Skepticism: A Way of Life for Inner Peace - How?

[Veritas Aequitas]

A rarely mentioned point is;
Pyrrhonian Skepticism is understood as a way of life that helps the practitioner achieve inner peace.

Philosophical Skepticism (from Greek σκέψις skepsis, "inquiry") is a family of philosophical views that question the possibility of knowledge.[1][2]
It differs from other forms of skepticism in that it even rejects very plausible knowledge claims that belong to basic common sense.
Philosophical skeptics are often classified into two general categories:

• 1. Those who deny all possibility of knowledge, and
  2. those who advocate for the suspension of judgment due to the inadequacy of evidence.[3]

This distinction is modeled after the differences between the Academic skeptics and the Pyrrhonian skeptics in ancient Greek philosophy.
In the latter [Pyrrhonian skeptics] sense, skepticism is understood as a way of life that helps the practitioner achieve inner peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

In what ways and how?

Note: Inner Peace as Ataraxia:

In Ancient Greek philosophy, ataraxia (Greek: ἀταραξία, from "a-", negation and tarachē "disturbance, trouble")—generally translated as "unperturbedness", "imperturbability", "equanimity", or "tranquility"—[1]is a lucid state of robust equanimity characterized by ongoing freedom from distress and worry.
Achieving ataraxia is a common goal for Pyrrhonism, Epicureanism, and Stoicism, but the role and value of ataraxia within each philosophy varies in accordance with their philosophical theories.
The mental disturbances that prevent one from achieving ataraxia also vary among the philosophies, and each philosophy has a different understanding as to how to achieve ataraxia.

In Pyrrhonism, ataraxia is the intended result of epoché (i.e., suspension of judgment) regarding all matters of dogma (i.e., non-evident belief), which represents the central aim of Pyrrhonist practice,[3] that is necessary to bring about eudaimonia.[4]

....................

How do Pyrrhonists justify the above that suspension of judgment will bring about inner peace?
ChatGpt [with Reservations]:

Pyrrhonism Skepticism:
It is stated , one of the objective of Pyrrhonism Skepticism is the attainment of inner peace via the suspension of judgement on any claim of ultimate reality as mind-independent.
Question is, how do Pyrrhonists justify the above that suspension of judgment will bring about inner peace?

ChatGPT
Pyrrhonism is a form of skepticism named after Pyrrho, an ancient Greek philosopher. Pyrrhonists argue that attaining inner peace is possible through the suspension of judgment on any claim about ultimate reality as mind-independent. The justification for this idea can be understood through the following key points:

Agitation and Disturbance: Pyrrhonists believed that the quest for knowledge and the insistence on making definitive judgments about the nature of reality often led to mental agitation and disturbance. Constantly grappling with conflicting beliefs and the uncertainty of reality can create anxiety and inner turmoil.

Relief from Dogmatism: Pyrrhonists observed that people who hold strong beliefs or dogmas often experience distress when their beliefs are challenged or contradicted. Suspending judgment allows individuals to free themselves from the burdens of dogmatic thinking and the emotional distress that can accompany it.

The End of Disputes: Pyrrhonism emphasizes the suspension of judgment as a way to end philosophical and metaphysical disputes. The constant disagreement among philosophers and schools of thought was seen as a source of mental disturbance. By withholding judgment, one can step out of these debates and find tranquility.

Epoche (Suspension of Judgment): The Pyrrhonian skepticism practice of epoche involves the suspension of judgment on all matters, recognizing that we lack sufficient evidence to determine the ultimate truth of any claim. By embracing this suspension, individuals avoid getting entangled in the complexities and uncertainties of philosophical debates, which, in turn, contributes to a state of mental calmness.

Acceptance of Appearances: Pyrrhonists acknowledge that human perception and understanding are limited. Rather than insisting on an absolute reality beyond appearances, they advocate for a humble acknowledgment of the limitations of human cognition. This acceptance is thought to lead to a more tranquil state of mind.

