 The other evidence bearing upon Pyrrho’s central philosophical attitudes does nothing to settle the dispute between these various possible interpretations of the Aristocles passage. A number of texts explicitly or implicitly represent Pyrrho’s outlook as essentially identical to the sceptical outlook of the later Pyrrhonists. However, all of these texts postdate the rise of later Pyrrhonism itself, and none of them contains anything like the level of detail of the Aristocles passage; there is no particular reason to suppose that any of them represents a genuine understanding of Pyrrho as distinct from the later Pyrrhonists. There are also a few texts that appear to offer a picture of Pyrrho’s thought that is congenial to the metaphysical interpretation. The most significant of these is a passage from near the beginning of Diogenes Laertius’ life of Pyrrho (9.61); Pyrrho, we are told, “said that nothing is either fine or ignoble or just or unjust; and similarly in all cases that nothing is the case in reality (mêden einai têi alêtheiai), but that human beings do everything by convention and habit; for each thing is no more this than that”. This looks as if it is attributing to Pyrrho a metaphysical thesis, and a thesis according to which things have no definite features; it does not seem to be portraying Pyrrho as an advocate of suspension of judgement. However, the passage is undoubtedly in some way confused. For immediately beforehand we are told that Pyrrho was the one who initiated the type of philosophy consisting of “inapprehensibility and suspension of judgement”, which sounds epistemic; and the previously quoted passage is then cited as confirmation of this. In addition, while “nothing is the case in reality” and “each thing is no more this than that” sound wholly general, Diogenes’ examples are all in the domain of values, which ties in with the possibility that Pyrrho’s statement about the nature of things, in the Aristocles passage, was only about values and that most of that passage represents Timon’s views rather than Pyrrho’s. This passage of Diogenes, then, cannot be used as support for any particular understanding of Pyrrho.