VII. But let Antigonus Carystius, who is an author I have not seen, or any other whatever, say what they will, to give sanction to this relation, we may without the apprehension of being accused of injustice, condemn as incredible, the account of Pyrrho’s having carried his extravagance to such a length. This philosopher lived to the age of ninety, and through the whole course of so long a life, it is not probable, he should always have friends at his elbow, ready to save him from the many dangers, to which a man of so rash a conduct must unavoidably have been very frequently exposed, and especially, in the long voyage he made to India to consult the Gymnosophists. Diogenes Laertius, who is the person that gives us the account of the great age to which Pyrrho lived, and of his voyage to India, assures us, that Pyrrho led a very solitary and retired life, which is not very compatible with his having always been attended by his friends, nor is it reasonable to conclude, that a man who was so very ridiculous as he is described to have been, could have very many, or very sincere ones. Finally, the citizens of Elis, his countrymen, elected him the high priest of their religion. Now how is it credible, that they should have confided such an employment to a person, who if his scepticism had been carried to the length we have mentioned, they must certainly have looked upon as a mad man? From this circumstance, it may also be inferred, that the charge of impiety, which was generally imputed to him, was an unjust one; because his countrymen would hardly have elected him the supreme minister of their religion, if they had known that he professed to be of no religion at all, and that he doubted the existence of a deity. What devotion or zeal could they expect for the service of the temple, from a man, who either was ignorant of, or doubted whether the object of their worship existed? SECT. III. VIII. I not only think, that these philosophers did not in their hearts, adopt the system of universal doubt; but I also believe, there never was any one who sincerely did it; because there are objects, with respect to which, there can be no doubt but by implication. No one, for example, can doubt of his own existence. The very act of doubting, is affirmative of a certain knowledge, because he who doubts, must certainly be convinced that he does doubt; and if the sceptics are not certain that they doubt, how can they affirm they do with such obstinacy and stiffness? Therefore we should conclude, that it is not from sentiment, but from their fondness for disputation, that some of them defend the system of universal scepticism; and if there ever was any one who truly assented to it, we should not consider him as a philosopher, but as a lunatic; for it would be improper to call maintaining such a system, a particular mode of philosophizing, as we ought with more justice, to term it a particular mode of raving.