In essence, Pyrrhonists argue that the suspension of judgment serves as a path to mental tranquility by removing the individual from the constant turmoil of conflicting beliefs and the emotional distress associated with dogmatism. By adopting a position of epoche, individuals can find peace in accepting the limitations of human understanding and embracing a more relaxed, open-minded approach to the complexities of reality.

This is why I had argued, theists and philosophical_realists of the same feathers grounding their ideologies in an illusion, are in a state of internal emotional distress [at least subminally] and will even kill those who apposed [threatened] their ideology; glaringly and evidently as it is happening with Hamas' current massacres of babies and adults.

Any counters to the above?

Discuss?? Views

[Veritas Aequitas]

I did some further digging into skepticism.
This is the general outline [with reservations].

Note 1: Evolution of Skepticism
Note 2: Acatalepsy and Katalepsis

Note 1.
1. All humans are "programmed" with an evolutionary default of externalness, i.e. a sense of things existing independent of the human conditions. In the early days, the human attention was directed outward to facilitate survival, i.e. look for food, avoid threats and NOT focused on the self.

2. This sense of externalness is then adopted as a fundamentalistic ideology by those identified as philosophical realists which soothes the inherent cognitive dissonance, there has to be something real externally, else all is an illusion.
This illusory consonance enable some sort of inner peace.

3. As humans continued to evolve and progressed intellectually and with wisdom, some wise guys noted there is something false with philosophical realism's absolute mind-independence.
Philosophical Realism being illusory generates loads of antinomies and confusions, a different sort of higher cognitive dissonances, generating anxieties and depression for many.
The dilemma is, if one gives up philosophical realism, then one's already secured inner peace is threatened.
So, how can one eliminate philosophical realism and yet still have inner peace.

4. One of this wise guy was the Buddha [500BCE] who discovered there is nothing that is permanent out there within external reality.
This is the concept of emptiness, nothingness or Sunyata
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81
The Buddha advised that the clinging and grasping to something regarded as permanent and mind-independent out there leads to all sorts of mental negativities [sufferings, dukkha]; these are the terrible antinomies with cognitive dissonances.

5. The Buddha did not reject ordinary or common sense reality [nb: Two Truths Theory] but advocated the suspension of judgment of mind-independent things [soul, God, etc.] that are beyond the empirical without justification of evidences and experiences.
This is the basis of Buddhist skepticism where he introduced a life problem solving technique i.e. the 4NT-8FP to develop and sustained inner peace without grasping to philosophical realism.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

6. Pyrrho traveled with Alexander the Great's army on its conquest of India (327 to 325 BCE)

Diogenes Laërtius' biography of Pyrrho reports that Pyrrho traveled with Alexander the Great's army on its conquest of India (327 to 325 BCE) and based his philosophy on what he learned there: ...he even went as far as the Gymnosophists, in India, and the Magi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrho#An ... _on_Pyrrho

From there Pyrrho was influenced by Buddhist Skepticism and he introduced that to the Greeks with some modification.
As such Pyrrho's main principles [suspension of judgment] are the same as those of Buddhism.

7. From one extreme of Philosophical Realism, Arcesilaus introduced Academic Skepticism [the other extreme] as a total rejection of absolute philosophical realism. Instead of suspension of judgment, Academic Skepticism reject all forms of knowledge, including common sense to the extreme of Nihilism [accusations of solipsism].

Arcesilaus (316/5–241/0 BC)[1] was a Greek Hellenistic philosopher. He was the founder of Academic Skepticism and what is variously called the Second or Middle or New Academy – the phase of the Platonic Academy in which it embraced philosophical skepticism.

8. Sextus Empiricus [mid-late 2AD] was later influenced by Pyrrho's skepticism. He wrote 'Outlines of Pyrrhonism' in alignment with those of Pyrrho's skepticism which recommends a Way of Life that will promote Inner Peace.

9. It is critical not to conflate Academic Skepticism with Pyrrhonian Skepticism by noting their respective main principles.
Hume, Nietsche, and many modern philosophies had mistaken, misinterpreted and conflating Academic Skepticism with Pyrrhonian Skepticism where they condemned both as if they are the same Nihilistic ideologies.

