To MrPedantic

Hi Pedanticus. I really appreciate your having read the entire paper. It’s been really useful. I introduced some changes, etc. taking into account your suggestions and criticisms. But I’m not sure they’re ok.

1) "Thus, it seems that we must not put the emphasis on the idea that a shadow always and necessarily follows a body when the body blocks light, but on the idea that a shadow's body is intimately linked to it. Sextus' intention is then to emphasize that at least up till now the state of ataraxia has been closely linked to the Skeptic’s suspension.” What do you think of the use of "linked".

2) “Sextus illustrates by means of examples the various combinations in which each of these factors comes into conflict with itself and with the others, thus showing that what is considered good or is allowed in one culture is deemed bad or is forbidden in others [may be deemed bad or be forbidden in others].” The point is that Sextus refers to real conflicts; this is why I don’t think I should use “may”.

3) “What must be emphasized is that this text is a clarification Sextus makes before starting his Skeptical inquiry of the topic at issue”. Here I changed “clarifying explanation” (which you found strange) by “clarification”. Do you think it’s ok now?

4) “In neither case is it easy to determine how such views could fit together”. I changed “figure out” (which you didn’t like) by “determine”: acceptable?

5) “If this is so, it is not clear that in AD v one finds a kind of Pyrrhonian skepticism radically different from the one expounded in the rest of Sextus’ extant work.” I modified this sentence, which you found somehow incorrect. Is it clear now?

6) “I finally wish to consider Nussbaum’s view about the possibility of Sextus convincing others to adopt the Skeptical attitude.” You corrected this sentence, but I’m not sure whether I should add an apostrophe and say “ Sextus’ “.

7) “I cannot really understand what might have made Brochard think that Sextus employs invalid arguments ‘par dilettantisme’, since there is nothing in the last chapter of PH that could suggest that this is the case.” I changed “figure out” by “understand”.

8) “This impression will have some additional components apparently determined by the moral principles inculcated in him by his upbringing and by the laws and customs of the society in which he lives. These additional elements will be his regarding those actions as wrong or incorrect and his experiencing some kind of unpleasantness.”

9) “Hence, a person may not be disturbed by the existence of unresolvable disagreements, or may not want to settle them in the hope of attaining unperturbedness, or may not achieve this state after adopting universal suspension of judgment, or may have no interest whatsoever in other people’s welfare, without any of these facts representing a hindrance to his being a full-fledged Pyrrhonist.” You said there were too many “beings”. I then chose “welfare” and replaced “being” by “representing”.

10) “In sum, the sort of attitude I deem to be essential to the Pyrrhonian philosophy would trigger, if adopted, profound changes in a person’s thoughts, feelings, and actions.” You don’t like “trigger”. Maybe “produce” or “prompt”?

11) “We say that the causal principle of the Skeptical is the hope of becoming unperturbed. For men of talent, perturbed by the anomaly in things and being in aporia as to which of them it was rather necessary to assent to, came to investigate what is true and what is false in things so as to become unperturbed by means of this distinction.” You didn’t like this translation very much. There are things I left to respect the Greek. Does “rather” sound too wrong? The Greek uses mallon. I also changed “thanks to this distinction” by “by means of this distinction” (there’s an expression in the Greek).

12) “The Skeptics hoped to gain unperturbedness by deciding the anomaly among the things which appear and are thought”. Here I replaced “acquire” by “gain”, “of” by “among”. Besides, I don’t know whether I should say “thought of”.

13) “…and, on the other, he thinks he is ‘persecuted’ by things naturally bad, restlessly trying to find the way of escaping from them”. You didn’t like this sentence, so I wrote “find the way of”.

14) “This impression will have some additional components apparently determined by the moral principles inculcated in him by his upbringing and by the laws and customs of the society in which he lives: he will regard the action as wrong or incorrect and he will experience some kind of unpleasantness.” I changed this, hope it’s clearer now.

15) You criticized my use of the expression “argumentative practice” and suggested “method/line of argument”. I found this one, which may be good: “argumentative strategy”. What do you think of it?

16) “We may then think that in the texts of AD v which present a dogmatic flavor, Sextus is putting forward ad hominem arguments.” This is a new sentence; I don’t know whether “flavor” is ok here.

17) “That he adopts this typical Skeptical attitude is confirmed by PH i 10, where he expresses himself in a cautious manner”. You pointed out that “a cautious language” is incorrect. So I changed it thus.

By the way, there is a line by the title, but no comment. Is there anything about it that you find wrong? (I think I understand the idea of “Jowettian”; I know the origin has to do with a debate at Oxford regarding education or something like that, and it seems to me that it’s a British expression).

Thanks a lot,

Sextus