+0
Hi MrP. The corrected proofs were sent. Hope they’ll correct all that is needed.
Back to the paper. I have read it like five times so as to note the final doubts. There are quite a lot; hope this is ok with you.

1) “For the Skeptic does not consider that the good relative to each person mentioned at AD v 89 is good by nature, so that the fact that there are things he regards as good, among which ataraxia, cannot be taken as the manifestation of any belief about their true nature.” Should I rather say “is a good by nature”.

2) “In sum, if one adopts the Skeptical stance, one is not automatically forced to take up any kind of tolerant or conservative view, so that one could be a full-fledged Skeptic while adopting an intolerant attitude or a stance very critical of convention and tradition.” Is this kind of use of “so that” correct? I’m not sure whether I’m not using it as I do it in Spanish.

3) “One could then argue that Sextus’ intention in AD v is to advance arguments against the widespread belief that there are good and bad by nature, so as to counterbalance it and reach isostheneia.” Is this clear?

4) “It is undeniable that sometimes Sextus expresses himself in a way that masks his actual suspensive state of mind. This fact is not at all strange or difficult to explain”. I know that “suspensive state of mind” sounds strange, but is it clear what I mean?

5) “Following the line of thought of section four, in section six I shall argue that the Skeptic does not regard the adoption of this attitude as inevitable and intrinsic to his Skepticism.” OK?

6) “In what follows I shall show that Sextus did not regard the search for ajtaraxiva as necessary and inherent in Pyrrhonism.” Ok?

7) “It does not seem possible to resolve this difficulty by arguing that the disturbance experienced by the future Skeptic was in reality the result of his search for the truth, since the full-fledged Skeptic does not rule out the possibility of discovering it in the course of his continual investigation. However, there still remains a crucial difference: unlike the future Skeptic, the mature Pyrrhonist does not keep on investigating with the conviction or belief that there certainly is a truth to be found.” Is this clear? Besides, what’s the difference between saying “continual investigation” and “continuing investigation”?

9) “In my view, this passage shows that Sextus is aware that a person’s choice of a particular end seems to be conditioned by the circumstantial factors that influence him. And, more importantly, it shows that Sextus thinks that if unperturbedness stopped to appear to the Skeptics as their most valuable personal good on account of the influence of some of these factors, this would not represent the loss of one of the defining features of their stance. That is, the fact of giving up unperturbedness as their aim would not prevent them from continuing to be what they are, namely Skeptics.”

10) “A Pyrrhonist’s adoption of a philanthropic stance seems to be accidental, since it appears to be solely the consequence of his living in a given society and of his belonging to a certain medical and philosophical milieu. If he happened to grow up in an individualistic society or be raised in a way that seeks to make him regard philanthropy as a naïve and impractical attitude, then he would probably adopt an individualistic stance.”

11) “I also hope to have proved that the Skeptic considers that neither his quest for unperturbedness nor the therapeutic function of his argumentation and its philanthropic motor are inherent in his philosophy.”

12) “Now, the passages quoted tell us that by suspending judgment the Pyrrhonist unexpectedly attained that very end which, at the beginning of his philosophical journey, he had thought he would reach by the contrary attitude, that is, by assenting to the view or views he would discover to be true, and hence by holding the correct beliefs.” Is it ok to use “would” with the past perfect?

13) “When a person lacks that which he regards as good”. Should I rather use “what” or “the thing” instead of “that which”?

14) “This may well be the result of the influence of the Skeptic’s philosophical milieu (I shall come back to this point in section four)”.

15) “The problem with Barnes’ and Striker’s view lies in that they overlook the fact that what makes people anxious, why they deal with philosophical questions, and whether or not they attain unperturbedness and happiness by suspending judgment seem to depend upon personal psychological traits”.

16) “It is therefore legitimate for Sextus to ‘advertise’ Skepticism as a path to unperturbedness and happiness as regards matters of belief, not because he can prove that the ‘product’ he is offering will certainly continue to have the same effect it has so far produced in a certain number of people, but only because there is no a priori reason which completely rules out both the possibility that the suspensive attitude will allow the Skeptics to maintain those states and the possibility that it will permit other people who pursue the same end to reach it.”

17) “About this subject we have quite enough disputes with the Dogmatists”. Is it correct to use the plural “disputes” here?

18) “He has attained what he wished from the very beginning, so that…” Should I rather use “that which he wished”?

