certainty.^[5] Thus, while suspending judgment on ultimate ethical truths, he advocated living rationally by what appears most probable, avoiding the apraxia (inaction) objection leveled by Stoics and Epicureans.^[14]

Positions on Theology, Fate, and Divination

Carneades, as a leading figure in Academic skepticism, engaged dialectically with theological claims rather than asserting dogmatic positions, often presenting equipollent arguments to induce suspension of judgment (epochē). In critiquing conceptions of the gods, he employed sorites-style arguments to undermine attributions of divinity, such as contending that if Zeus qualifies as a god, then so does Poseidon, and by extension every river like the Nile or Achelous, ultimately leading to the absurd inclusion of mere streams as divine, thereby negating the initial premise.^[5]^[15] He further advanced dilemmatic challenges, arguing that a god cannot be finite (as it would be inferior to the infinite universe) or infinite (as infinity precludes life), nor corporeal (subject to perishability) or incorporeal (devoid of activity), rendering divine existence incoherent.^[15] These arguments drew on common beliefs (endoxa) from Stoic, Epicurean, Platonic, and Aristotelian sources without targeting any single school exclusively, though Cicero reinterpreted some—such as the sorites—as aimed at exposing Stoic theological inconsistencies rather than outright atheism.^[5]^[15] Virtue-based critiques added that gods possessing human-like virtues (e.g., prudence or endurance) would experience disturbances or pain, contradicting their supposed impassibility and immortality.^[15] While these dialectics leaned toward agnosticism or effective atheism, Carneades avoided commitment, balancing arguments to withhold assent on divine existence or nature.^[5] On fate, Carneades rejected the Stoic conception of a deterministic causal chain governing all events, decoupling it from the principle of bivalence (that every proposition is true or false).^[5] Unlike Chrysippus, who linked fate to universal causation while denying strict necessity in human actions, Carneades argued that causal determinism does not necessitate fatalism, preserving room for voluntary motion through the mind's inherent autonomy rather than external swerves or predetermination.^[5] He countered Epicurean indeterminism by proposing that impulses to action arise endogenously from mental dispositions, independent of fated antecedents, thus safeguarding responsibility without invoking chance.^[5] This stance challenged both Stoic compatibilism and Epicurean atomism, emphasizing that fate, if conceived as an unbreakable causal sequence, undermines moral agency, yet Carneades suspended definitive endorsement, using the debate to highlight probabilistic reasoning over certainty.^[5] Carneades' skepticism extended to divination, which he interrogated as incompatible with reliable knowledge, particularly under Stoic assumptions of cosmic determinism and divine foreknowledge.^[5] Cicero's Marcus, drawing on Carneades, questioned divination's status as a legitimate technē (art or discipline), asking to which established field—such as medicine, astronomy, or rhetoric—it pertains, given its purported prediction of future contingencies.^[16] Accurate predictions, even if observed, fail to prove systematic divine intervention, as they may stem from coincidence, human conjecture, or incomplete causation rather than infallible foresight, especially where chance events evade deterministic chains.^[16] By linking divination's validity to unverifiable theological and fatalistic premises, Carneades rendered it epistemically suspect, advocating suspension of belief in its efficacy absent the pithanon (probable) impressions required for assent.^[5]^[16]

