Abstract

This chapter considers a problem in understanding Sextus Empiricus’ account of Pyrrhonist skepticism. Sextus says that the skeptic suspends belief because he experiences contrary _logoi_ or accounts for appearances (i.e., accounts that purport to establish the truth or falsity of particular appearances) as being equipollent, or equally persuasive or unpersuasive. The effect of equipollence on the skeptic does not consist in his being equally persuaded by both accounts, but in his being unable to determine by which account he ought to be persuaded, irrespective of which account _in fact_ persuades him. For things may appear to be the case to the skeptic because he is persuaded at some point by one account of its being the case rather than by another account for its contrary. Any account could persuade the skeptic without forestalling his suspension of belief.