314 /l/-27
someone extolling a luxurious life. Therefore, since the followers of
Carneades and Clitomachus say that there are things that are plausible and
that they are persuaded by them with considerable inclination, whereas we
say that we do so simply yielding without inclination, we would differ
from them in this respect.
- We also differ from the new Academy in matters contributing to
the goal [of life]. For while those who say that they order [their lives]
by it [i.e., the Academic philosophy] employ plausibility for living, we
live our lives undogmatically, following laws and customs and natural
states. We could say more about the distinction between the two schools
were we not aiming for conciseness. - Arcesilaus, on the other hand, who was, as we said, founder and
head of the middle Academy, seems to me really to have shared the
argumentative procedures of Pyrrho, so that his approach and ours are
practically one and the same. For one does not find him committing
himself to some things being or not being the case, nor taking sides with
respect to the trustworthiness or untrustworthiness of one thing rather
than another, but rather to suspend judgement about everything. And
he also holds that the goal is suspension of judgement which, as we said,
is accompanied by freedom from disturbance. 233. He says also that
suspension of judgement in particular cases is good and assent in particular
cases is bad. But whereas we say these things on the basis of appearance
and do not commit ourselves, he says them with a view to their nature,
meaning that suspension of judgement is in itself a good thing, and assent
bad. 234. If one should trust the things said about him, he appeared on
the surface to be a Pyrrhonist, but in fact he was a dogmatist. And since
he used to test his associates by means of a dubitative [aporetic] procedure
to see if they were clever enough to grasp Platonic dogmas, he seemed
to be a dubitative philosopher, but in fact he actually promulgated Platonic
dogmas to the clever ones among his associates. It is because of this that
Ariston spoke of him as "Plato in front, Pyrrho in back, and Diodorus
in the middle," for although he used the dialectical method ofDiodorus,
he was thoroughly Platonic. - The followers of Philo say that things are ungraspable as far as
concerns the Stoic criterion, that is, the graspable presentation, but
graspable as far as concerns the nature of the things themselves. Further,
Antiochus transferred the Stoa into the Academy, as it was said of him
that in the Academy he theorizes according to Stoic doctrine; for he tried
to prove that Stoic doctrines are contained in Plato. So the difference
between the sceptical approach and that of the so-called fourth and fifth
Academies is evident.