10. Re OP: How Skepticism [NOT Academic Skepticism] can be a Way of Life and leads to Inner Peace is with reference to Pyrrhonian Skepticism grounded on the main principles and practices of Buddhism Skepticism.

The above is merely a very rough outlines thus need a lot of additions, improvements and SOME corrections where necessary.

Views??

Note 2.

Some theorists criticize philosophical skepticism based on the claim that it is a self-refuting idea since its proponents seem to claim to know that there is no knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

Re Philosophical Realism we must recognized the two schools with very distinct philosophies and thus cannot lump together.

The above cornered the Academic Skeptics into its own claim that there is no knowledge; however the above does not apply to Pyrrhonian skeptics who merely suspend judgment due to lack of evidence especially on metaphysical claims.
In this case, the Pyrrhonian skeptics shift the burden to the positive claimant.

The Pyrrhonian skeptics do not deny reality but accept reality of the practical world as conditioned upon the human conditions, i.e. the specific FSK.

The Pyrrhonian skeptics recognize Acatalepsy and Katalepsis;

Acatalepsy (from the Greek α̉-, privative, and καταλαμβάνειν, to seize), in philosophy, is incomprehensibleness, or the impossibility of comprehending or conceiving a thing.[1] Acatalepsy is the incomprehensibility of all things; the doctrine held by the ancient Skeptic philosophers, that human knowledge never amounts to certainty, but only to probability.
The Pyrrhonians attempted to show, while Academic skeptics of the Platonic Academy asserted an absolute acatalepsia; all human science or knowledge, according to them, went no further than to appearances and verisimilitude.[1] It is the antithesis of the Stoic doctrine of katalepsis or Apprehension.[3] According to the Stoics, katalepsis was true perception, but to the Skeptics, all perceptions were acataleptic, i.e. bare no conformity to the objects perceived, or, if they did bear any conformity, it could never be known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acatalepsy

Katalepsis (Greek: κατάληψις, "grasping") is a term in Stoic philosophy for a concept roughly equivalent to modern comprehension.[1] To the Stoic philosophers, katalepsis was an important premise regarding one's state of mind as it relates to grasping fundamental philosophical concepts.

According to the Stoics, the mind is constantly being bombarded with impressions (phantasiai).[2] Some of these impressions are true and some false. Impressions are true when they are truly affirmed, false if they are wrongly affirmed.

[Skepdick]

A rarely mentioned point is;
Pyrrhonian Skepticism is understood as a way of life that helps the practitioner achieve inner peace.

Philosophical Skepticism (from Greek σκέψις skepsis, "inquiry") is a family of philosophical views that question the possibility of knowledge.[1][2]
It differs from other forms of skepticism in that it even rejects very plausible knowledge claims that belong to basic common sense.
Philosophical skeptics are often classified into two general categories:

• 1. Those who deny all possibility of knowledge, and
  2. those who advocate for the suspension of judgment due to the inadequacy of evidence.[3]

This distinction is modeled after the differences between the Academic skeptics and the Pyrrhonian skeptics in ancient Greek philosophy.
In the latter [Pyrrhonian skeptics] sense, skepticism is understood as a way of life that helps the practitioner achieve inner peace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

In what ways and how?

Discuss?? Views

Inner peace by self-destruction.

Doubt everything without bound. And then doubt your own sanity too.

Skepticism is gaslighting in the limit. You erase every one of your memories; beliefs and values by doubting them.

One by one; until all that’s left is doubt itself.

Doubt erases aforethought. It’s self-inflicted amnesia

[randolphshaw4]

Skepticism is gaslighting at its most extreme. By doubting them, you lose all of your memories, beliefs, and values.



geometry dash

[Iwannaplato]

A rarely mentioned point is;
Pyrrhonian Skepticism is understood as a way of life that helps the practitioner achieve inner peace.

The passive structure of this sentence means we aren't told who 'understands' that it helps the practitioner achieve inner peace.
And my guess it is that category of skeptics themselves who think this. 'is understood' sounds more like it is a fact.

One wonders why the PSes weren't skeptical about their own idea that it would lead to peace.

In the latter [Pyrrhonian skeptics] sense, skepticism is understood as a way of life that helps the practitioner achieve inner peace.

