The Pyrrhonist (Sextus Empericus) were most at odds with the Stoic School, but wrote mostly against the Platonic Academies. I understand this sounds like a contradiction, but you have to understand both schools were based in Asia Minor, while the Platonic Academies tended to not.
The Pyrrhonists were direct offshoots of early Indic Buddhism. Many modern arguments parallel ancient and modern. The Stoic outlook, along with many other ancient philosophies, was absorbed into Christianity. The two religions today both have a greekphilosophical root (thanks to Alexander the Great) and vet along more than disagree.
But Pyrrhonist Scepticism at its finest never quite could break the divinity complex Numenius introduced in Monism-Dualism as deities. He also introduced a early concept of the trinity (though there are precedents to this).
In India, a Trinitarian school of Vedantic Hinduism that recognizes the divides between Non-Dualism (Advaita) and Dvaita (Dualism) dominates. Similar in the west, save for the emphasis on non-Dualism was purged,as well as Gnostic double dualism that tries to make a monism from a double negative.
This proved then as now ultimately impossible for Buddhists and pyrrhonists to compete with. Only places it survived had to compromise greatly from the ultra orthodox perspective of dialectic skepticism to everything. Reason why is our brains process and store information in certain fixed biological patterns.
The Stoic Universal God is not Self Evident on the basis of perception in the here and now. Nor are higher platonic forms. Or the good. Beauty can at times be, but it’s fleeting and contradictory. However, some stoic offshoot like the cult of mithra could empirically prove sufficiently using empirical data that the unseen mover of the cosmos is both dual, non dual, beautiful and mundane, etc at a much faster amplitude than a Sceptic could possibly refute it. Most religions of at least this level of philosophical robustness could easily overcome pyrrhonist arguments.
Even today, while many Atheists and Agnostics can point to Pyrrhonism as a positive and high ideal, as well as a precedent, they ultimately reject it, adopting a Dualistic Cartesian model of Science, balanced against Non-Dualist Sensory perspective as a theory of mind. You see this in theories such as Schrodenger’s Cat, which a Pyrrhonist would mock and call absurd. Eventually, the obvious direction to take to solve the limitations of such a paradox is to introduce a third perspective capable to solving the Axiom Schema Paradox Godel identify in Gilbert’s program to get around Noumenon-Phenomena assumptions. It would be by default a trinity at least. Why? We have two loafs of brain, and three strong points of liberalization between them. Most cognitive feedback loops at least three functional connections in the mind to process conscious information.
I’m new on this forum. I’m Evrim, 18 years old, from the Netherlands. I have some questions in my mind, really it will be good if you can help me and you will make me very happy.