Doubts about paper (I)

First of all, I wanna thank those who helped me revise the final version of a paper I had to sent a couple of weeks ago, especially MrP, Clive, Davkett, Paco, and Philip. Now, I'm revising another paper and I've got some general doubts about some paragraphs. I'll try to post them in different messages:

1) "The purpose of the present paper is twofold. First, to examine what beliefs, if any, underlie the Pyrrhonist’s desire for ataraxia and his account of how this state may be attained, as well as what beliefs, if any, motivate his philanthropic therapy which seeks to induce, by means of argument, epoche and ataraxia in the Dogmatists. Second, to determine whether the Pyrrhonist’s quest for, and attainment of, ataraxia and his philanthropia are, as has been generally thought, essential aspects of his stance."

2) "I shall begin by analyzing Sextus Empiricus’ exposition of the Skeptic’s search for, and attainment of, unperturbedness with the object of showing that he is consistently Pyrrhonean. I shall attempt to prove that he does not hold beliefs about the nature of unperturbedness and its connection to suspension of judgment, nor about the nature of perturbation and its relation to the holding of beliefs. In the second section, I shall attempt to show that neither the Pyrrhonist’s quest for ataraxia in matters of opinion nor his attainment of this state must be deemed essential to his philosophy".

3) "In later chapters, he explains the part played by ataraxia in the origin of the Skeptic’s philosophy."

4) "The future Skeptic’s search for unperturbedness is again referred to at PH i 25–26, where ataraxia is explicitly said to be, along with metriopatheia, the telos of Skepticism, and where Sextus describes the unexpected way in which the former state was attained".

5) "For when a person lacks that which he regards as good, on the one hand, he intensely desires to get it and, on the other, he thinks he is ‘persecuted’ by things naturally bad, restlessly trying to escape from them. He then pursues what he considers to be good, but if he acquires it, he is troubled, on the one hand, because he is irrationally and immoderately exalted and, on the other, because he is afraid of losing it".

In 5), is it ok to say simply "on the other", or should I add "hand"?

6) "Finally, Sextus observes that the Dogmatists cannot eliminate the disturbance arisen from the pursuit of the things deemed good and the avoidance of those deemed bad by arguing that a) while the things one has so far pursued have little or no value, there are others which are more valuable and, hence, to be pursued; and b) while there are things of little use that cause many troubles, there are others much more useful that cause few troubles. Sextus points out that, in the first case, one is not getting rid of the perturbation, but rearranging it, since one is not stopping the intense pursuit of that which one considers to be good, but replacing one good by another. Furthermore, this procedure could render the situation even worse, since it makes one believe that the new good one is now pursuing is more valuable than the old one. And in the second case, one is not eliminating the perturbation, but comparing one choice and avoidance with another choice and avoidance. This is absurd because the person who is disturbed wants to get rid of the disturbance, not to know what is more, or less, disturbing."

Cheers,

Sextus