I’ve recently seen a recap of Pyrrhonian and Academic skepticism, and I am confused by the arguments presented for the Pyrrhonian side. Not the arguments themselves, but the fact of their existence. I mean, if it can’t be stated that knowledge is either possible or impossible, and if the sheer idea of “assumptions” is eliminated(as is any other claim to truth), how is it so that Pyrrhonians formulate arguments that have grounds in logic system and that, in a way, assume the rules of that system?

Read another response about Knowledge