{"id":177,"date":"2010-01-05T09:08:19","date_gmt":"2010-01-05T09:08:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rayharvey.org\/?p=177"},"modified":"2010-09-20T14:34:23","modified_gmt":"2010-09-20T20:34:23","slug":"the-difference-between-a-cynic-and-a-skeptic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rayharvey.org\/index.php\/2010\/01\/the-difference-between-a-cynic-and-a-skeptic\/","title":{"rendered":"The Difference Between a Cynic and a Skeptic"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>
Antisthenes<\/figcaption><\/figure>The difference between the cynic and the skeptic is the difference between epistemology and ethics. It is the difference between brain and body.
\n<\/p>\n

Skepticism is an epistemological word. Cynicism is ethical.<\/p>\n

Epistemology<\/a> is the branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge.<\/p>\n

Ethics is the branch of philosophy<\/a> that deals with morality. <\/p>\n

The Greek word skopein<\/i> \u2013 from which the English word scope derives \u2013 means \u201cto observe, aim at, examine.\u201d It is related to the Greek skeptesthai,<\/i> which means \u201cto look out.\u201d Skepsis<\/i> and skeptikos<\/i> are also both Greek and mean \u201cto look; to enquire; to aim.\u201d Those are the etymological roots of the word sceptic.<\/p>\n

Sceptic \u2013 or, if you\u2019re in the United States, skeptic,<\/i> the difference being purely one of form and not substance \u2013 has its origins in the Ancient Greek thinkers who developed arguments which purport to show that knowledge is either impossible (Academic Scepticism) or that there is never sufficient data to tell if knowledge is possible (Pyrrhonian Scepticism).<\/p>\n

Academic Scepticism rejects certainty but accepts degrees of probability. In this sense, Academic Scepticism anticipates elements of present-day quantum theory. The Academic Sceptics rejected certainty on the grounds that our senses (from which all knowledge ultimately derives) are unreliable and reason therefore is unreliable since, say the Academic Sceptics, we can find no guaranteed standard by which to gauge whether our convictions are true. This claim rests upon the notion that humans can never know anything that is absolutely false.<\/p>\n

The roots of Academic Scepticism are found in Socrates famous apothegm: \u201cAll I know is that I know nothing.\u201d The word “Academic” in \u201cAcademic Scepticism\u201d refers to Plato\u2019s Academy, third century B.C.<\/p>\n

At around this same time, a fellow by the name of Pyrrho of Elis (c.360-275 B.C.), who was connected with the Methodic School of Medicine in Alexandria, founded a school, which soon came to be known as Pyrrhonian Scepticism. Pyrrho\u2019s followers \u2013 most notably a loyal student named Timon (c.315-225 B.C.) \u2013 were called Pyrrhonists. None of Pyrrho\u2019s actual writings have survived, and the theoretical formulation of his philosophy comes mainly from a man named Aenesidemus (c.100-40 B.C.).<\/p>\n

The essential difference between these two schools of Ancient Greek scepticism is this:<\/p>\n

The Pyrrhonists regarded even the claim “I know only that I know nothing” as claiming too much knowledge. There\u2019s even a legend that Pyrrho himself refused to make a definitive judgment of knowledge even if \u201cchariots were about to strike him dead,\u201d and his students purportedly rescued him a number of different times because he refused to make commitments.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Pyrrho of Elis<\/figcaption><\/figure>To this day the term Pyrrhonist<\/i> is synonymous with the term sceptic,<\/i> which is also synonymous with the term agnostic<\/i> (a meaning \u201cwithout\u201d; gnosis meaning \u201cknowledge\u201d).<\/p>\n

It\u2019s perhaps worth pointing out as well that the word agnostic in this context was, according to the Oxford English Dictionary,<\/i> coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, in the spring of 1869, at a party, in which there was reportedly \u201cmuch licking and sucking.\u201d According to R. H. Hutton, who was there: \u201cHuxley took it from St. Paul\u2019s mention of the altar to \u2018the Unknown God.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

In truth, however, the word agnostic was most likely first used by a woman named Isabel Arundell, in a letter to Huxley. Huxley stole it from and gave her no credit.<\/p>\n

The Oxford English Dictionary<\/i> (Unabridged, 2004) lists four meanings of the term sceptic, which are as follows:<\/p>\n

