Just quoted Nagel in a post on here as I have done before. When I read Nagel I always get the sense that something very deep is being investigated: this is both the feeling of depth and importance and also the intellectual realisation that what is being discussed here, if taken seriously, is going to have implications across philosophy.

The thoughts in the preface to Mortal Questions that I just quoted are driving me away from my pyrrhonism. There is the suggestion there that it is a foolish hunger for belief that backfires into the claim that there aren’t any answers to be had: more patience is called for.

Wikipedia’s characterisation of pyrrhonism is very nice:

According to them, even the statement that nothing can be known is dogmatic. They thus attempted to make their skepticism universal, and to escape the reproach of basing it upon a fresh dogmatism. Mental imperturbability (ataraxia) was the result to be attained by cultivating such a frame of mind. As in Stoicism and Epicureanism, the happiness or satisfaction of the individual was the goal of life, and all three philosophies placed it in tranquility or indifference. According to the Pyrrhonists, it is our opinions or unwarranted judgments about things which turn them into desires, painful effort, and disappointment. From all this a person is delivered who abstains from judging one state to be preferable to another. But, as complete inactivity would have been synonymous with death, the skeptic, while retaining his consciousness of the complete uncertainty enveloping every step, might follow custom (or nature) in the ordinary affairs of life. source