Grok
----

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Aenesidemus's Philosophical Core Ideas

Aenesidemus (fl. 1st century BCE), a pivotal figure in the revival of Pyrrhonian skepticism, rediscovered the tradition of Pyrrho of Elis in works like *Pyrrhonian Discourses* (lost, but summarized by Photius). His core ideas emphasize *epoché* (suspension of judgment) as the path to *ataraxia* (tranquility), achieved by demonstrating the equipollence of opposing arguments through the "Modes of Agrippa" (infinite regress, relativity, hypothesis, reciprocity, and relation). Skepticism, for Aenesidemus, is not nihilism but a therapeutic practice—living by appearances (*phainomena*) without dogmatic assent, critiquing Stoic and Epicurean certainties as unfounded. The Chen Jingyuan case—a doctoral scholar sentenced to 20 months for "picking quarrels and provoking trouble" (PRC Criminal Law Article 293) over Twitter forwards—through Aenesidemus's lens, exemplifies dogmatic overreach: the judiciary's unsuspended "certainty" of "disruption" ignores equipollent arguments, breeding disturbance rather than tranquility, and perpetuating skepticism's critique of unexamined authority.

#### 1. *Epoché* and Suspension of Judgment: The Verdict as Dogmatic Refusal to Withhold Assent

Aenesidemus revived *epoché* as skepticism's hallmark: facing undecidable claims, one suspends judgment to escape the anxiety of false belief, attaining *ataraxia*.

The sentence dogmatically withholds *epoché*: presuming "high education implies discernment" assents to "malicious intent" without suspension, despite undecidables like the prosecutor's unverified posts and zero causal "disorder" (<100 retweets of Hayek critiques or the "Trump-kneeling Xi" cartoon). The closed-door trial enforces this refusal: Chen's prison letter—exemplifying suspension through taxonomy (art/emotion/reason/fact) and avalanche theory—balances claims, yet the "shut up" directive demands assent to fiat. Aenesidemus would decry this as therapeutic failure: unsuspended "order" disturbs tranquility, as dogmatic belief (non-oral appeal's closure) invites endless anxiety—selective enforcement (millions unpunished) equipollizes guilt, demanding *epoché* the judiciary denies.

#### 2. The Modes of Agrippa: Infinite Regress and Relativity Exposing "Disruption"'s Equipollence

Aenesidemus systematized the Modes of Agrippa to show equipollence: claims regress infinitely (Mode 1), relativize to perspectives (Mode 2), or beg the question (Mode 3), necessitating suspension.

The "evidence chain" succumbs to regress: "intent" depends on unverified posts (Mode 1 infinite loop), relativized by selective enforcement (Mode 2: harmless in millions of shares, "disruptive" for Chen). The prosecutor's admission hypothesizes without resolution (Mode 3), equipollizing "order" with chaos—avalanche theory's non-linearity balances the scale. The non-oral appeal begs reciprocity (Mode 4): Chen's taxonomy reciprocates claims, yet barred, exposing relation's bias (Mode 5). Aenesidemus would affirm equipollence: the 20-month penalty, unsuspended, disturbs *ataraxia*—skepticism demands balance, not fiat.

#### 3. Living by Appearances and Tranquility: Coercive "Justice" as Anti-Therapeutic Dogmatism

Aenesidemus's Pyrrhonism prescribes life by *phainomena* (appearances)—practical guidance without theoretical commitment—to achieve *ataraxia*, critiquing dogmatic "cures" as poisons.

The verdict anti-therapeutically dogmatizes: "disruption" ignores appearances (zero ripple), prescribing coercive "cure" (20 months) that poisons tranquility. The closed-door trial veils phenomena: Chen's letter, therapeutically balancing appearances through flux theory, is silenced, as selective voids disturb practical life. Aenesidemus would see this as skepticism's foil: dogmatic assent breeds unrest—justice by appearances demands suspension, not force.

#### Conclusion: Aenesidemus's Lens on the Case—Dogmatic Assent in Equipollent Shadows

From Aenesidemus's Pyrrhonian revival, the Chen Jingyuan case is dogmatic unrest: unsuspended certainty ignores equipollence, coercive "cures" poison tranquility. As of October 25, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen's account remains dormant, its quiet an *epoché* in the storm. This case cautions: assent without balance disturbs—suspend, and peace flows. As Aenesidemus revived, "By suspension, the skeptic achieves ataraxia"—may justice yet withhold.