+0
"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 contend 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 relationship to the holding of beliefs. In the second section, I shall argue that neither the search for nor the attainment of ataraxia in matters of belief may be deemed essential to Pyrrhonism. Section three will be centered on the only passage of Sextus’ extant work which presents the notion of philanthropia as key to the understanding of the Skeptic’s use of different kinds of arguments. I shall examine if there exists a connection between the Skeptic’s philanthropic concern and his unperturbedness in matters of belief may be. I shall also show that his philanthropy does not commit him to any belief about matters of objective fact. In section four, I shall argue that the adoption of a philanthropic attitude is not intrinsic to Pyrrhonism. In the last section, I shall summarize the results obtained in the previous discussions, state the defining features of Pyrrhonism, and consider some objections to my position."

It seems to me that I say "I shall" too much. What do you think? I could perhaps use "will" instead of "shall". Also, I'm not sure about the expression "I shall contend".

Sextus
Comments  
For your consideration--

"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 will contend 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 relationship to the holding of beliefs. In the second section, I shall argue that neither the search for nor the attainment of ataraxia in matters of belief may be deemed essential to Pyrrhonism. Section three is centered on the only passage of Sextus’ extant work which presents the notion of philanthropia as key to the understanding of the Skeptic’s use of different kinds of arguments. I will examine if there exists a connection between the Skeptic’s philanthropic concern and his unperturbedness in matters of belief may be. I will also show that his philanthropy does not commit him to any belief about matters of objective fact. In section four, I shall argue that the adoption of a philanthropic attitude is not intrinsic to Pyrrhonism. In the last section, I shall summarize the results obtained in the previous discussions, state the defining features of Pyrrhonism, and consider some objections to my position."
I've made a small mistake will copying:

"I will examine if there exists a connection between the Skeptic’s philanthropic concern and his unperturbedness in matters of belief, and will show that his philanthropy does not commit him to any belief about matters of objective fact."

Sextus
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Right. I was not so focused on that. It has no impact on my suggestions, however.
What do you think of the following final version of the introduction:

"The purpose of the present paper is twofold. First, to examine what beliefs, if any, underlie (a) the Pyrrhonist’s desire for ataraxia and his account of how this state may be attained, and (b) his philanthropic therapy, which seeks to induce epoche and ataraxia in the Dogmatists by argument. Second, to determine whether the Pyrrhonist’s philanthropia and his search for and attainment of ataraxia are, as scholars have generally believed, essential aspects of his stance. The analysis of these issues will allow us to better understand the Pyrrhonean outlook and to assess its coherence. This is important especially because Pyrrhonism is a philosophy that may still be found attractive and worth adopting.
I will 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 will show 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 relationship to the holding of beliefs. Section Two will argue that neither the search for nor the attainment of ataraxia in matters of belief may be deemed essential to Pyrrhonism. Section three, taking as its point of departure the only passage of Sextus’ extant work which presents the notion of philanthropia as key to the understanding of the Skeptic’s use of different kinds of arguments, will examine the possible relationship between the Skeptic’s philanthropic concern and his unperturbedness in matters of belief, and will show that his philanthropy does not commit him to any belief about matters of objective fact. Section four will argue that the adoption of a philanthropic attitude is not intrinsic to Pyrrhonism. In the last section, I will summarize the results, identify the defining features of Pyrrhonism, and address some objections to my position."

Sextus
Are these options?--

'...and (b) his philanthropic therapy, which seeks, by argument, to induce epoche and ataraxia in the Dogmatists.'

or,

'...and (b) his philanthropic therapy, which seeks to induce, by argument, epoche and ataraxia in the Dogmatists.'

and,

'...as key to understanding the Skeptic's use of...' or '...as a key to understanding the Skeptic's use of...'
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
DavkettAre these options?--

'...and (b) his philanthropic therapy, which seeks, by argument, to induce epoche and ataraxia in the Dogmatists.'

and,

'...as key to understanding the Skeptic's use of...' or '...as a key to understanding the Skeptic's use of...'

Aha, they sound better. However, regarding your first suggestion, why shouldn't place ",by argument," after "induce"?

Sextus
Sextus[Aha, they sound better. However, regarding your first suggestion, why shouldn't place ",by argument," after "induce"?

Sextus

Exactly. I was editing my post while you were responding to the pre-edited version.

(That's the first time that's happened for me.)