In what ways and how?

Discuss?? Views

Certain specific kinds of being skeptical might reduce anxiety. Certainly the skepticism about negative things (coming) might reduce anxiety. Allowing yourself to not be convinced could also reduce anxiety. But systematic skepticism, I would guess, would lead to increased anxiety. You can't follow your intuition. You have to question everything. You can't really leave some stuff to experts (even those who have done well for you in the past and you have good reasons to think they studied stuff and have relevant experience (you don't have). No you HAVE to question them.

As someone who is pretty skeptical about a lot of experts and 'experts', I am quite sure this leads to greater anxiety, because I am much more responsible for figuring out stuff. I can't just say, oh the doctor said it, so it must be true, which is the de facto position of many people in relation to experts. In fact I think the fear of there being systematic problems with experts in many a field, keeps people from noticing all the clues they are being used/lied to, etc. Better not to feel that fear. (of course knee jerk rejection of experts and one's own arrived at beliefs can be anxiety avoidant - I mean, it's hard if you actually have to sift through it all and have nuanced responses to life).

And inner peace the goal? Should the PSes be skeptical about that also? I mean one could certainly mount good arguments in favor of other priorities. And deciding will be personal/intuitive.

[phyllo]

Notes: KIV

What the hell is that??

[Iwannaplato]

Notes: KIV

What the hell is that??

Keep in view. In case he wants to add something later. But the odd/obvious thing is: he could just add things to the OP via edit.

[FlashDangerpants]

Notes: KIV

What the hell is that??

It's part of his megalomania. VA has descended to the point where he now officially outranks you in all matters philosophical, and he makes that second post as a placeholder for any new thoughts he has on the topic, so that he can look back on his own notes without having to wade through your bullshit and mine.

He won't say it, but much like Age, and for very similar reasons, he does kind of think that there will be academic value in reurning to this forum at some future date to see how his thinking evolved.

[phyllo]

Wow

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

What the hell is that??

Keep In View.
For the sake of effective, systematic and orderliness.

Often there's a lot of relevant information we have not covered or not brought to mind at the moment of writing in the OP;
In addition it not effective to flood the OP with too much information.

I opened threads here [within the rules of the forum] for my own personal interests, i.e. not to please others.
These threads are sort of bibliography, references and notes to my project where I can recall and reference them easily.

Note how the threads in forums [here's the worst due to no moderation] quickly become a dumpster for all sorts of nonsense.
If I have a good and useful idea that is posted in a thread, it is not easy to find that needle in those piles of shit. e.g. >600 pages with buckets of shit therein. viewtopic.php?t=24601

How often have you seen references being made to specific posts in a specific thread?

See: the relevance where I added further info [with some effort] in post #2 where I can track easily.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A rarely mentioned point is;
Pyrrhonian Skepticism is understood as a way of life that helps the practitioner achieve inner peace.

Philosophical Skepticism (from Greek σκέψις skepsis, "inquiry") is a family of philosophical views that question the possibility of knowledge.[1][2]
It differs from other forms of skepticism in that it even rejects very plausible knowledge claims that belong to basic common sense.
Philosophical skeptics are often classified into two general categories:

• 1. Those who deny all possibility of knowledge, and
  2. those who advocate for the suspension of judgment due to the inadequacy of evidence.[3]

This distinction is modeled after the differences between the Academic skeptics and the Pyrrhonian skeptics in ancient Greek philosophy.
In the latter [Pyrrhonian skeptics] sense, skepticism is understood as a way of life that helps the practitioner achieve inner peace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

In what ways and how?

Discuss?? Views

Inner peace by self-destruction.

Doubt everything without bound. And then doubt your own sanity too.

Skepticism is gaslighting in the limit. You erase every one of your memories; beliefs and values by doubting them.

One by one; until all that’s left is doubt itself.

Doubt erases aforethought. It’s self-inflicted amnesia

Often with 'skepticism' the two below and conflated;

• 1. Academic skeptics -Those who deny all possibility of knowledge, and
  2. Pyrrhonian skeptics those who advocate for the suspension of judgment due to the inadequacy of evidence.[3]

Pyrrhonian skepticism is distinctively different from Academic or Absolute skepticism.

