  An argument in favor of the latter is as follows (see Görler 1994): if Arcesilaus indeed shared the views that knowledge is impossible and that holding opinions is irrational—as both the RNB and NRB interpretations say—then he could not have genuinely been in the business of inquiry, which aims at knowledge of the truth; hence the only motivation for dialectical argument Arcesilaus might be left with is the promotion of universal suspension. But this argument ignores the context from which Arcesilaus’ skeptical views emerged and the effects they could reasonably be expected to have had on his philosophical practice.