Chap. IV.—That Knowledge is Taken Away by Socrates, and Conjecture by Zeno.

Zeno and the Stoics, then, were right in repudiating conjecture. For to conjecture that you know that which you do not know, is not the part of a wise, but rather of a rash and foolish man. Therefore if nothing can be known, as Socrates taught, or ought to be conjectured, as Zeno taught, philosophy is entirely removed. Why should I say that it is not only overthrown by these two, who were the chiefs of philosophy, but by all, so that it now appears to have been long ago destroyed by its own arms? Philosophy has been divided into many sects; and they all entertain various sentiments. In which do we place the truth? It certainly cannot be in all. Let us point out some one; it follows that all the others will be without wisdom. Let us pass through them separately; in the same manner, whatever we shall give to one we shall take away from the others. For each particular sect overturns all others, to confirm itself and its own doctrines: nor does it allow wisdom to any other, lest it should confess that it is itself foolish; but as it takes away others, so is it taken away itself by all others. For they are nevertheless philosophers who accuse it of folly. Whatever sect you shall praise and pronounce true, that is censured by philosophers as false. Shall we therefore believe one which praises itself and its doctrine, or the many which blame the ignorance of each other? That must of necessity be better which is held by great numbers, than that which is held by one only. For no one can rightly judge concerning himself, as the renowned poet testifies;356    Terent., Heautont., iii. sec. 97.   for the nature of men is so arranged, that they see and distinguish the affairs of others better than their own. Since, therefore, all things are uncertain, we must either believe all or none: if we are to believe no one, then the wise have no existence, because while they separately affirm different things they think themselves wise; if all, it is equally true that there are no wise men, because all deny the wisdom of each individually. Therefore all are in this manner destroyed; and as those fabled sparti357    σπαρτοί, those who sprung from the dragon’s teeth.   of the poets, so these men mutually slay one another, so that no one remains of all; which happens on this account, because they have a sword, but have no shield. If, therefore, the sects individually are convicted of folly by the judgment of many sects, it follows that all are found to be vain and empty; and thus philosophy consumes and destroys itself. And since Arcesilas the founder of the Academy understood this, he collected together the mutual censures of all, and the confession of ignorance made by distinguished philosophers, and armed himself against all. Thus he established a new philosophy of not philosophizing. From this founder, therefore, there began to be two kinds of philosophy: one the old one, which claims to itself knowledge; the other a new one, opposed to the former, and which detracts from it. Between these two kinds of philosophy I see that there is disagreement, and as it were civil war. On which side shall we place wisdom, which cannot be torn asunder?358359    Distrahi, which is the reading of some editions, is here followed in preference to the common reading, detrahi.   If the nature of things can be known, this troop of recruits will perish; if it cannot, the veterans will be destroyed: if they shall be equal, nevertheless philosophy, the guide of all, will still perish, because it is divided; for nothing can be opposed to itself without its own destruction. But if, as I have shown, there can be no inner and peculiar knowledge in man on account of the frailty of the human condition, the party of Arcesilas prevails. But not even will this stand firm, because it cannot be the case that nothing at all is known.  

0357A CAPUT IV. Scientiam a Socrate, opinationem a Zenone esse sublatam.

Recte igitur Zeno ac Stoici opinationem repudiarunt. Opinari enim te scire, 0357A quod nescias, non est sapientis, sed temerarii potius, ac stulti. Ergo si neque sciri quidquam potest, ut Socrates docuit, nec opinari oportet ut Zeno, tota philosophia sublata est. Quid, quod non tantum ab his duobus evertitur, qui philosophiae principes fuerunt, sed ab omnibus; ut jam videatur, jampridem suis armis esse confecta. In multas sectas philosophia divisa est; et omnes varia sentiunt. In qua ponimus veritatem? in omnibus certe non potest. Designemus quamlibet: nempe 0357B in caeteris omnibus sapientia non erit. Transeamus ad singulas: eodem modo, quidquid uni dabimus, caeteris auferemus. Unaquaeque enim secta omnes alias evertit, ut se suaque confirmet; nec ulli alteri sapere concedit, ne se desipere fateatur: sed sicut alias tollit, sic ipsa quoque ab aliis tollitur omnibus. Nihilominus enim philosophi sunt, qui eam stultitiae accusant. Quamcumque laudaveris, veramque dixeris, a philosophis vituperatur, ut falsa. Credemusne igitur uni sese suamque doctrinam laudanti, an multis unius alterius ignorantiam culpantibus? Rectius sit necesse est, quod plurimi sentiunt, quam quod unus. Nemo enim potest de se recte judicare, quod nobilis poeta testatur. Ita enim comparatam 0357C esse hominum naturam omnium, aliena ut melius videant, et dijudicent quam sua. Cum igitur omnia 0358A incerta sint, aut omnibus credendum est, aut nemini: si nemini, sapientes ergo non sunt, quia singuli diversa affirmantes, sapientes esse se putant: si omnibus, aeque non sunt sapientes, quia singuli ab omnibus esse negantur sapientes. Pereunt igitur universi hoc modo, et tanquam sparti illi poetarum, sic se invicem jugulant, ut nemo ex omnibus restet: quod eo fit, quia gladium habent, scutum non habent.

Si ergo singulae sectae multarum sectarum judicio stultitiae convincuntur, omnes igitur vanae, atque inanes reperiuntur: ita seipsam philosophia consumit, et conficit. Quod cum intelligeret Arcesilas Academiae conditor, reprehensiones omnium inter se collegit, confessionemque ignorantiae clarorum philosophorum, 0358B armavitque se adversus omnes. Ita constituit novam non philosophandi philosophiam. Eo igitur auctore, duo philosophiae genera esse coeperunt: unum, illud vetus, quod scientiam sibi vendicat; alterum, novum repugnans, quod eam detrahit. In his duobus generibus video dissidium, et quasi civile bellum. Sapientiam, quae detrahi non potest, in qua parte ponemus? Si natura rerum sciri potest, haec tironum caterva interibit; si non potest, veterani conficientur: si pares fuerint, nihilominus peribit dux omnium philosophia, quia detracta est; nihil enim potest sine interitu sibi esse contrarium. Si autem, ut docui, nulla potest esse in homine interna et propria scientia, ob fragilitatem conditionis humanae, 0358C Arcesilae manus vincit. Sed ne ipsa quidem stabit, quia non potest omnino nihil sciri.