English Grammar doubts

Hello MrP, how are you? I got the paper back with comments by a referee. So I changed a few things and I have some doubts:

1) “The Pyrrhonist’s ataraxia and philanthropia: On the Aim and Character of Sextus Empiricus’ Skepticism.”
Last time you told me that “end” was ambiguous, so I replaced it by “aim”. Also, is it ok to use capital letters after the colon?

2) “The analysis of these issues is important because by clearing them up we will gain a better understanding of the nature of the Pyrrhonist’s ethical stance, which in my view has been misinterpreted in several points, and will be able to assess its coherence.”

3) “In the last section, after summarizing the main results obtained in the previous discussions, I shall state more clearly what I consider to be the defining features of Pyrrhonism and respond to some objections that may be raised against my stance.”
Is it ok to say “an objection raised against…”?

4) “This idea appears to be explicitly stated in PH iii at the end of the discussion of whether there is anything good, bad or indifferent by nature.”
Is it grammatically correct to say “in PH iii at the end of”?

5) “In this section I shall consider some objections raised to Sextus’ description of the Pyrrhonist’s personal experience and to his intention to persuade others to adopt Skepticism by means of this description. This will permit us to get a more accurate picture of the Pyrrhonean outlook and to assess its plausibility.”

6) “John thinks that…. Mary, for her part, finds it hard to believe that the Skeptic is able to achieve happiness, since the state of unperturbedness reveals itself as deeply boring and unappealing, and she even doubts that the attainment of this mental state is psychologically possible”
Are “for her part” and “reveals itself” correct?

7) “I therefore think there are no grounds for considering Sextus’ account ridiculous or false, unless one believes that one is entitled to generalize one’s own experience, and then to dismiss a person’s report of his experience when it is radically different.”
Is it ok to put a comma before “and”?

8) “If I understand this passage correctly, the difference between the Skeptic and Arcesilaus with respect to the end they pursue gives no motive for not considering him a Skeptic. Rather, the only reason for this denial appears to be, as already noted, Arcesilaus’ assertion that suspension is good and assent bad. But even if we grant that it is both elements which determine that Arcesilaus is not a Skeptic, it is clear that…”

9) “Of course, this also shows that Pyrrhonism must not be considered an intrinsically individualistic stance either, as Floridi 2002, 32 thinks.”
Is it clear that Floridi thinks that Pyrrhonism is intrinsically individualistic?

10) “For, first, it is a fact that not all the members of a group, such as a family or a community, always obey the same norms and that they hardly ever have the same abilities.”
I don’t feel comfortable with this way of saying it.

11) “I hope that the previous account dissipates the confusion about what is intrinsic to the Pyrrhonist’s ethical outlook, and that it shows that his quest for ajtaraxiva and his filanqrwpiva do not threaten or compromise the coherence of his Skepticism.”

12) “I hope to have established that the Pyrrhonist’s philanthropic and therapeutic practice is not essential to his philosophy, since the Skeptics are not inevitably philanthropic and those who happen to be so could perfectly well stop acting and feeling in a philanthropic way and become more individualistic and uncaring, without this being an obstacle to their being full-blown Skeptics.”

13) “To conclude, I wish to take account of two objections that may be raised to my view. In the first place, it could be argued that the emphasis I put on the distinction between defining and non-defining characteristics of Pyrrhonism is itself foreign to the Pyrrhonean spirit, since the Skeptic would refrain from theorizing about the real nature of his outlook. However, I think this objection overlooks two facts. First, the first book of PH is devoted to an account of the Skeptical attitude. There Sextus carefully defines and describes the skeptsis, and emphasizes the differences between Pyrrhonism and its neighboring philosophies. Of course, this account should be interpreted as no more than a report of how things appear to Sextus at the moment he is describing them, but this does not make it less true that he gives a careful explanation of the nature of his Skepticism and makes it clear what his stance is not. Secondly, even if one accepted that from the Skeptic’s viewpoint this distinction is completely pointless, I do not think this prevents an interpreter interested in comprehending the Pyrrhonean outlook from trying to determine what defines it.”

14) “Though Bett does not think that Sextus’ stance can be taken as a form of realism according to his own conception of reality, he does maintain that the Skeptic of AD v asserts that things are good and bad in relation to specific persons and situations.”
Is it clear that “his” refers to “Sextus” and that “he” refers to “Bett”?

15) “Some peculiar interpretations of this passage have been put forward. It has been claimed that here Sextus is being ironic and a dilettante, and even that this final chapter of PH is not by Sextus. I cannot find anything in PH iii 280–281 that supports such bizarre interpretations.”
Can I use “ironic” and then “a dilettante”, that is, an adjective and then a noun?

Thanks,

Sextus