1. one who, like Pyrrho and his followers in Greek antiquity, doubts the possibility of real knowledge of any kind; one who holds that there are no adequate grounds for certainty. Example:<\/b> \u201cI am apt to think there never yet has really been such a monster in the world as a sceptic\u201d (Tucker, 1768).<\/p>\n

2. one who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge \u2026 popularly, one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to some particular question or statement; one who is habitually inclined to doubt rather than to believe any assertion or apparent fact that comes before him. Example:<\/b> \u201cIf every sceptic in Theology may teach his follies, there can be no religion\u201d (Samuel Johnson, 1779).<\/p>\n

3. one who doubts without absolutely denying the truth of the Christian religion or important party of it; loosely, an unbeliever in Christianity. Example:<\/b> \u201cIn listening to the arguments of a sceptic, you are breathing a poisonous air\u201d (R.B. Girdlestone, 1863).<\/p>\n

4. occasionally, from its etymological sense: a truth seeker; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions. Example:<\/b> \u201cA sceptic, then, is one who shades his eyes in order to look steadfastly at a thing.\u201d (M.D. Conway, 1870).<\/p>\n

The anthropogenic global warming debate has catapulted this latter definition to the forefront, yet many purists, who know the philosophical roots of the word scepticism, are not always comfortable using it in this way \u2014 mainly because it\u2019s so at odds with the philosophical meaning of the term. Scepticism has over 2,000 years of heavy philosophical baggage, and to call yourself a sceptic in the philosophical sense entails much more than one \u201cwho shades his eyes in order to look steadfastly at a thing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Language, however, as everyone knows, is a living, breathing organism which will and properly should evolve, and it would be very bad to say that sceptic in this latter sense is incorrect. And yet there is another word, more precise and less laden: Evidentialism.<\/p>\n

True scepticism \u2014 which is to say, agnosticism, which is to say, Pyrrhonism \u2014 rejects the possibility of all knowledge, and yet it is precisely this that the scientist seeks, and finds: knowledge. What is knowledge?<\/p>\n

Knowledge is the apprehension of reality based upon observation and reason; reason is the uniquely human faculty of awareness, the apparatus of identification, differentiation, and incorporation. Knowledge is truth, and truth is the accurate identification of reality. Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus.<\/i> Truth is the equation of thing and intellect. <\/p>\n

For example, when the child grasps that 1 unit combined with 2 other units makes a total of 3 units, that child has discovered a truth. She has gained knowledge. The philosophical sceptic rejects this elementary fact.<\/p>\n

The philosophical sceptic is defined by three words: \u201cI don\u2019t know.\u201d<\/p>\n

The scientific sceptic, on the other hand, is defined by rational inquiry \u2014 someone who investigates with a disposition to be persuaded and yet does not (in the words of perhaps the most famous sceptical inquirer<\/a> of them all) \u201cinsensibly twist facts to fit theories, instead of twisting theories to fit facts.\u201d<\/p>\n

A cynic, on the other hand, is someone who doesn’t believe goodness is possible.<\/p>\n

Cynicism is a moral concept, not epistemologic<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The word originated with a Greek fellow by the name of Antisthenes (not to be confused with Antihistamines<\/a>, which are something else), who was once a student of Socrates.<\/p>\n

Antisthenes had a notorious contempt for human merit and human pleasure, and that is why to this day the word cynic denotes a sneer.<\/p>\n

The cynic rejects goodness; the skeptic rejects knowledge.<\/p>\n

Both words, it should also be noted, do, however, have one very important thing in common: from a philosophical standpoint, they’re each stupendously incorrect.<\/p>\n

This article first appeared, in slightly different form, at Dr. Jennifer Marohasy’s website<\/a>. <\/p>\n

The comments there<\/a> are well worth reading.<\/i><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Antisthenes<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The difference between the cynic and the skeptic is the difference between epistemology and ethics. It is the difference between brain and body. Skepticism is an epistemological word. Cynicism is ethical. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with morality. The Greek word skopein … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “The Difference Between a Cynic and a Skeptic”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false},"categories":[21,41,159],"tags":[173,168,170,162,163,164,171,172,167,169,166,174,161,160,165],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rayharvey.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rayharvey.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rayharvey.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rayharvey.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rayharvey.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=177"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/rayharvey.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rayharvey.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rayharvey.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rayharvey.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}