SCEPTIC, σχηπτχος, from σχεπτομαι, I consider, look about, or deliberare, properly signifies considerative and inquisitive, or one who is always weighing reasons on one side and the other, without ever deciding between them. It is chiefly applied to an ancient sect of philosophers founded by Pyrrho, who, according to Laertius, had various other denominations. From their master they were called Pyr-rhonians; from the distinguishing tenets or characteristic of their philosophy they derived the name of Aporetici, from ἀποϑειv , to doubt; from their suspension and hesitation they were called ephectici, from ἐπεχειv, to stag or keep back; and, lastly, they were called zetetici, or seekers, from their never getting beyond the search of truth.

That the sceptical philosophy is absurd, can admit of no ' dispute in the present age; and that many of the followers of Pyrrho carried it to the most ridiculous height, is not less true. But we cannot believe that he himself was so extravagantly sceptical as has sometimes been asserted, when we reflect on the particulars of his life, which are still preserved, and the respectful manner in which we find him mentioned by his contemporaries and writers of the first name who flourished soon after him. The truth, as far as at this distance of time it can be discovered, seems to be, that he learned from Democritus to deny the real existence of all[7:19:677] qualities in bodies, except those which are essential to primary atoms; and that he referred every thing else to the perceptions of the mind produced by external objects, in other words, to appearance and opinion. All knowledge of course appeared to him to depend on the fallacious report of the senses, and consequently to be uncertain; and in this notion he was confirmed by the general spirit of the Eleatic School, in which he was educated. He was further confirmed in his scepticism by the subtilties of the Dialectic school, in which he had been instructed by the son of Stilpo; choosing to overturn the cavils of sophistry by recurring to the doctrine of universal uncertainty, and thus breaking the knot which he could not unloose. For being naturally and habitually inclined to consider immoveable tranquillity as the great end of all philosophy, he was easily led to despise the dissensions of the dogmatists, and to infer from their endless disputes, the uncertainty of the questions on which they debated; controvérsy, as it has often happened to others, becoming also with respect to him the parent of scepticism.

Pyrrho’s doctrines, however new and extraordinary, were not totally disregarded. He was attended by several scholars, and succeeded by several followers, who preserved the memory of his notions. The most eminent of his followers was Tiraon, in whom the public succession of professors in the Pyrrhonic school terminated. In the time of Cicero it was almost extinct, having suffered much from the jealousy of the dogmatists, and from a natural aversion in the human mind to acknowledge total ignorance, or to be left in absolute darkness. The disciples of Timon, however, still continued to profess scepticism, and their notions were embraced, privately at least, by many others. The school itself was afterwards revived by Ptolemaeus a Cyrenian, and was continued by AEnesidemus a contemporary of Cicero, who wrote a treatise on the principles of the Pyrrhonic philosophy, the heads of which are preserved by Photius. From this time it was continued through a series of preceptors of little note to Sextus Empiricus, who also gave a summary of the sceptical doctrine.

A system of philosophy thus founded on doubt, and clouded with uncertainty, could neither teach tenets of any importance, nor prescribe a certain rule of conduct; and accordingly we find that the followers of scepticism were guided entirely by chance. As they could form no certain judgment respecting good and evil, they accidentally learned the folly of eagerly pursuing any apparent good, or of avoiding any apparent evil; and their minds of course settled into a state of undisturbed tranquillity, the grand postulatum of their system.

In the schools of the sceptics we find ten distinct topics of argument urged in support of the doctrine of uncertainty; with this precaution, however, that nothing could be positively asserted either concerning their number or their force. These arguments chiefly respect objects of sense. They place all knowledge in appearance; and as the same things appear very different to different people, it is impossible to say which appearance most truly expresses their real nature. They likewise say that our judgment is liable to uncertainty from the circumstance of frequent or rare occurrence, and that mankind are continually led into different conceptions concerning the same thing, by means of custom, law, fabulous tales, and established opinions. On all these accounts, they think every human judgment is liable to uncertainty; and concerning any thing, they can only assert that it seems to be, not that it is what it seems.

This doubtful reasoning, if reasoning it may be called, the sceptics extended to all the sciences, in which they discovered nothing true, or which could be absolutely asserted. In all nature, in physics, morals, and theology, they found contradictory opinions, and inexplicable or incomprehensible phenomena. In physics, the appearances, they thought, might be deceitful; and respecting the nature of God and the duties of morality, men were, in their opinion, equally ignorant and uncertain. To overturn the sophistical arguments of these sceptical reasoners, would be no difficult matter, if their reasoning were worthy of confutation. Indeed, the great principle is sufficiently, though shortly, refuted by Plato, in these words. “When you say all things are incomprehensible,” says he, “do you comprehend or conceive that they are thus incomprehensible, or do you not? If you do, then something is comprehensible; if you do not, there is no reason we should believe you, since you do not comprehend your own assertion.”

But scepticism has not been confined entirely to the ancients and to the followers of Pyrrho. Numerous sceptics have arisen also in modern times, varying in their principles, manners, and character, as chance, prejudice, vanity, weakness, or indolence, prompted them. The great object, however, which they seem to have in view is to overturn, or at least to weaken, the evidence of analogy, experience, and testimony; though some of them have even attempted to show, that the axioms of geometry are uncertain, and its demonstrations inconclusive. This last attempt has not indeed been often made; but the chief aim of Mr Hume’s philosophical writings is to introduce doubts into every branch of physics, metaphysics, history, ethics, and theology. It is needless to give a specimen of his reasonings in support of modern scepticism. The most important of them have been noticed in the articles Miracle, Metaphysics, and Philosophy ; and such of our readers as have any relish for speculations of that nature can be no strangers to his Essays, or to the able confutations of them by Reid, Campbell, Gregory, Beattie, and Stewart, who have likewise exposed the weakness of the sceptical reasonings of Descartes, Malebranche, and other philosphers of great fame in the same school.