Knowledge, Theory of -- Early works to 1800; Philosophy -- Early works to 1800
§§54--63. Summary. The Academics fail to see that such doctrines do
away with all probability even. Their talk about twins and seals is
childish (54). They press into their service the old physical
philosophers, though ordinarily none are so much ridiculed by them
(55). Democritus may say that innumerable worlds exist in every
particular similar to ours, but I appeal to more cultivated physicists,
who maintain that each thing has its own peculiar marks (55, 56). The
Servilii were distinguished from one another by their friends, and
Delian breeders of fowls could tell from the appearance of an egg which
hen had laid it (56, 57). We however, do not much care whether we are
able to distinguish eggs from one another or not. Another thing that
they say is absurd, viz. that there may be distinction between
individual sensations, but not between classes of sensations (58).
Equally absurd are those "probable and undisturbed" sensations they
profess to follow. The doctrine that true and false sensations are
indistinguishable logically leads to the unqualified εποχη of Arcesilas
(59). What nonsense they talk about inquiring after the truth, and
about the bad influence of authority! (60). Can you, Cicero, the
panegyrist of philosophy, plunge us into more than Cimmerian darkness?
(61) By holding that knowledge is impossible you weaken the force of
your famous oath that you "knew all about" Catiline. Thus ended
Lucullus, amid the continued wonder of Hortensius (62, 63). Then
Catulus said that he should not be surprised if the speech of Lucullus
were to induce me to change my view (63).
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account