Talk:Pyrrhonism

None of this article is true. Totnesmartin 19:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I lolled. 19:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No you didn't! Totnesmartin 19:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I did, maybe I didn't. The worst part is, you can never know! 19:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Define Pyrrhonic victory. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs 17:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My two cents on Pyrrhonism

 * Section title taken from edit summary.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This philosophy speaks right to my soul. I hate judgmental assholes who are oh so sure of everything and hold opinions of everything and anything. "Guilty until proven innocent! I shall make blanket statements all day about Chinese-Japanese nationalistic relationships and the completely valid opinions I hold of why and how they came about! After all, I am entitled to my opinion, and I hold that I am as well-informed as the next guy, so all my judgments are fine!" No, just no. Where do you get all this confidence, how can you justify making so many blanket statements? Think before you judge, exercise caution before you jump to conclusions. The world would be better if people learned from Pyrrhonism. Just my two cents. Nullahnung (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Pyrrhonism took it quite beyond "don't jump to conclussions".--ZooGuard (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose. There is a profound skepticism behind everything, which is on quite another level than the example I ranted on. But it feeds into my tendencies to understand a level of uncertainty behind everything I perceive. Of course, I don't just descend into Solipsist tendencies or anything, I just think it is interesting and sound to perceive things as apparent realities instead of "hard realities" and this attitude would then somehow teach me caution... or something. Yeah, I realize my reasoning is really flimsy, but I do feel that way deep down inside. Nullahnung (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Pyrrhonism or paranoid skepticism?
After this edit by what appears to be an apologist for Pyrrhonism, the "sample 5 minutes" are senseless. Either the article should be reverted to its previous state, or if everyone agrees with the apparent apologist that Pyrrhonism is not the same as the insane hyperskepticism depicted here, the section should be removed. --84.151.141.21 (talk)
 * The sample isn't senseless, it's pretty accurate when you read up on him.Machina (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's just not a practical way to live and their premise is flawed. It's not opinions or beliefs that cause suffering but when a person or group thinks their way is the only way and forces it onto others. Also when I read up on him, the sample five minutes is not that far off.Machina (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Question
Are the 'strong adherents' of this philosophy pyrrhomaniacs? Anna Livia (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2021 additions
The information I added to this page mostly came from the Outlines of Pyrrhonism. This is something I learned about in a philosophy phase I went through a little while ago, and also my first time editing a wiki, so please correct me if I'm wrong about anything. The previous version left a lot out, but it also seems to have misunderstood a couple points. First off, what it called Ataraxia was really called Epoché, Ataraxia was the state that supposedly followed it: epoche, ataraxia. Second, from what I’ve read the consensus is that pyrrhonists probably did act on what their senses told them. Sextus Impiricus’s description of them just says that outright, so later ones probably did. Whether or not earlier groups did is muddier: according to this there are stories of Pyrrho ignoring the world around him and putting himself in danger, but they’re not seen as reliable. If it’s true that he lived to an old age, like the stories say, then he probably did pay attention to stuff around him, though whether that’s because he lied about his philosophy, followed the same principles as Sextus Impericus, or a different set isn’t clear. I changed ataraxia to epoché because that seemed pretty cut-and-dry, but I left the rest of what was already there to not overwrite someone else’s edits without bringing it up in Talk. Is there a way you normally contest somebody else’s writing on here?Heythere (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems like good material for an expansion, but it looks messy right now. See Help:Lists for nicer list formatting. Looks worth tidying up and structuring better, but I'd suggest making changes in that direction yourself too. On disagreements, you can discuss them on the talk page, and it's fine to try to change an article. (Changes to details that bring a good reference to back up the new info is a good thing.) Others who object may or may not change an article back, and as long as people honor whatever consensus forms with discussion if they want to edit differently, further editing is no problem. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As above. I'd say this is great work, especially if you're editing a wiki for the first time! I'm going to put back in the snarky section because I think both the serious explanation and it play off each other pretty well. Other things to improve would likely be to expand references to Agrippa/introduce who he is. Kntai (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice; I'll touch up this page on-and-off for the next little while Heythere (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Why do people adhere to this "philosophy" who should be able to know better?
What I asked.--Max Sinister (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)