ABSTRACT
One of the most powerful and consistent objections lodged against ancient skepticism is that it incompatible with action (thus, the label “inaction” [apraxia] objection). In rough outline, the inaction objection maintains that, because skeptics never accept that the world is as it appears to them to be, they cannot act. Thus, whenever they inevitably do act, the skeptics are charged with inconsistency. In this paper I survey the responses of three skeptics – Arcesilaus, Carneades, and Sextus Empiricus – to the inaction objection. I focus especially on how each skeptic develops their response in part to overcome perceived shortcomings in earlier responses.
