  The NRB view can instead deny that Arcesilaus was personally committed to defending the life of universal suspension against Stoic counterattack. The Stoics pointed out that Arcesilaus’ subversive argument for the rationality of universally suspending assent cannot be true, because it makes action, or at least rational and virtuous action, impossible—but these are plainly possible (cf. Cicero Academica 2.37–39). But even if this objection did not target his own skeptical view, Arcesilaus was bound by his method to counter it. Hence it is unreasonable to think that he was invested in rationalizing the life of the skeptic with a theory of action (see Stopper 1983; for a different view of the polemic, see, e.g., Ioppolo 1986, Maconi 1988, and Thorsrud 2009).