19) “I believe Sextus is aware that these circumstantial factors do not exert an inescapable influence upon the Pyrrhonist, and hence aware that the Pyrrhonist he portrays can abandon both his search for unperturbedness and his concern for other people’s well-being. If this happens, the Skeptic will not stop being such, simply because the fact of abandoning that quest and concern does not entail the loss of his suspensive attitude and of his living by the appearances, aspects in which the distinctive character of his philosophy seems to lie.”

20) “The translations of Sextus’ texts are my own, but I have consulted Annas–Barnes 2000, Bury 1936–1949, Bett 1997, and Pellegrin 1997.”

21) “When applied to Skepticism, I shall translate the term ajgwghv, which is implicit in the present passage, as ‘way’. Depending on the context, it seems to have the sense of ‘way of life’ or ‘way of thought’.”

22) “Sextus also proceeds with caution at PH i 205, where he observes that, according to the Skeptics, unperturbedness ‘supervenes at the same time as suspension of judgment about all things’, thus avoiding any dogmatic affirmation about the relation between both states.” Is it correct to say “supervene at the same time”? since I’ve only seen the expressions “supervene on” or “upon”. Also, is the expression “proceeds with caution” correct in this context?

23) “The former may decide to engage in philosophical inquiry because, for instance, he happened to read a philosophy book or attend a philosophy lecture and found the experience captivating. The latter may wish to persuade his opponents because the ability to persuade others has turned out to be extremely useful for practical purposes, or simply because he finds the very fact of being able to do it pleasant.”

24) “Thus, contrary to Barnes’ interpretation, this text makes it completely clear that the person who adopts suspension of judgment only in some particular area(s) cannot properly be called ‘Skeptic’.” Should I rather say “ a ‘Skeptic’ ”?

25) “He is aware both that the Skeptics are not inevitably philanthropic and that those who happen to be so could perfectly well stop acting and feeling in a philanthropic way and become more individualistic and uncaring.”

26) “This difference which prevents Sextus from equating the former to the latter.” Or “with the latter” or “and the latter”? For I know that different options are available.

27) “Even if Barnes makes some qualifications, he intends to show, on the basis of a series of general assertions, that Sextus’ report of that which gave rise to anxiety in the Skeptics and of their hope of attaining happiness through investigation does not correspond to the way things really happen in life.” Is it ok to use “report” like this?

28) “I think that PH i 25 and 232–233 provide strong support for my view that the quest for ajtaraxiva is not essential to Pyrrhonism”. “Provide strong support for”?

29) “For, having begun to philosophize with the object of deciding between appearances and apprehending which are true and which false, so as to become unperturbed, he fell into the disagreement of equal force.” Should I remove the comma before “so as”?

30) “The Skeptics hoped to achieve unperturbedness by deciding the anomaly in the things which appear and are thought, but being unable to do this, they suspended judgment.” Are the commas ok?

31) “There are several texts that make reference to ataraxia as (a part of) the Skeptic’s end or as the reason why he does certain things”. Is the parenthesis clear?

32) “He intends to show that Sextus’ report of what gave rise to anxiety in the Skeptics and of their hope of attaining happiness through investigation does not correspond to the way things really happen in life.” Is this correct?

33) “Whether unperturbedness is regarded as one’s final end depends on whether its appearing as such is entailed by one’s own character and upbringing, as well as by one’s social, cultural, and philosophical background.” Is “whether” correctly used here?

34) “In sum, it appears to the Pyrrhonian ‘soul-doctor’ that something is wrong with his patients and he is spontaneously led to think of a corresponding treatment, without believing that they really are ill, that his philanthropy is something good in itself, that the treatment he uses is the one that must be applied from an objective point of view, or that the state of suspension which the treatment supposedly helps to attain is objectively beneficial.” Is the enumeration after “without” grammatically correct?

35) “That is, it appears to the Pyrrhonist that it is not entirely possible to avoid having the particular feelings of hunger and thirst, and hence to avoid having the desire to eat and drink. On the contrary, he is aware that as long as he acts according to a given set of laws and customs, he necessarily and involuntarily has certain appearances, but that his acting according to those particular laws and customs is not inevitable or unalterable”. Is it clear what I mean with “particular feelings” in contrast to what is said in the second sentence?

36) “He neither believes that showing his patients the apparent equipollence of the opposed views on a given topic is the objectively correct treatment to apply against conceit and rashness nor affirms that the final state of suspension that will apparently result from this treatment is good in itself.” Should I put a comma before “nor”? It is not completely clear to me how to use commas in these cases.

