Skepticism is presented as a general attitude of persistent inquiry and examination of propositions. In its most basic form, it means to doubt certain knowledge. Skeptics have the ability to “highlight oppositions between things that appear and are thought in any way.” Pyrrhonian skepticism is the concept's earliest school of thought, and what distinguishes it from neighboring philosophies is its use of certain methods for investigating propositions. He claims that when faced with a proposition p, where there are reasons for p and not-p, one must suspend judgment about p to reach a state of tranquility. One of the best-known objections to Pyrrhonian skepticism is the charge of apraxia. The objection states that skepticism cannot exist since skeptics have no beliefs. How can skeptics live adequately without some essential beliefs that enable action? In defense of skepticism, scholars assert that skeptics actually believe and attack only dogmatic beliefs based on uncertain propositions. I believe this defense is successful as Sextus, a philosopher who provides the most comprehensive work on Pyrrhonism, confirms it in his work where he states that there are two different types of beliefs and that they only reject a certain type. Some beliefs are imposed on us by perception and others are formed through rational inquiry, the latter of which is not accepted by skeptics. Even if the answer constitutes a sufficient argument against the charge of apraxia, I do not believe that suspending judgment will bring peace of mind. Until skeptics have theoretical beliefs, they cannot provide considerable guidance for living a good life. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The philosophy of skepticism is presented as the ability to build a general attitude of persistence in inquiry. A skeptic avoids expressing his opinion and judgment whether he supports the proposal or opposes it. Individuals who carry out philosophical investigations can be classified into several groups. Dogmatists are those who claim to have discovered the truth about a matter while academics claim that knowledge cannot be learned. Pyrrhonian skepticism follows four basic parts. Suppose a proposition p is introduced. A skeptic first presents an explanation that opposes and supports proposition p. The skeptic tries to discover the truth, but as he investigates, he finds what the dogmatist failed to discover. As he persistently investigates a proposition and lays out all the reasons for and against it, the skeptic discovers that “there is as much to be said against the position he is considering as for it.” When faced with equally convincing arguments, one cannot rationally believe that one is more justified than the other. The arguments for and against proposition p are opposing arguments because they reach conflicting conclusions. What follows is an equilibrium known as “equipollence” which simply means that there is an equal amount of appearances or thoughts in the opposition set forth in proposition p. Opposing arguments become equivalent because they are based on how people perceive things. Is a skeptic always able to make oppositions for and against a proposition p? A significant part of Sesto's text on the features of skepticism is dedicated to this question, which shows the methods used by skeptics to construct opposing arguments with respect to a proposition. These methods were organized into patterns known as ten- and five-modes. The ten ways are “general models of skeptical argumentationto bring the reader to feel the strength of contrasting appearances in a variety of cases.” The skeptic becomes both in favor and against a proposal. Subsequently the skeptic decides to suspend judgment with respect to the proposition in question. It is only when a skeptic is unable to commit to or be against a proposition, is he able to suspend judgment and reach a state of tranquility. According to Sextus, this conclusion is the desired result. It is only when we are able to suspend judgment that we reach a state of tranquility which is the truth the skeptic has always sought. When a skeptic decides to suspend judgment, he ceases to believe in the matter. That said, “we are left with nothing or a mental void; we are left with what Sextus calls an appearance, better understood as the content of the original belief”. This result frees us from constant demands and improves everyday life. A popular objection to skepticism is known as the apraxia charge. This attack claims that skepticism cannot exist since skeptics ultimately have a deep desire to live without beliefs. In “Notes on Pyrrhonism”, Sesto states that “the main constitutive principle of skepticism is the affirmation that every account is opposed by an equal account; for it is from this, we think, that we come to have no beliefs.” How can skeptics live without believing? Life requires action, and action is impossible without beliefs. Imagine a man living on an isolated island somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. When this man needs drinking water, he has to go to a nearby well that he knows contains drinking water. But to do this he must believe that the well is where he thinks it is and contains drinkable water. Without beliefs, this man cannot perform this action and maintain his health, so he cannot survive. A person acquiesces to the impression that something must be done. This assent serves as an impetus for action. No action can occur without consent and therefore, without belief in the occurrence of the action, the action cannot be. In response to the objection, Michael Frede, along with some other scholars, argued for the defense of skepticism. This defense of skepticism claims that when skeptics talk about living without beliefs, they are only attacking a certain kind of dogmatic belief. Sextus corroborates this answer in his work by distinguishing between a broader and a narrower sense of faith. The broad sense is the type of belief that is imposed on us by our perception, while the narrower sense consists of the type of belief constructed from unclear scientific objects. When skeptics talk about living without belief, they do not mean faith “in the sense in which some say, quite generally, that to believe is to accept something; for skeptics acquiesce in the feelings forced upon them by appearances.” When skeptics begin to feel the need for hunger, they certainly don't dismiss it as false; rather, they consent to this feeling because it has been imposed on them by appearance. They have these beliefs that make more narrow sense because they are imposed on them through perception and are necessary for their survival. Skeptics do not “have beliefs in the sense in which some say that belief is an assent to some unclear object of inquiry in the sciences; for the Pyrrhonists do not consent to anything unclear.” The distinction between these two different types of beliefs is made through how these beliefs are formed. If a belief is constructed as the result of a direct appearance, the skeptic accepts it. If the belief is constructed through rational inquiry, the skeptic rejects it. The response to the charge of apraxia presents a good argument on the.