PYRRHO connected his doubt with one aspect of the
Democritean philosophy, whereas the Sophists were
rather followers of Heraclitus, the difference being
pointed out succinctly by Sextus, thus: "From the fact
that honey appears bitter to some and sweet to others
Democritus argued that honey itself was neither sweet
nor bitter, but Heraclitus said that it was both"
( Hyp. II, 63 ). That is to say, from the isostheneia of
our sensations the Pyrrhonist, taking a hint from De-
mocritus, concluded that we have no knowledge of the
nature of things, whereas the Sophist from this same
isostheneia argued the knowledge of a like isostheneia
in things themselves. Yet, in the very chapter in which
Sextus draws out his distinction between the Sceptics
and the Heracliteans, he inserts the curious statement
in regard to Aenesidemus, the reviver of true Pyr-
rhonism, that "he said the sceptical school was the way
to the philosophy of Heraclitus." Here is a crux to
which no satisfactory solution has ever been given,
which indeed, with the data at our command, can only
be answered conjecturally. One may guess that Aene-
sidemus, being impressed by the discord of our sensa-
tions and opinions, felt that in some way it must cor-
respond with, or be a part of, some sort of instability
in the world at large. Now, if we consider the fact that

-376-