Pyrrhonian skeptics do adhere to all especially the extreme points above, but merely advocate for the suspension of judgment due to the inadequacy of evidence.
This is like Hume's and scientific' skepticism i.e. grounded on justified evidence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I did some further digging into skepticism.
This is the general outline [with reservations].

1. All humans are "programmed" with an evolutionary default of externalness, i.e. a sense of things existing independent of the human conditions. In the early days, the human attention was directed outward to facilitate survival, i.e. look for food, avoid threats and NOT focused on the self.

2. This sense of externalness is then adopted as a fundamentalistic ideology by those identified as philosophical realists which soothes the inherent cognitive dissonance, there has to be something real externally, else all is an illusion.
This illusory consonance enable some sort of inner peace.

3. As humans continued to evolve and progressed intellectually and with wisdom, some wise guys noted there is something false with philosophical realism's absolute mind-independence.
Philosophical Realism being illusory generates loads of antinomies and confusions, a different sort of higher cognitive dissonances, generating anxieties and depression for many.
The dilemma is, if one gives up philosophical realism, then one's already secured inner peace is threatened.
So, how can one eliminate philosophical realism and yet still have inner peace.

4. One of this wise guy was the Buddha [500BCE] who discovered there is nothing that is permanent out there within external reality.
This is the concept of emptiness, nothingness or Sunyata
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81
The Buddha advised that the clinging and grasping to something regarded as permanent and mind-independent out there leads to all sorts of mental negativities [sufferings, dukkha]; these are the terrible antinomies with cognitive dissonances.

5. The Buddha did not reject ordinary or common sense reality [nb: Two Truths Theory] but advocated the suspension of judgment of mind-independent things [soul, God, etc.] that are beyond the empirical without justification of evidences and experiences.
This is the basis of Buddhist skepticism where he introduced a life problem solving technique i.e. the 4NT-8FP to develop and sustained inner peace without grasping to philosophical realism.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

6. Pyrrho traveled with Alexander the Great's army on its conquest of India (327 to 325 BCE)

Diogenes Laërtius' biography of Pyrrho reports that Pyrrho traveled with Alexander the Great's army on its conquest of India (327 to 325 BCE) and based his philosophy on what he learned there: ...he even went as far as the Gymnosophists, in India, and the Magi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrho#An ... _on_Pyrrho

From there Pyrrho was influenced by Buddhist Skepticism and he introduced that to the Greeks with some modification.
As such Pyrrho's main principles [suspension of judgment] are the same as those of Buddhism.

7. From one extreme of Philosophical Realism, Arcesilaus introduced Academic Skepticism [the other extreme] as a total rejection of absolute philosophical realism. Instead of suspension of judgment, Academic Skepticism reject all forms of knowledge, including common sense to the extreme of Nihilism [accusations of solipsism].

Arcesilaus (316/5–241/0 BC)[1] was a Greek Hellenistic philosopher. He was the founder of Academic Skepticism and what is variously called the Second or Middle or New Academy – the phase of the Platonic Academy in which it embraced philosophical skepticism.

8. Sextus Empiricus [mid-late 2AD] was later influenced by Pyrrho's skepticism. He wrote 'Outlines of Pyrrhonism' in alignment with those of Pyrrho's skepticism which recommends a Way of Life that will promote Inner Peace.

9. It is critical not to conflate Academic Skepticism with Pyrrhonian Skepticism by noting their respective main principles.
Hume, Nietsche, and many modern philosophies had mistaken, misinterpreted and conflating Academic Skepticism with Pyrrhonian Skepticism where they condemned both as if they are the same Nihilistic ideologies.

10. Re OP: How Skepticism [NOT Academic Skepticism] can be a Way of Life and leads to Inner Peace is with reference to Pyrrhonian Skepticism grounded on the main principles and practices of Buddhism Skepticism.

The above is merely a very rough outlines thus need a lot of additions, improvements and SOME corrections where necessary.

Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Some theorists criticize philosophical skepticism based on the claim that it is a self-refuting idea since its proponents seem to claim to know that there is no knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

Re Philosophical Realism we must recognized the two schools with very distinct philosophies and thus cannot lump together.

The above cornered the Academic Skeptics into its own claim that there is no knowledge; however the above does not apply to Pyrrhonian skeptics who merely suspend judgment due to lack of evidence especially on metaphysical claims.
In this case, the Pyrrhonian skeptics shift the burden to the positive claimant.

The Pyrrhonian skeptics do not deny reality but accept reality of the practical world as conditioned upon the human conditions, i.e. the specific FSK.

The Pyrrhonian skeptics recognize Acatalepsy and Katalepsis;

Acatalepsy (from the Greek α̉-, privative, and καταλαμβάνειν, to seize), in philosophy, is incomprehensibleness, or the impossibility of comprehending or conceiving a thing.[1] Acatalepsy is the incomprehensibility of all things; the doctrine held by the ancient Skeptic philosophers, that human knowledge never amounts to certainty, but only to probability.
The Pyrrhonians attempted to show, while Academic skeptics of the Platonic Academy asserted an absolute acatalepsia; all human science or knowledge, according to them, went no further than to appearances and verisimilitude.[1] It is the antithesis of the Stoic doctrine of katalepsis or Apprehension.[3] According to the Stoics, katalepsis was true perception, but to the Skeptics, all perceptions were acataleptic, i.e. bare no conformity to the objects perceived, or, if they did bear any conformity, it could never be known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acatalepsy

Katalepsis (Greek: κατάληψις, "grasping") is a term in Stoic philosophy for a concept roughly equivalent to modern comprehension.[1] To the Stoic philosophers, katalepsis was an important premise regarding one's state of mind as it relates to grasping fundamental philosophical concepts.

According to the Stoics, the mind is constantly being bombarded with impressions (phantasiai).[2] Some of these impressions are true and some false. Impressions are true when they are truly affirmed, false if they are wrongly affirmed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note: Inner Peace as Ataraxia:

In Ancient Greek philosophy, ataraxia (Greek: ἀταραξία, from "a-", negation and tarachē "disturbance, trouble")—generally translated as "unperturbedness", "imperturbability", "equanimity", or "tranquility"—[1]is a lucid state of robust equanimity characterized by ongoing freedom from distress and worry.
Achieving ataraxia is a common goal for Pyrrhonism, Epicureanism, and Stoicism, but the role and value of ataraxia within each philosophy varies in accordance with their philosophical theories.
The mental disturbances that prevent one from achieving ataraxia also vary among the philosophies, and each philosophy has a different understanding as to how to achieve ataraxia.

In Pyrrhonism, ataraxia is the intended result of epoché (i.e., suspension of judgment) regarding all matters of dogma (i.e., non-evident belief), which represents the central aim of Pyrrhonist practice,[3] that is necessary to bring about eudaimonia.[4]

[Veritas Aequitas]

At present I am reading a few articles and books related to Skepticism;

Here is one interesting one;
How to Be a Pyrrhonist: The Practice and Significance of Pyrrhonian Skepticism
by Richard Bett (Author)

Here is something as food for thought.
[without my opinion on it]

page 156
However, this is not Sextus’ only account of the matter.
In several places he addresses more directly the question of why ataraxia results from suspension of judgment.
And here a rather different picture emerges. It is not suspension of judgment in general that is now said to be responsible for ataraxia, but suspension of judgment specifically about things that are good or bad by nature.
The central idea is that the person who does believe that certain things are good or bad by nature is thrown into an intense turmoil concerning these things.

If one thinks that certain things are really in their nature good, one will be desperate to get or to keep them; if one thinks that other things are really in their nature bad, one will be desperate to avoid or get rid of them.
In both Outlines of Pyrrhonism and, at much greater length, in Against the Ethicists , Sextus emphasizes the frenzy that surrounds the holding of such beliefs, and the great advantage that accrues to the skeptic from being free from all of them.
(Again, that the skeptic holds no beliefs of the form “X is good/bad by nature” is common to both works, even if they differ in the way suggested above.)

