594. On Academic Sceptism by Cicero, translation by Hackett. - summary

594.  On Academic Sceptism- Hackett. editor.  Cicero is the author of this work.  It is a discussion of knowledge.  Most follow the first voice of reason they heard without thinking that one approach may be better than another.  Most just do not doubt the correctness of their views.
Some philosophers state that nothing is apprehensible.  If they are right they do have one apprehension- this one, or they have committed a contradiction.
Senses are impressions but not perfect- memory assists us from past experiences.  Reason is a starting point for apprehension.
Cicero insists that one should be wary of one’s own perceptions.  They can be wrong even when much indicates that they are correct.  But this does not prevent him from being persuaded by the stronger argument.  He can not assent but he can agree that this argument or that argument is better.  There are disadvantages to this.  If one is not careful it can lead to indifference but it also prevents a dogmatic approach to knowledge to which so many fall victim.  Cicero had not room in his heart for dogma.  It leads to closed minds and easy dismissal of any new idea or thought.  Also just because he does not give assent to an argument does not mean that the issue at hand is not worth discussing or that one should not keep digging.  In fact it seems to me that in the hands of someone like Cicero such a view of knowledge keeps one thinking and questioning.  I wonder if that is the reason that his mind seemed to keep improving as he aged.

He asked once which is wiser:  assenting to something which may be false or refusing assent?
Cicero notes that each philosophical system he knows provides for self contradiction by making allowances of sorts.  Cicero asks if, in the long run, this is any different from his system which refuses assent.
Stoics maintained that wise people never fear.  But Cicero suggests that nature may have given us fear to stimulate caution; pity/distress to encourage clemency.  He wonders if what we need to do is be realistic and accept this as part of life.  To ignore these is to be unrealistic.
Cicero feels that philosophy
1. Makes a person’s life consistent.
2. Delights the mind.

I wonder if he felt that dogmatic philosophy,  philosophy which insisted that it had all of the answers would have negative impact on both 1 and 2 above.