know how abject ar in ther manure may continue without incansist cy to investigate them: those who think they Know them acurtely ‘may not. For te late, the investigation is already a its end a they suppor, wheres fo the Sone, the eton why ay evegation tunderaken tat the ide hat they have noe found she answer — fly presen. [ta] We msc investigate cach pac of what they call philosophy — ‘ey on te present occasion.” And since there has been much spt amongte Dogenaiss abou the partsof pllosopy" (come ‘saying that it fas one pr, some two, some tee), a iste which it ‘would not be propia to dea with a mote deta here, we shal set own pare the opinion of those who seem to have dele pon ‘he mite more fall and advance ovr argument on this basi i Where should the investigation of Dogmatism begin? ln] The Seoiss and some otbers say tha there are thee pars of hilxopty pi physic, ethics ~ and they bogin tei exposition ‘wih logic (though theee has indeed been mich dissension even bout where ane should begin) * We flow chem without hong ny opinion onthe masters and since what sid in the thee pare requires judgement and 2 standard apd the accoune of standards seems tbe ined inthe logical pr, eu begin withthe account ‘of eandars and withthe logical par, iit Standaeds!” (14) Sse remaking tac although they cal a tandard both ha by whi hey 3) ray and neal are jdged and tha by arending 8 Ses wo: Din La vi soa atch Sin Toe spare a offing ws mse yey oo a et «See etaet oo) = 9 6 dt Sa tno Cyne wth pi igo » Groat of nado epi. EE ors MER » Pb to which we ive ur ive, ies nw aur purpose to discuss what sid to bethe standard of trth. (We have deal with tan ards inthe oer sense in our account of Sceptcsn.”) IisF® The standards with which our account is concemet are spoken of in tree senics genera, a special andl very special Ia ‘the genera sense, every mete of prehension ia standard — ici in hs sense eat we tak of nara sandard such as seing Ta the spell ene, every eical mesure of appre ssa Sich asa ler or» pai of dividers. Inthe very evil ent, exer technical! measure of sppschenson ofan uncea object is 2 san card ~ this sense apples not to every sancard but only 10 logical standards and those which the Dogmatiss bring fora in corde to judge the uth [us We propore to dal priscipally with logal standards, But logical standard ate spoken of in ete seer? ~ that by which, that through which, and tht in vie of which. For example, et by ‘which ~& human; ccough which ~ eter pecepen o inlet ia ent of which ~ the impact of an appearance in viru of which humans se themsclhes to make judgements througk one ofthe means ‘we have mentioned [ur] Tews no doube appropriate to make these prminary remarks In order to havea conception of what our accounts about Fo he reset wt proceed to our counterargument against those who rash ‘ay that they have apprehended the standard ofr, We bein wth the dpe ‘eign he wed apps and rors by Hea 3 Digs Lac 1x (Rouno) Abs The Dena of ls, Pin Roky Ox Sci a : mlv Ts there a standard of tuthe™* (18 OF hose who have dacssed standards, ome ave asserted that there isone eg, the Stoic and certain othe), some that there not (among them, Xeniades of Corinth and Nenophanes af Colophon who sys bt bles found over all™); and we sarpend judgement 280 whether ther sone oF 08 [is] Now they will ay either hati disput i decidable or hat i is undeidable If undecidabl, they wil immediately grant that one ‘must suspend judgement if decidable lt tem say By whit be jdged when we nether possess an agreed standard nor even naw if tere sone but ae investigating the maze. [aof Again, in onder for the dispute that has arisen about standards to be decided, we mia posss an agred standard threw which Wwe ean judge if) and in onder for ws to poses an agreed standard, the dispute about standards must akeady have heen ecded, Thus the argument ils into the reciprocal mode and the Alicovery of 2 senda is Nocked ~ for we do not allow them to assume a sada by hypothesis, and i they want &o judge the seandard by a standard we teow them into an inne regress Again, since a poof needs a tandard which hasbeen proved anda standard needs proof which has been judge they ae thowa into the reciprocal mode.