Here, then, the point is that the stakes are simply very much lower for the skeptic in a great many areas of life; whereas for the non-skeptic there are numerous things that matter very deeply, for the skeptic nothing matters especially.
Sextus does acknowledge that the skeptic experiences hunger, pain, and other bodily afflictions.
But even here, he suggests, the skeptic is in a better position than the non-skeptic; for although everyone feels pain in certain circumstances, the non-skeptic experiences the additional anguish stemming from the belief that pain is by nature a bad thing.

There is an interesting point of contact here between skepticism and Stoicism.
For the stability and calm of the Stoic sage’s demeanor, as contrasted with the turmoil and instability of ordinary people, is also due to the sage’s being free from large classes of unwarranted beliefs to the effect that certain things are really good or bad, beliefs that the Stoics designate as passions (pathê).
The difference, of course, is that in the Stoic picture, the sage instead has correct beliefs about what is really good and bad, whereas the skeptic simply lacks such beliefs altogether.

Sextus’ claim that beliefs to the effect that things are really good or bad are a source of trouble seems more convincing in some cases than in others.
A star athlete who sets great value on athletic achievement might be hugely disappointed at not breaking the record in some race. And if she did break the record, she might be constantly worried that someone else might improve on her performance and snatch the record away from her.
Another athlete might not think such achievements were of any real importance in the scheme of things, and would be much less concerned about the results of any competition, whether they went in her favor or against her. (Of course, the second athlete would be much less likely to become a star. But the point about comparative levels of worry still stands.)

But that this kind of pattern obtains in life in general, or among people in general, seems highly implausible. For it is equally true that those with firm beliefs about the moral order of things are often calmer than those whose minds on such matters are not made up. If you are firmly convinced that abortion is simply wrong (perhaps with certain exceptions), or if you are firmly convinced that early-stage abortion poses no moral problems at all, then you are likely to be much more secure and comfortable in your decision, in the first case, not to have an abortion (assuming none of those exceptions applies), or, in the second case, to have an early-stage abortion, than you would be whatever your decision was, if this was an issue about which you were seriously conflicted. Now, it might be replied that the latter situation is not that of the Pyrrhonist, who, as Sextus describes him, is not in the grip of conflicting or uncertain beliefs about ethical matters, but simply lacks such beliefs altogether. This is correct as far as it goes, but it does not close the issue. For, first, the idea that anyone could be so devoid of the relevant beliefs as to be unperturbed by, or oblivious to, the moral dimensions of every situation is difficult to swallow; I return to this point later, in the context of an example of Sextus’ own. And second, part of the point of my example here is that definite moral beliefs are often not merely not a source of torment, but a positive source of comfort in difficult.

Another point that Sextus makes in this context is that those who achieve what they take to be good “are irrationally and immeasurably excited” (PH ., cf. M ., ), and that this too is something the skeptic is better off without. To us this may have a strange ring; but again, it is in line with Stoic opposition to the passions, this time on grounds of their excessiveness.

situations; and from comfort of this kind both the conflicted, but ethically engaged agent and the person who lacks all beliefs to the effect that things are in reality good or bad would be equally excluded.
What is also problematic, as we have seen, is that Sextus seems to give us two different accounts of why suspension of judgment produces ataraxia. It is not easy to see how these two pictures are to be combined. In one case ataraxia is supposed to be achieved by suspension of judgment on all subjects, but in the other it is beliefs about good and bad that are the sole focus of attention. Moreover, in the latter account the notion of an initial attempt to discover the truth, or an inability to decide among alternatives, seems to play no role at all. For all that Sextus says in the present context, the beliefs about good and bad from which the skeptic is free might even be correct, and their holders might even know that they are correct. Sextus never suggests that this would make any difference to their capacity to drive one to a state of intense anxiety; for it is their content that is the problem, not their truth value or degree of justification. It is particularly puzzling that in one place, his chapter on the skeptic’s telos, or aim in life (PH .–), Sextus appears to present both accounts together, as if there was no difference between the two. One can see how beliefs about good and bad might be connected with broader beliefs about the nature of the world. But on this last issue, the two accounts actually seem to be incompatible with one another.