PYRRHO. A. Historical position of Scepticism 514 1. Relation to cotemporary dogmatic systems 514 2. Causes producing it 515 3. Pyrrho and his followers 517 B. Teaching of Pyrrho 521 1. Impossibility of knowledge 521 2. Withholding of judgment 523 3. Mental imperturbability 525 CHAPTER XXIII. THE NEW ACADEMY. A. Arcesilaus 528 1. Denial of knowledge 528 2. Probability 534 B. Carneades 535 1. Negative views of 538 2. Positive views of 553 C. School of Carneades 563 GENERAL INDEX 567 PART I. STATE OF CULTURE IN GREECE. CHAPTER I. THE INTELLECTUAL AND POLITICAL STATE OF GREECE AT THE CLOSE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. [A. Merits and defects of the systems of Plato and Aristotle.] In Plato and Aristotle Greek Philosophy reached its greatest perfection. In their hands the Socratic philosophy of conceptions grew into elaborate systems, which embraced the whole range of contemporary knowledge, and grouped it from definite points of view so as to afford a connected view of the universe. The study of nature was by them supplemented by careful enquiries into the subject of morals. It was, moreover, transformed, enlarged, and enriched by Aristotle. In metaphysics, the foundations for a philosophical structure were deeply laid, everything being referred to first principles, in a way which no previous philosopher had before attempted. A multitude of phenomena which earlier thinkers had carelessly passed over, more particularly the phenomena of mental life, were pressed into the service of research; new questions were raised; new answers given. New ideas had penetrated every branch of knowledge. That idealism in which the Greek mind so beautifully and lucidly found expression had been set forth by Plato in brilliant purity, and had been by Aristotle combined with careful observation. Practice and theory had brought the dialectical method to the position of an art. A valuable instrument of thought had been gained in the scientific use of terms of which Aristotle was the real originator. Within a few generations the intellectual treasures of Greece had been manifoldly increased, both in extent and value. The heritage received by Socrates from his predecessors could hardly be recognised as the same in that which Aristotle left to his successors.