Is Bayle a Pyrrhonian? Notes on scepticism and toleration in the Philosophical Commentary

Abstract

Bayle’s defence of toleration in the Philosophical Commentary is controversial, particularly with regard to the final chapters of its second part, in which the author argues for the rights of the erroneous conscience. One of the most influential interpretations of the defence of the rights of the erroneous conscience emphasizes the relevance of scepticism. This paper aims to contest this interpretation by showing that Bayle does not employ scepticism to defend the rights of the erroneous conscience. Scepticism only becomes relevant, in Bayle’s arguments in favour of toleration, when he assesses the obstacles to the search for truth and the problem of inaction as part of his discussion of the responsibility each one has in the process of forming their beliefs.