Hume is the Enemy of Pyrrho

Abstract

I offer reasons against reading Hume as a Pyrrhonian sceptic. I argue that Hume's scepticism is motivated differently, that his sceptical strategies are not analogous to Pyrrhonism's, and that it is profitable to read Hume as a critic of Pyrrhonism. I hold that the most informative point of comparison between Hume and Sextus Empiricus is a point of difference, namely, their stands on the connection between suspension of judgement (epochê) and tranquillity (ataraxia). For Sextus, tranquillity flows naturally from suspending judgement on all opinions. Hume, by contrast, consistently treats radical suspension of judgement as resulting in despair and social detachment. I take a firmer stance than past commentators on this issue by affirming that Hume and Sextus do not merely disagree on this issue, but that Hume's view is more plausible. Reading Hume's sceptical crisis, I propose, reveals an insightful criticism of Pyrrhonism, one that sheds light on human nature's response to radical doubt.

Experimental Evidence Against Pyrrhonism: Attacking a Straw Man

“… 11 The same misunderstanding of Sextus's stance shown by Attie-Picker is found in Dimech (forthcoming), who offers reasons against the interpretation of Hume as a Pyrrhonian sceptic. The main reason is Hume's critique of the connection between suspension and undisturbedness, a critique that Dimech finds persuasive and of philosophical value.…”