  The NRNB view also interprets Cicero as confirming that Arcesilaus was committed to the descriptive version of universal suspension, even though Cicero Academica 2.66–7 &amp; 77 reports that Arcesilaus was committed to various components of his anti-Stoic arguments (see sect. 3): that there are no cognitive impressions, that nothing can be known, that it is irrational to hold opinions, and that it is rational to suspend assent. Cicero may be unreliable here, because he is biased by his own, later conception of radical skepticism, and in his text one may yet find an alternative view (see Ioppolo 2008): at Academica 2.32, Cicero’s pro-Stoic character Lucullus refers to skeptical Academics who concede that everything is uncertain (‘adêla’) without preferring any views; and these Academics appear to be followers of Arcesilaus (cf. Academica 2.16 &amp; 59). Since these Academics’ suspension of judgment is based on the notion of uncertainty, which is not necessarily Stoic, their skeptical views do not depend on an anti-Stoic critique.