37) “Thus, it is legitimate to say that the Skeptic belongs to a ai{resi" only when this term is understood in a very practical sense that refers to a particular way of life.”.

Best,

Sextus
1 2
Comments  
Hello Sextus, how have you been?

1) Yes, [a good]. Perhaps also [such as ataraxia].

2) Fine - you could reinforce it with a semi-colon before 'so that'.

3) Maybe [belief that things are good or bad by nature].

4) It's fine if you've prepared the reader. Are you able to say: 'state of [technical word/phrase for this in Greek, which I can't remember]? Or use 'suspensive attitude'?

5) OK - 'and intrinsic' or 'or intrinsic'?

6) Ditto - is an 'or' possible here?

7) It is quite difficult to follow. NB [fully-fledged]. 'Continual investigation' is an investigation to which you keep returning; 'continuing i.' is an 'ongoing i.' (though unfortunately the latter now has distinct overtones of 'criminal investigation' - it's the phrase the police use when briefing the press).

9) ?[conditioned by the circumstantial factors that influence him] - ?tautologous.

[stopped to appear] > [ceased to appear]

10) I would say 'sought' for 'seeks', or change the whole 'If' sentence to present tense and 'would' to 'will'.

11) ?proved - 'demonstrated'?

I don't myself mind [philanthropic motor], but it may strike some as odd. 'Impetus' and 'motivation' are blander alternatives.

12) Yes, fine. You could omit the 'had', as you have already defined 'when' ('at the beginning').

13) It sounds fine to me.

14) Fine. 'Return to this point' is probably slightly more common.

15) It should really be 'lies in the fact'; but that's ruled out by the following 'fact'. You could simply say 'view is that they'.

16) It is slightly difficult to follow - mainly at and after 'a priori'.

17) Either 'enough of', though that sounds a bit colloquial; or 'enough disputing'.

18) You would have to say 'what/that which he wished for'. Maybe 'desired'?

19) [the Skeptic will not stop being such] - maybe 'will not stop being a Skeptic'?

20) Fine.

21) Fine.

22)[proceeds with caution] is fine. 'Supervene + adverbial phrase' seems OK too.

23) 'Philosophy book' isn't quite in keeping with your tone (cf 'poetry book' - infra dig.). Maybe 'philosophical work'.

24) Yes, 'a Skeptic'.

25) Fine. 'Individualistic' perhaps has too C20 an air.

26) I would say “and the latter”.

27) It does sound slightly 'official'. Maybe 'account'.

28) Fine.

29) 'So as' slightly duplicates 'with the object'. Could you say:

“For, having begun to philosophize with the object of distinguishing true from false appearances, and thereby attaining unperturbedness...',

[disagreement of equal force] troubles me a little. I suppose the sense here is 'equilibrium of contending opposites'. There must be a common phrase for this.

30) Commas fine.

31) Clear to me, yes.

32) Perhaps report > account. If 'gave', I would put 'did' for 'does'. Or gave > give.

33) I think so, yes.

34) Perhaps insert 'therefore' before 'spontaneously'?

The enumeration after 'without' is fine. I myself would write it thus:

“In sum, it appears to the Pyrrhonian ‘soul-doctor’ that something is wrong with his patients, and he is therefore spontaneously led to think of a corresponding treatment - without believing, however, that they really are ill; that his philanthropy is something good in itself; that the treatment he uses is the one that must be applied from an objective point of view; or that the state of suspension which the treatment supposedly helps to attain is objectively beneficial.”

But that's only personal preference.

35) Maybe:

“That is, it appears to the Pyrrhonist that it is not entirely possible to avoid hunger and thirst, and hence to avoid the desire to eat and drink. On the contrary, he is aware that as long as he acts according to a given set of laws and customs, he necessarily and involuntarily appears to be acting in a certain way, but that his acting according to those particular laws and customs is neither inevitable nor unalterable”.

36) “He neither believes that demonstrating to his patients the apparent equipollence of the opposed views on a given topic is the objectively correct treatment to apply against conceit and rashness, nor affirms that the final state of suspension that will apparently result from this treatment is good in itself.”

I think 'where you have to draw breath' is a good guide for comma-positioning in these cases!

37) Fine; or did you mean 'literal sense'?

See you
MrP
Oops pasted into my last post by mistake.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Hi MrP, how are you doing? Many thanks for your suggestions/corrections. I have some questions about some of them:

1) What’s the problem with “proved”? You suggested I should replace it by “demonstrated”. For instance, in the following two examples, what would be the reason for changing “prove”?:
a) “I have also attempted to prove that the Skeptic considers that neither his quest for unperturbedness nor the therapeutic function of his argumentation and its philanthropic motivation are inherent in his philosophy.”
b) “I shall attempt to prove 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 relation to the holding of beliefs.”