Criticisms and Contemporary Debates

Attacks from Stoics and Epicureans

Stoics, particularly figures like Chrysippus and later proponents, leveled the apraxia objection against Carneades' skepticism, arguing that suspending judgment (epochē) on all impressions precludes deliberate action, as rational choice requires assent to beliefs about what is true or probable.^[5]^[12] They contended that without Stoic katalêpsis (secure apprehension via cognitive impressions), Carneades' criterion of the pithanon (the probable) permits only fallible guidance, undermining consistent ethical conduct and rendering life practically impossible, since everyday decisions presuppose some epistemic reliability.^[5]^[17] This critique extended to epistemology, where Stoics maintained that denying the distinguishability of true from false impressions leads to regressive doubt, contradicting Carneades' own implicit reliance on probable impressions for navigation and debate.^[12] Epicureans, adhering to the infallibility of sense-perceptions as their canon of truth, criticized Academic skepticism including Carneades' variant for self-refutation, asserting that total suspension of judgment cannot coherently deny the veridicality of direct sensations, which provide certain knowledge of atomic phenomena and pleasure's nature.^[18]^[19] They echoed the apraxia charge, arguing that skeptics like Carneades fail to act without covert assent to sensory evidence, exposing inconsistency, as Epicurean ethics demands pursuing katastematic pleasure based on unerring perceptual criteria rather than probabilistic heuristics.^[12]^[20] Plutarch reports Epicurean Colotes refuting skepticism by insisting that denying sensory truth eliminates any basis for preference or avoidance, dooming the skeptic to inertness akin to madness. While Carneades targeted Epicurean swerve and fate doctrines, Epicureans countered that his probabilism dilutes the autonomy of judgment required for ataraxia, favoring dogmatic clarity over dialectical suspension.^[5]

The Apraxia Objection and Carneades' Response

The apraxia objection, leveled primarily by Stoic critics against Academic skepticism, asserted that suspending judgment (epochē) on all impressions as true would preclude the formation of beliefs essential for practical deliberation, resulting in total inaction or paralysis (apraxia). Stoics maintained that action requires assent (syngkatathesis) to cognitive impressions as veridical, without which agents lack the motivational impulse to pursue ends like self-preservation or rational choice.^[21] ^[2] Carneades countered this by distinguishing assent—full cognitive commitment to an impression's truth—from practical approval (or "acting upon" the pithanon, the persuasive or probable impression), which suffices for guiding conduct without dogmatic endorsement. Approval generates impulse toward action based on the impression's apparent reliability, even as epochē withholds assent to avoid error from false beliefs.^[21] ^[13] This separation permits skeptics to navigate life functionally, akin to non-rational animals or infants who respond to appearances instinctively, but refined through human scrutiny.^[2] To operationalize the pithanon, Carneades outlined a graded taxonomy of persuasive impressions, enabling progressively reliable decision-making: the simply pithanon (vivid or unchecked appearances), the undiverted pithanon (unopposed by conflicting evidence), and the thoroughly examined pithanon (verified through tests like contextual coherence, perceiver expertise, and absence of alternatives).^[13] ^[2] For instance, one might leap from an apparent snake (simply pithanon) but, upon closer inspection revealing a rope, revise action without ever assenting to initial or corrected truth claims; similarly, a sage might embark on a voyage if weather, crew, and omens appear favorable after review, prioritizing probable success over certainty.^[2] These criteria ensure prudent behavior aligns with skeptical suspension, refuting apraxia by demonstrating that theoretical doubt need not disrupt empirical agency.^[13]^[21]

Legacy and Influence

On Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy

Carneades' skeptical arguments against Stoic epistemology, particularly the rejection of cataleptic impressions as infallible criteria of truth, spurred refinements in Hellenistic Stoicism and prompted later Stoics to diverge from earlier positions on theology, such as the existence of gods.^[5]^[22] His dialectical engagements, as documented by successors like Clitomachus, elevated Academic skepticism to its zenith in the Hellenistic Academy, emphasizing probabilistic assent (pithanon) for practical life without dogmatic commitment.^[5] This approach influenced the Hellenistic Academy's methodology, fostering extensive use of dialectic to undermine dogmatic schools like Stoicism and Epicureanism on issues of fate, determinism, and moral responsibility.^[23]^[5] In Roman philosophy, Carneades' legacy endured through Cicero, who adopted and disseminated Academic skepticism, portraying Carneades' positions in works like De Republica and De Fato to critique Stoic determinism and defend human agency against fatalism.^[5]^[24] Cicero integrated Carneades' criterion of the probable (pithanon) into Roman thought, adapting it for epistemological probabilism that guided assent in uncertain conditions, as seen in his advocacy for suspension of judgment while permitting action based on reasonable impressions.^[5] This framework influenced Roman ethical and rhetorical traditions, where Carneades' embassy speeches in 155 BCE exemplified persuasive dialectic, dividing Roman orators into Attic and Asiatic styles and embedding skepticism in practical discourse.^[25] Later Roman thinkers, via Ciceronian transmission, encountered Carneades' challenges to dogmatic justice and theology, shaping debates on natural law and divine providence.^[26]