*” {G1} Now, although we think chat hee considerations are actually ‘enough to show the ashaess ofthe Dogma in thee account of| standards, nevertheless, so that we may be able o bring ome variety inco ou refestion of them, ie noe absurd to persevere withthe topic. Noc tae we propore to contest ath of their opinions about standard one by one forthe spe ie at, an in that way we toO * Re dpe te te rio, Mac Mapa eae 2» Kan oly om Seaham he view ia eventing _ pain aeaie momma 2 Foster wit Sea ipleien 2 ‘would necessary fll nt giving an uamethodial acount Bot ‘ince the standard we are investigating is thoughe tobe threefold — that by which, tha though whieh and hain ire of whieh — we ‘hal cle each of chee inten and ebb es inappechensbliy, for in this way our acount wil be at once neshodical and complete. “Let us begin with the eandard by which; fe along with tthe others to sem ina way to each an impasse vy That by whieh {e2]Hlumans~so fir at what the Dogmatins sey goes—se romeo be nor only inappeehenble bu actualy inconceivable. Aral, we bear Plato's Socrates excl confsing that he does not know ‘whether be sa human or something else ™ And when they wih to ‘Seablish the concep, Sa the are napa an secondly what they (ay ic cc witli [aa] Democrna say that 3 haan being is what weal now.* ‘Burs faras this goes, we shall ot be acqusinted with humans; or we also know dogs ~ and for that eason dogs wil be humans. And here fe some humans we donot know 2 they will ot be humans. Or rather, as fara this conception goes, no-one wil be a uman; fori Democritus says that a haman mus be known by everyone, and 80 human it known by al mans, en no-one will be 2 human according to him. (24) That this pine noe sophisti but ia ne ‘with his own views is apparent, For ur aushor says thatthe only things tha arty real ae the stom andthe oid and these, he sys, belong nos ony to animals but w all compounds" Thus 28 as these items are concerned, we eal not conceive of whats peculi Fhumans (since they are common to everthing); and yet nothing ese css apart fom them, Therefore we shal not have anything through © Aating 9 ery Hei. 2 GH. 2 fi eign 2p a 3) 1 Ge Titec a Cd ee Bec ag Dih-Kam (ho Seettaehich sa beable ings humans em herria and Seip then (es Epcssy hat «human beng i ue fea sr, together that Soong in ne ums a se by ping, anyone's ot ing ped ot haan ad omens ponang women memati 2m, won wi be fms, (We Sl sue dong he ne tn em irene cms, which we kon fee fhe cf apenson [6] Othe have sl hat haan ings are moral ona sniva, pile ofnening and Lonledge. Now se oe Sow te nr ofan panel asa Shara ae capa tvhof ndctding tn of nowlge ‘lara wate Dogmtry ont" ie aoa Sich they mean [7] Meco esses conta fe Siison we mean ctr cl ee Trac hea you ae ota Bunan nar you have tealyeeqed poser Coowiege an we pte in pit of eon and sem ney ros of ding (eat wht big ly el Ik pote then ou wil oes human if you pon se vce br hae sae undevandng sa fowllge ands re ths han the emer seve. i pcs een a oe sone of human eget bento may ce [A] AS for Pan, when snr that aan ing eed to foe fetes sil cpl of poe troweige he does nx hie din be sting ths out allem For hana among he ings wih ong faa cng i ing tae nora cand posible ng tim taser aneingtimaey boing whe ae ee 2 garases a» Bethe the al he wal wal no been, 22 SO ser, CEM wt. Te ohne Fe (eg, Arte, Tip) mat on Coens Seapine one ta CF An Pao), Dena Digs ae) dow, 2 Se Te tn Tim (alow). ” ‘ex wi in ot he eno aii muir © geting ov be cen soln ibility. PM a wep yoy of onan haa in be coche wth int ts tpi eye fsa nd ty ue sn pape ‘pretender ef an) Ta Boe a Pech arte lowing enone Te re thng ar te om rh ry eae ‘hs hen tl rtonting of et ve ers prance wee ay reat se ep SETA ye yoy be ean a thes diem *Weoug den