 Even aside from that question, the interpretation of the Aristocles passage is fraught with controversy. It follows that the character of Pyrrho’s thinking is, at its very core, a matter for sharp disagreement. The present survey will begin by assuming that the passage is all about Pyrrho, laying out the two main alternatives (given this assumption) and exploring the consequences of each. (Numerous other readings besides these two have been proposed; in particular, the interpretation of Svavarsson (2004) is an intriguing, though arguably unstable, hybrid of the two. But it is fair to say that these two are the ones that have commanded by far the most scholarly attention.) It will then explain why some scholars have questioned this assumption, and what difference this would make to our understanding of Pyrrho and of Timon’s relation to him. First, then, on the assumption that the whole passage is Timon’s summary of Pyrrho’s thought: