Best skeptic arguments, five tropes of Agrippa are these: (wiki)
Dissent – The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.
Progress ad infinitum – All proof rests on matters themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity, i.e., the regress argument.
Relation – All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view. "the existing object appears to be such-and-such relative to the subject judging and to the things observed together with it, but we suspend judgement on what it is like in its nature." (Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrhōneioi hypotypōseis i., from Annas, J., Outlines of Scepticism Cambridge University Press. (2000).)
Assumption – The truth asserted is based on an unsupported assumption.
Circularity – The truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs.
Because of these tropes, skeptics withhold jugdment concerning reality, and only go with the appearances, their goal is to have tranquility in the end. Suspending judgment presumably achieves this goal. So, agnosticism about the nature of reality creates a calm and unperturbed state of mind according to the Pyrrhonists (as far as I understood).
Coming to Jain philosophy, there is the concept of Anekāntavāda which is 'many sidedness of reality'. Many sidedness of reality is perhaps best reflected in the parable of the elephant and blind men. Each man inspecting the elephant likens it to a pillar, wall or snake according to the correspoding part they inspected, the foot, the sides and the trunk. The overall message of the parable is 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘶𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘹 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴. That is why noone's partial viewpoint can be held as absolute. Only when the partial viewpoints of the blind men are put together and combined, do we get a wholer picture of the elephant, or of reality.
So, what is the relationship, if there is any, between skepticism and Anekantavada? Can someone accepting the Anekantavada principle tell to the skeptic putting forth the five tropes, that since the skeptic does not have access to the totality of reality, although reflecting his partial point of view, nevertheless, does not succeed at establishing the truth of skepticism? And, is Anekantavada a more open-minded approach about metaphysics and nature (and reality overall) than skepticism is? Because it encourages further interrogation and communication with different perspectives regarding metaphysics rather than suspending judgment?