+0
I'd like to know if the emboldened words are correctly used. I give the whole paragraph so that you have the context:

"The first thing to note about Sextus’ account is that, whereas the texts quoted at the beginning of this section said that the state of mental perturbation was induced by the anomalies the future Skeptic found in things, we are now told that this state is the result of the holding of beliefs. This is not necessarily problematic, since it may appear to Sextus that the state of mental disturbance is induced by both of those factors. What does seem to give rise to a difficulty is the fact that, even when the Skeptic finds himself in a state of unperturbedness, the anomalies have not disappeared at all. It does not seem possible to resolve this difficulty by arguing that the disturbance experienced by the future Skeptic was in reality brought out by his search for the truth, since the full-fledged Skeptic does not give up this search. Though there still remains a crucial difference: unlike the future Skeptic, the full-fledged Skeptic does not keep on investigating with the conviction or belief that there certainly is a truth to be found. Be that as it may, the difficulty in question would not have worried Sextus, since he would have argued that that is just the way things have happened to him and that he is limiting himself to describing it, without trying to construct a theory purporting to give a rational explanation of what has occurred."

Thanks,

Sextus
+0
Hi, Sextus:

I find both to be understandable in the context. (al)though = "I admit that...."; be that as it may = "on the other hand, in addition".
Comments  
By the way, Philip, have you understood what I'm saying in this paragraph? Well, perhaps this is not possible unless one knows the relevant texts.

Best,

Sextus