On Later Skepticism and Probabilism

Carneades' probabilism, which posited degrees of the pithanon (persuasive or probable) as a guide for action amid epistemic uncertainty, profoundly shaped the subsequent trajectory of Academic skepticism. His successor Clitomachus, who headed the Academy from approximately 127 to 110 BCE, rigorously defended Carneades' doctrines through extensive writings, emphasizing suspension of judgment (epochē) without any form of assent, thereby preserving a stricter interpretation of skepticism that rejected even provisional beliefs.^[5]^[14] In contrast, Philo of Larissa, scholarch from around 110 to 84 BCE, modified Carneades' framework by permitting assent to "probable impressions" under certain conditions, marking a shift toward a more fallibilist stance that allowed tentative commitments while still withholding certainty.^[5] This divergence among Carneades' followers highlighted the flexibility of his probabilism, which served as a practical criterion—distinguishing merely persuasive impressions from those "undiverted" by further scrutiny and "thoroughly examined" for reliability—enabling skeptics to navigate life without dogmatic foundations.^[14] The Roman philosopher Cicero played a pivotal role in transmitting Carneades' ideas to later generations, drawing on Academic traditions in works such as Academica (c. 45 BCE), where he reconstructs Carneades' dialectical assaults on Stoic cognitive impressions and elucidates the pithanon as a scalable standard for reasonable conduct.^[5]^[14] Cicero's adoption of a probabilistic approach, influenced by Philo during his studies in Athens around 79–78 BCE, integrated Carneades' skepticism into Roman intellectual discourse, emphasizing rational defensibility over absolute knowledge in ethics and politics.^[14] This preservation ensured that Carneades' emphasis on acting according to varying levels of probability—without implying truth—persisted as a counter to dogmatic schools like Stoicism and Epicureanism. In distinguishing Academic skepticism from emerging Pyrrhonian variants, Carneades' probabilism underscored a commitment to dialectical inquiry and provisional guidance, contrasting with Pyrrho's followers' aim for tranquility through undifferentiated adherence to appearances.^[14] Sextus Empiricus, writing in the 2nd–3rd century CE, acknowledged Carneades' influence while critiquing Academic tendencies toward subtle affirmations, yet the pithanon endured as a legacy for epistemologies prioritizing graded plausibility over suspension alone.^[5] This framework's focus on empirical scrutiny and causal reasoning under uncertainty prefigured elements of later probabilistic thought, though ancient reports, filtered through doxographers like Diogenes Laërtius (3rd century CE), reveal interpretive variances that underscore Carneades' oral, non-dogmatic method.^[14]