oping en Sophie ao apc baa’ me dom spent Sas Rass ming me a ape ‘Tet tr ohm Tht ce Se en per Th et ne ae chesney sity, an agin unde hap Sus app Sch w mngptbone der ome low omc Tow Ofow she dased al oe he thawte owen (eg Deo of Nese aban ae te whl enh pene ug (a) Now te Dopey ha depriswiesne sn imei gn ppc of a jy ri et et ww wa ee (2 Theo ee th prin ely ‘emotes ap ba yyw eh + Spat + SRE percent Seta Se Naor le arte ae petene poms ton pcapme si mg 2 Sem SEN on tating a ea 2 ppt cate oT Din 8intellect, we sal reply that, sce the intl isthe most unelese pre ‘of the soul ~ tis is shown bythe fie that some poople agree about ‘the ely of he sul and yet dite about the nec? — [5] hen if ‘cis with he intel thar they wane apprehend the soul and decide fe dspue about i, hey wan o decide and confirm what is ess 3 matter of investigation by whats moce a matter of investigation — which is abaurd. Thus the dispute abou the sul will no be decided ith che ieee. Therefore with acting Bai db 0, sewally iappechensible. Hence mans cannot be sppechended iter [se] Bor even if we gra that humans a apprehended, is surely or possible to show the iis by humans that objets must be judged. For anyone who sas tht objec should be judged by humans wil ay this either wthout proof or with poof, Net with roo forthe prof must be ra and must have been judged — and s0 hae been judged by someting, Now since we cannot say on the basis of agreement by what he proof self canbe judged (for we ate invesgaing che standard by which), we shall noc beable o decide the proof, and for this reaten we shall at be able to prove the standard, with which our acccunt is now concerned, js Ba fis ‘aid without proof that ies by humans that objets mst be judged, ‘his wll be unconvincing. Thas we shall no be abe to ali that Inumans are the sands by ch ‘And by what wll c be judge that humans are the standard by ich? If they sate the point without giving jdgemen, they will ‘not be found convincing. Bu if dey say thai wil be jadged by humans, they ake for grant che mater nde investigtion; [36] and iby another animal, how wl thie animal be adduced to judge ‘whether humans ae the sandal? If without giving a jagement i will not be found convincing. If with a odgerent, the i ought in tum to be judged by something: if by isl, the same absurdity remains (éhe mater unde investigation willbe judged through the matter under investigation); iby humans, the eiprcal mode is inode iby something ele apa from these, we shall again ask 2 Web oconpec atc saat, 9) EY forthe stand by which for that ~ and so ad ifs Foe this rewson too, therefore, we will ot be able to say that iis by humans ‘har objects mus be judge Tor} Bur sippore it be the ease, and to have been made convincing, that objects st be judged by mans. Now, since here tre many ferences among humans, let the Dogma st agre ‘with ne anche that we shold tendo this human and only thea Te them bid ws give him our acne Bur bey ate pig w dope bout this ‘slong as water flows and res grow tl (3 the Ving oer), how can they urge ws ashy to give Our assent anyone? [bt] I ee say that we shoul in the Sage convincing we shall ask dem which Sage ~ the Sage accocding to Fpiurus, or according to the Stoic, othe Cyrene Sage, o the Cynic They wil noe be ble wo agree on an answer 39)" And if someone cams that 2 Should abandon our scatch fr the Sage and simply Gn convincing ‘whoever is everest ar pesent, then, is, they wil ao dispute abou ‘who is vere than the others nd secondly, events granted hat they can agree in determining who among everyone present and pat is cleverest even 10 he should not be found convincing. [40) Fe since there ae many —anden prey wellinfnitely many grades ant Aegres of cevemes, we sy that tis posible” that scone ele shouldbe born wh seven cleverer than dhe ene wesayicleveest Cerone past and preene. Thea just as we ae requied to find ‘convincing because of his cleverness he one whois ow sido beth ‘most ineligent ofveyone presen