2) “Even if Barnes makes some qualifications, he intends to show, on the basis of a series of general assertions, that Sextus’ account of that which gave rise to anxiety in the Skeptics and of their hope of attaining happiness through investigation does not correspond to the way things really happen in life.”
In this case I use “does” because I’m referring to something that is truth in general, whereas in the case of the verbs in the past tense, they’re referring to specific circumstances.

3) “That is, it appears to the Pyrrhonist that it is not entirely possible to eliminate the particular feelings of hunger and thirst, and hence to eliminate the desire to eat and drink. On the contrary, he is aware that as long as he acts according to a given set of laws and customs, he necessarily and involuntarily has certain appearances, but that his acting according to those particular laws and customs is neither inevitable nor unalterable.”
I changed this, not exactly the way you suggested, but it’s important to keep the first “particular”. Maybe with the changes I introduced is better now.

4) “Finally, he neither believes that exposing his patients to the apparent equipollence of the opposed views on a given topic is the objectively correct treatment to apply against conceit and rashness, nor affirms that the final state of suspension that will apparently result from this treatment is good in itself.”
In this case, I had written “showing”, and you suggested “demonstrating”, but this would be too dogmatic, so that I thought of “exposing to”, but I’m not sure it’s ok.

5) “I therefore think it is legitimate for Sextus to ‘advertise’ Skepticism as a path to unperturbedness and happiness with regard to matters of belief. The reason is not, of course, that he can prove that the ‘product’ he is offering will certainly continue to have the same effect it has so far produced in a certain number of people. Rather, he considers there is no a priori reason which completely rules out both the possibility that the suspensive attitude will allow the Skeptics to maintain those states and the possibility that it will permit other people who pursue the same end to reach it.”
This was originally two sentences, and you told me it wasn’t very clear. Now I rewrote it this way. What do you think of it?

6) "The problem with Barnes’ and Striker’s view is that they overlook the fact that what makes people anxious, why they deal with philosophical questions, and whether or not they attain unperturbedness and happiness in matters of belief by suspending judgment seem to depend upon personal psychological traits, upon each person’s character."
I corrected this according to you suggestion. Now, I have another doubt: I know that in theory I must use the plural "seem" because I'm referring to three different things, but I don't know it stated not to sound completely ok (maybe because the sentence is quite complex).

7) Finally, I think that one can use either full-fledged or fully-fledged. At least the English dictionaries say so.

All best,

Sextus
Hello Sextus

1. I'm more familiar with 'demonstrate' in philosophical contexts; but 'prove' isn't wrong.

2. Fair enough.

3. Yes, that works!

4. 'Expose to' has a faint sense of 'to danger'. Could you use 'reveal' and reword slightly? ('revealing the apparent...to his patients')

5. Yes, that's clearer now.

6. Yes, I too feel that 'seems' is better. Perhaps the 'ands' make a unit of the three.

7. There must be a regional difference here. In BrE, 'fully fledged' is more usual. But 'full-fledged' is twice as popular on Google. (I would hesitate to gainsay Google.)

See you
MrP
Hi Pedanticus. Thanks once again for your answers.

1) “He neither believes that showing the apparent equipollence of conflicting views to his patients is the objectively correct treatment to apply against conceit and rashness, nor affirms that the final state of suspension that will apparently result from this treatment is good in itself.”
I changed it a little and used “show” again. I think that with this change it may work, that is, that it is grammatically correct.

2) “This is why he who is moved by Skepticism does not hesitate to propound sometimes arguments which are weighty in their persuasiveness and sometimes, too, arguments which appear weaker.”
I need to eliminate the “are” in order to prevent anyone from interpreting Sextus as advancing a dogmatic view. I thought I could just delete “which are”. By the way, is it clear or correct “moved by Skepticism”. It’s an expression a little difficult to translate from the Greek.

3) “I also believe there is no reason at all to suppose that Sextus is not the author of the last chapter of PH. This thesis, which is even more unfounded and bizarre than Brochard’s, is put forward by Mates 1996, who points out:

"It seems to me quite obvious that these two final sections, with their odd and silly claim that weak arguments have been included for the benefit of those who do not need strong arguments, are not genuine but have been tacked on by someone during the long twelve centuries between Sextus and our earliest MSS" (314).

