  There are two approaches to resolving this second problem, that accepting inapprehensibility and universal suspension may be self-defeating. The NRNB view takes a negative route, denying that Arcesilaus was committed to inapprehensibility and universal suspension, at least as a prescriptive claim about the irrationality of assent (see [7] in sect. 3). By contrast, the RNB and NRB views positively ascribe inapprehensibility and universal suspension to Arcesilaus, but they maintain that his acceptance of them is not explained in terms of rational belief of the sort which would lead a Stoic convinced by Arcesilaus to a self-defeating position (see sect. 2).