and pas, 50 we should ater id Convincing the veer one who wil xs after him. And when be boca, we should exper in tam that somcane ese will be born, ‘ere than hin and someone ele levees than im; and soa ‘nfm. 41] (Les weleae whether these people wil gre with one another or dispute in what they say.) Hence, even if someone $ lowed to be the clever of everyone past and present sl sace we 8 Se the rnd mde of mugen, above 5% ee om at ane pram Ala oe Pio, Pha 8) guctapunby Soma iinet ah Forte oppo a pbc see oeBook Il cannot say afematively that there will no-one shrewder tha him (for has unclear, we sal always hase to wait for the judgement of the ceverer person who wil xis late and never ase othe one who i now sero [42] Even fe grant by way of concession that thee nether s nor was nor wll be anyone clever than this hyphal ever person, ‘fen ois not righ find him convincing. For lever people, when Ay Uy 0 exablsh something, ae pecially prone fo champion whats unsound and make i rem sound an tr; 0 when our ‘eon penny ming we lot ow whee scribing the objec sit isin ts nature whether bes presentngt ‘src although itis ils and persuading us to cansides ita though it ‘were tru ~ for hes the cleveret fal nd for that reason cannot be ‘efi by ws: Hence we shall aot give ren him ou ase as judging ‘objects rly fr while we eink that hei speaking the tah we also think tar, Because of his exesineshrendnes, he says what he does fom a desire to preset Fle objects a rhs For these teson, in jndging objects one should noe Sind convincing even someone Who seems be shewde of al (4s) Ifsomeane say that we should asend to he agreement ofthe majority, we shall say shat ehati ile, Fo, ist, whats ere 90 dulce, and for this reason ti pose for ne person tobe more imelgen than the majo.” Secondly, fr eery saan there re more people opposed of than in agresnent abou for thse wh Admit any standard difeen from de one which sme people seem % agree upon are oppose to it and are fir more numerous then thane ‘who agree about (Besides, those who age ether exhibit diferent conditions ‘oF share a single condition. Now they do noe exhibit different ‘ondions 50 far asthe mater in queston goes —how then wed ® Reatng oto vith he as, Macha Map bt Ope " os Cr Mei es EERE tends efoto Tn Mas hoe to). ” they say the same thing about ie Bur if they share a singe corton, then, sac the ene person wio says something irene as single onion anc ll ofthese who spre ves ingle conion we wll find no difference in number so fr ste cordiuons we are azending to go. as} For thi reson we should not acend ro the moot any ‘more than to one person. Moreover, as we suggested i the second mode of scepscsm® numerical difference among jidgemens is cual inaprchensbe, for there are infitly many individal Juma and we cannot survey all their judgenint and sere what the major of al himans assert and what dhe nino. Fr this reason ‘00, then, preference among judges on she bss of number is absurd [4s] But if we donot atend to number eer, we hall nd no-one by wots objets wil be adge, even though we have granted 10 mich by way of concession, Hence onal hse grounds the sandal tyr which objets ace to be judged i found © be inappechensile (er) Sine the other standards too ae cael slong with this one (lor cach of them is ether a par or 4 fling or an actiy of Ihamans), ie would no doubt be appose to proceed in ou account to one ofthe topes next in order, 0a the grounds that the ther ‘andar too have Been sulfcendly discussed” bu so thar we may not seem to be reluctant to make a specific counterargument against ‘ch of them, we sal for good messire sy 2 few words abot ‘em 00, And fist we shill discuss the eandard call “trough whic vi That through whieh [ast The dispar among the Dogmais on this subjee i great ined, prey wel infinite;but, with medhadizl procedure again in wie! Wwe say thas, sine acoeding to them humans are that by Reig he eg ho Mah a en eh «Renting eto ceo ‘Ring dpe (Choe bays Mchauan-Ma