We discussed Podcasts 60, 61 and 69-73 of “The History of Philosophy without any Gaps” and we focused on the epistemology of the Stoics and the Skeptics.  The Stoics recognise their impressions and treated their validity cautiously, but they believed that knowledge is attainable, even if only by a perfect sage.  The Skeptics disagreed, questioning whether we could even trust our impressions to derive beliefs.  True, some Skeptics thought we could judge some impressions plausible, and they agreed we should act in accordance with such thoughts - avoiding apparently dangerous situations for example - but without commitment.  They could of course only go so far as to suspend judgement, because holding that nothing can be trusted is itself dogmatic and thus incoherent.  In ethics, while the Stoics could assert that the virtue was the goal, the Skeptics could take no stance at all and must be moral relativists. This led us to a discussion of moral relativism and whether religion - any, rather than a particular faith, provides a sounder basis for a moral code than an atheist position. Comparisons were drawn between the passive suspension of belief of skepticism and the active scientific approach of falsification.  Further comparisons were drawn with Kahneman’s approach of seeking the most probable explanation.