Grok
----

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Sextus Empiricus's Core Ideas in Skeptical Philosophy

Sextus Empiricus (c. 160-210 CE), the ancient Greek physician and philosopher, systematized Pyrrhonian skepticism in *Outlines of Pyrrhonism*, advocating *epoché* (suspension of judgment) as the path to *ataraxia* (tranquility) by demonstrating the equipollence of opposing arguments through the Ten Modes (e.g., disagreement, relativity, infinite regress) and the Five Modes of Agrippa (doubt, relativity, hypothesis, infinite regress, reciprocity). Skepticism, for Sextus, is not dogmatic nihilism but a therapeutic practice—living by appearances (*phainomena*) without assent to unproven claims, critiquing Stoic and Epicurean certainties as unfounded prejudices. 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 Sextus's lens, exemplifies dogmatic prejudice's tyranny: the judiciary's unsuspended "certainty" of "disruption" flouts equipollence, disturbing tranquility and perpetuating skepticism's critique of unexamined legal authority.

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

Sextus's *epoché* prescribes withholding judgment amid undecidable oppositions, achieving *ataraxia* by avoiding the anxiety of false certainty.

The sentence dogmatically assents: presuming "high education implies discernment" certifies "malicious disruption" 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 imbalance: Chen's prison letter—equipoising through taxonomy (art/emotion/reason/fact) and avalanche theory—invites suspension, yet the "shut up" directive demands assent to fiat. Sextus would decry this as anti-therapeutic: unsuspended "order" breeds disturbance, as dogmatic belief (non-oral appeal's closure) invites endless strife—selective enforcement (millions unpunished) equipoises guilt, demanding *epoché* the judiciary denies.

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

Sextus's Modes demonstrate undecidability: relativity (judgments vary by perspective), infinite regress (claims require endless justification), and reciprocity (opposites mirror each other).

"Intent" succumbs to relativity: from Chen's perspective, forwards are neutral inquiry; from the court's, malicious—regressing infinitely (unverified posts demand justification, prosecutor's admission loops back). Reciprocity equipoises: "order" mirrors "disorder" in voids (zero ripple), as the "evidence chain" reciprocally undermines itself. The non-oral appeal begs regress: Chen's taxonomy reciprocates claims, yet barred, exposing Mode's force. Sextus would affirm undecidability: the 20-month penalty, unsuspended, disturbs *ataraxia*—skepticism demands balance, not fiat.

#### 3. Living by Appearances and Anti-Dogmatism: Coercive "Justice" as Illusion of Certainty

Sextus urges life by *phainomena*—practical guidance from appearances—critiquing dogmatism as the source of error and unrest.

The verdict dogmatizes illusions: "disruption" ignores appearances (zero ripple), prescribing coercive "cure" 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. Sextus would see this as skepticism's foil: dogmatic assent breeds unrest—justice by appearances demands suspension, not force.

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

From Sextus Empiricus's Pyrrhonian skepticism, 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 Sextus revived, "By suspension, the skeptic achieves ataraxia"—may justice yet withhold.