Modern Scholarly Interpretations

Modern scholars interpret Carneades' philosophy primarily through the lens of Academic skepticism, debating whether his suspension of judgment (epochē) was absolute or qualified by practical commitments to the pithanon (the probable or reasonable). One prominent view, advanced by Richard Bett, posits that Carneades engaged in substantive argumentation rather than mere dialectical exercise, holding certain positions—such as rejecting Stoic apprehensibility (kataleptos)—as his own convictions, evidenced by his consistent opposition to dogmatism across ethical and epistemological domains.^[17] This contrasts with earlier reconstructions that saw his antilogies (paired opposing arguments) as performative skepticism without personal endorsement, a reading challenged by the integrated role of pithanon in guiding action amid undecidability.^[27] The criterion of the pithanon remains a focal point of contention, with interpreters dividing on its scope. Myles Burnyeat argued that Carneades eschewed any graded probabilism for belief formation, limiting pithanon to pragmatic decision-making without theoretical assent, as no ancient evidence supports complex probability assessments akin to modern Bayesian models.^[2] Conversely, scholars like Suzanne Obdrzalek contend that pithanon functioned as a fallible epistemic standard, allowing Academics to navigate uncertainty by prioritizing appearances tested against coherence and empirical reliability, thus bridging skepticism with livable inquiry and underscoring Carneades' emphasis on error's inevitability.^[2] These analyses draw on Cicero's De Officiis and Sextus Empiricus' Adversus Mathematicos, where Carneades' embassy arguments against Roman justice exemplify pithanon's application in ethical dialectics, interpreted as utility-based rather than absolutist.^[26] Recent work also examines Carneades' oral methodology and avoidance of writing, attributing it to a deliberate commitment to dialectical fluidity over fixed doctrines, which complicates reconstruction but highlights his innovation in probabilistic ethics as a counter to Stoic and Epicurean rigidity.^[4] This has implications for contemporary epistemology, where Carneades' framework informs debates on fallibilism and informal logic, though scholars caution against anachronistic projections of modern probabilism onto his pithanon, stressing its roots in perceptual undogmatism.^[28] Overall, interpretations converge on Carneades as a pivotal figure in probabilist skepticism, refining Arcesilaus' methods into a systematic challenge to dogmatic certainty, with evidentiary gaps prompting ongoing reevaluation of secondary sources' reliability.^[2]

