To Pedanticus

Hello Pedanticus. Here are some doubts:

1) “The past few years have witnessed the publication of a considerable number of books and papers on the influence that ancient scepticism (broadly defined) [has] exerted upon early modern philosophy.”
You suggest here the present perfect. But as I’m referring to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it sounds strange to me.

2) “There have been two main reactions to this work: some scholars have regarded Popkin’s view about the decisive import of scepticism in moulding modern philosophy and science as exaggerated, whereas others have sought to reinforce his thesis either by deepening the study of the role played by scepticism in figures discussed by him, or by revealing the influence of scepticism in other modern thinkers.”
First, I used “to regard”, but maintained the present perfect. Second, with regard to “deepening the study”, maybe I should say “deepen the understanding”. But I preferred to employ “study”, but I don’t know which verb I should use.

3) “Here Paganini seems to interpret the notion of phainomenon as used by Sextus as referring exclusively to any appearance deriving from sensory perception, assimilation he explicitly operates later on (72–73, 74)”. [last clause odd – ‘an assimilation he explicitly operates on later’?].
I don’t understand whether by adding “an” before “assimilation”, the sentence is correct, or whether I should rewrite the whole clause.

4) “There are few passages of Sextus’ work where this term is restricted to the realm of sensory perception, the most relevant of these is probably Pyrroneioi Hypotyposeis (PH) I 8–9.”
I used “few” because I believe there are not many passages where that happens. I don’t know how you would say it. In any case, I don’t understand what you mean by saying that that word has a “negative” sense.

5) “Now, it is clear that the appearances the Pyrrhonist has in virtue of his natural capability to think, the laws and customs of his community, and the skills he has gained are not sensory appearances.”

6) “Though I agree with his interpretation, I think that sometimes he either disregards some facts, or is not entirely fair to some of the scholars with whom he discusses. Indeed, Gisela Striker adopts this view in some of her papers”.
First, you proposed “debates these questions”, but actually I’m not referring to any issues, so I’ve preferred to use “to discuss” without any object. Second, you suggested “several” instead of “some”. Then I added “of her” in order to keep “some”, because the papers are three.

Thanks,

Sextus