Unfortunately, Mates does not explain why he believes that the chapter in question is a later addition, and that its content is ‘odd and silly’. Perhaps it is too ‘obvious’ to need explanation. Mates’ view is maybe in part the result of interpreting Sextus’ remarks in the sense that the Skeptic sometimes puts forward arguments which he consciously recognizes as being objectively weak. In any case, at PH iii 280–281 Sextus never suggests that some arguments really are strong or sound whereas others are not – he employs the verb einai but once. What is more, he explicitly speaks of arguments which appear weaker. The basis of the distinction among arguments seems to be rather their de facto capacity to cure (persuade) a larger or smaller number of patients.”

Fortunately, yesterday someone brought me a book from the US, and I added this criticism to the paper. There are a couple of expressions that I use in Spanish, but that I don’t know how to say in English. Maybe you could think of something. I pasted the whole passage so that it’s clear what I’m saying.

All best,

Sextus
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Hello Sextus

1) Yes, that works. If you wanted something stronger, you could use 'demonstrate'.

2) Tricky. 'Moved by' has emotional associations, as in 'moved by' a piece of music, whereas I presume your meaning is closer to 'motivated'. Is there an alternative translation of the Greek?

Deleting 'which are' does make the sentence quite clotted. What is it about the 'are' that makes it more dogmatic?

3) Mostly looks fine to me. Only:

In para 1, maybe 'points out' simply > 'says/states'.

'and that its content' > 'or why its content'

'in the sense that the Skeptic' - not sure this is quite idiomatic; but all I can think of is 'in the light of the fact that the Skeptic', which is a bit longwinded.

'but once' - 'only once' would be more usual now.

'Distinction among' perhaps > 'distinction between'.

Curious (though common) figure of speech in the Mates quote: 'long twelve centuries'.

See you
MrP
Hi MrP.

1) I said "that its content", because it depends on "believes". Maybe I should then delete the comma before "that its content" to make it clear.

2) I changed the "in the sense that" by "as meaning that". Perhaps this works. By the way, can't I say something like this: "his bodiliy affections are inevitable in the sense that they cannot be...", and "This remark must be understood in the sense that..."?

3) The dogmatic look of "are" consists in that it may give the impression that the guy believes that the arguments are objectively weighty.

4) "The first thing to be noted about Sextus’ account is that..." Probably a stupid question: is it ok the "about"?

5) "In any case, at PH iii 280–281 Sextus never says that some arguments really are strong or sound whereas others are not. He employs the verb einai only once, when referring to the Pyrrhonist’s philanthropy (o skeptikos dia to philanthropos einai), and he explicitly speaks of arguments which appear weaker. But even if he said that some arguments are weighty and others feeble, we are already warned that he uses the verb ‘be’ with the meaning of ‘appear’ (PH i 4, 135, 198). The only criterion for the distinction between arguments seems to be their de facto capacity to cure (persuade) a larger or smaller number of patients".
I rewrote a little bit this paragraph you read.

6) "Nevertheless, there still remains the aforementioned key difference between the necessitation of the affections and the handing down of laws and customs, which is the same difference that exists between the former and the teaching of skills." "Exists" or maybe holds"?

7) "This shows that it is not inevitable for the Pyrrhonist to take up a philanthropic attitude."
Inevitable for so. to do sth.?

Best,

Sextus
Hello Sextus

1) I would parse this slightly differently — to expand it a little:

'...does not explain why (he believes that) the chapter in question is a later addition, and why (he believes that) its content is ‘odd and silly’.

This can be tested by replacing 'he believes that' with 'in his view'. (Cf 'Why I think XYZ should be banned' — the 'I think' is an interpolation; the underlying structure is 'Why XYZ should be banned'.)

2) 'As meaning' is fine. 'In the sense that' properly refers to the sense of a particular word or phrase, as in your 'inevitable' bodily functions, where we're talking about the sense of the word 'inevitable; whereas in 'remark', we are once removed from the words that constitute the remark. (It seems to me roughly analogous to a 'dangling participle'; though some people do use 'in the sense of' in that sense.)

3) Tricky. The feeling of 'are' remains, even if you omit it. Would 'which may be' be too far from the original? Or 'appear'? (As in your point 5.)

4) About is fine.

5) Yes, that sounds fine.

6) For 'holds', maybe you're thinking of 'obtains'. But 'exists' is fine. It seems odd to find a 'former' without a 'latter'; though curiously, a 'latter' on its own sounds fine.

7) Yes, fine!

See you,
MrP
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Show more