References

[1]
CARNEADES: THE ONE AND ONLY - jstor
He handed the Academy over – either formally or informally – to a successor, who remained in charge for six years. (137/6–131/0 BC) and passed away in Carneades ...
[2]
[PDF] Living in Doubt: Carneades' pithanon Reconsidered
I though the interpretation of ancient texts is inevitably di¶cult,. Carneades presents what one might call a worst-case scenario. In.
[3]
Plutarch: Carneades Visit to Rome from Life of Cato the Elder
Jan 26, 1996 · Carneades shocked Rome by arguing convincingly for one argument one day, and then refuting all his arguments the following day. Cato the Censor ...<|separator|>
[4]
New Evidence on Carneades: Reasons for his Avoidance of Writing ...
With Carneades Academic scepticism reached its peak: he refined and invented arguments and examples for the rejection of dogmatist ideas and especially of the ...
[5]
Carneades - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jul 8, 2020 · Carneades (214–129/8 BCE) was a member and eventually scholarch or head of the Academy, the philosophical school founded by Plato, for part of its skeptical ...Life and work · Epistemology and Academic... · Ethics · Other interests
[6]
Carneades - in ancient sources @ attalus.org
Carneades - son of Epicomus; an Academic philosopher, who died in 129 B.C. → Wikipedia entry · 213/9 The birth of Carneades. 163/7 Syll_666, the base of a ...Missing: biography | Show results with:biography
[7]
Carneades | Oxford Classical Dictionary
Carneades used the method of arguing ... On the occasion of the famous embassy to Rome, he gave speeches for and against justice on two consecutive days.
[8]
Academy - in ancient sources @ attalus.org
136/4 emarchus becomes head of the Academy, when Carneades the son of Epico 130/6a Crates becomes head of the Academy, following the death of Carneades 128 ...
[9]
10 The Embassy of the Three Philosophers to Rome in 155 bc
Furthermore, by questioning the received tradition that Carneades also delivered opposing speeches on justice at Rome, the chapter instead directs its focus ...
[10]
155 B.C. - events and references - Attalus.org
ROM The Athenians send the philosophers Carneades, Diogenes, and Critolaus to appeal against the decision of the Sicyonians. * Read Plutarch's account
[11]
Carneades at Rome: A Problem of Sceptical Rhetoric - jstor
In 155 B.C. he was enlisted as a member of an Athenian embassy sent to Rome to seek forgiveness of a fine imposed upon. Athens for seizure of territory ...
[12]
Ancient Greek Skepticism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The Socratic practice which Carneades employed, according to Cicero, was to try to conceal his own private opinion, relieve others from deception and in every ...
[13]
[PDF] Carneades' Pithanon and its Relation to Epoche and Apraxia
Dec 28, 2002 · According to Cameades, the criterion we live by will include the merely probable, the probable and undiverted, and the probable, undiverted and ...Missing: scholarly | Show results with:scholarly
[14]
Ancient Skepticism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Feb 24, 2010 · Ancient skepticism is as much concerned with belief as with knowledge. As long as knowledge has not been attained, the skeptics aim not to affirm anything.
[15]
[PDF] Carneades' theological arguments (David Sedley)
Carneades' ultimate aim is to find equally strong arguments for and against the existence of god. It is in the very nature of this enterprise, and indeed of ...
[16]
Marcus' Arguments against Divination (Chapter 5) - Cicero on the ...
Sep 27, 2019 · Carneades' question about the subject matter of divination, which Marcus seems to think helped to provoke Quintus' definition, and with which ...
[17]
[PDF] The Stoics and Carneades: Dialectic and the Holding of Views
Notice that this picture allows an Academic to hold views, even philosophical ... So Carneades emerges as a philosopher with views of his own. He is cagey ...
[18]
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/
[19]
Scepticism (Chapter 9) - Epicureanism
The Epicureans give three major anti-sceptical arguments. The first is that scepticism is self-refuting. The second is that the sceptic (qua sceptic) cannot ...Missing: criticism | Show results with:criticism<|control11|><|separator|>
[20]
Epicurus: Against Skepticism – NewEpicurean
Dec 2, 2013 · Epicurus opposed skepticism, which he saw as the error of not believing in the ability to determine anything with certainty.
[21]
CARNEADES' DISTINCTION BETWEEN ASSENT AND APPROVAL
My focus in this paper is on the Academic sceptic Carneades, and on ... "Carneades' Pithanon: A Reappraisal of its Role and Status." 10. M 7.176. 11 ...<|separator|>
[22]
[PDF] Scepticism about Gods in Hellenistic Philosophy - eScholarship
Sextus and Carneades, it seems, seek to discomfit the. Stoics by showing that their theology is radically incoherent and self- contradictory. Their sceptical ...<|separator|>
[23]
Dialectic in the Hellenistic Academy (Chapter 6)
Oct 26, 2018 · The two towering figures of the Hellenistic Academy, Arcesilaus and Carneades, engaged extensively in some form of dialectic. This is probably ...
[24]
The Greek Philosophical Sources in Cicero's De Fato - MDPI
Carneades opposed the idea that everything is determined by an unbroken chain of causes, as argued by Chrysippus. His argument offered an alternative to the ...
[25]
Historical Sketches 1 - Cicero - Newman Reader
The eloquence of Carneades and his associates had made (to use a familiar term) a great sensation among the Roman orators, who soon split into two parties,—the ...
[26]
14 Imperium sine fine: Carneades, the Splendid Vice of Glory, and ...
In the year 155 bc, Carneades had apparently been to Rome as a member of a Greek embassy and, feeling he owed the barbarous Romans a taste of Greek rhetoric and ...
[27]
[PDF] Carneades' Quip: Orality, Philosophy, Wit, and the Poetics of ...
orality, philosophy, and wit in the Hellenistic age using Carneades' quotations as a lens. Our specific topic is a short series of one-liners from. Homer and ...
[28]
[PDF] Considering Carneades as a Framework for Informal Logic
Abstract: The paper offers a critical analysis of the research program for formalizing informal logic proposed by Douglas Walton and Thomas. Gordon (2015).