Questions about paper (to MrP)

1): “Second, even if one accepted that from the Skeptic’s point of view the distinction in question is completely futile, I do not think this should prevent an interpreter with an interest in understanding the Pyrrhonean outlook from trying to determine what defines it. In my view, the significance of such a distinction lies above all in that it shows that neither the search for and attainment of ataraxia nor the adoption of a philanthropic outlook can be taken as touchstones for determining whether some present-day thinker may be considered a full-fledged Pyrrhonist. Hence, if someone adopts a first and a second-level epoche, and restricts his utterances to the realm of his appearances, he may be deemed a Pyrrhonist."

This is the revised, simpler version.

7) “In my discussion of the relevant passages of PH and AD, I shall only refer to ataraxia and tarache. But, of course, the considerations that will be made also apply to whether suspension of judgment and the holding of beliefs are deemed to be good and bad respectively.”

– I'm slightly puzzled by "considerations".

Mmm, perhaps: “In my discussion of the relevant passages of PH and AD, I shall only refer to ataraxia and tarache. But, of course, the conclusions of the analysis of those passages also apply to whether suspension of judgment and the holding of beliefs are deemed to be good and bad respectively.” Or something like this.

18) “This is the view of Alan Bailey, who maintains that the Pyrrhonist’s impression that the Dogmatist suffers from intellectual anxiety and perplexity is not unpleasant in itself, so that it provides a motive for an action only if one adds a belief about the meaning of this impression, namely that it is the sign of an undesirable objective situation. If this is so, then the philanthropic Pyrrhonist does believe that his patients are objectively ill, and that he must do something about it. Hence, the Skeptic does have beliefs that interfere with his achievement of ataraxia.”

I'm not quite sure of the meaning, in the first emboldened passage.

This seems complicated. I'll quote the words of the guy:

"S. offers his ad hominem arguments because he has the impression that the dogmatists are suffering from intellectual anxieties and confusion. But that impression is not an intrinsically unpleasant one. Thus we are faced by the same difficulties we encountered when we attempted to use the Pyrrhonist's impression that someone else is feeling hungry to explain his feeding of that person. Both impressions provide an initiating motive for the action at issue only when they are taken in conjunction with the agent's beliefs about the signification of the relevant impressions."

21) “The reason is that, in my view, the Skeptic sees a crucial difference between the involuntary affections on the one hand, and the laws and customs of his community and the skills he has gained on the other.”

I'm not sure about the "skills".

Well, with 'skill' I render techne. It's a possible translation, which I prefer here. Perhaps 'the skills he has acquired'. But the point is that you find awkward the very use of 'skill'.

Cheers,

Sextus