sm, (2) that he based the possibility of knowledge on a ground quite
different from the [Greek: kataleptike phantasia], which he pronounced
impossible, (3) that he distorted the views of Carneades to suit his own.
As to (1) all ancient testimony is clear, cf. 11, Sextus _Pyrr. Hyp._ I.
235, who tells us that while the Carneadeans believed all things to be
[Greek: akatalepta], Philo held them to be [Greek: katalepta], and Numenius
in Euseb. _Praep. Ev._ XIV. 8, p. 739, who treats him throughout his notice
as a renegade. (2) is evident from the _Academica_ and from Sextus as
quoted above. The foundation for knowledge which he substituted is more
difficult to comprehend. Sextus indeed tells us that he held things to be
_in their own nature_ [Greek: katalepta (hoson de epi te physei ton
pragmaton auton katal.)]. But Arcesilas and Carneades would not have
attempted to disprove this; they never tried to show that things _in
themselves_ were incognisable, _but_ that human faculties do not avail to
give information about them. Unless therefore Philo deluded himself with
words, there was nothing new to him about such a doctrine. The Stoics by
their [Greek: kataleptike phantasia] professed to be able to get at _the
thing in itself_, in its real being, if then Philo did away with the
[Greek: katal. phant.] and substituted no other mode of curing the defects
alleged by Arcesilas and Carneades to reside in sense, he was fairly open
to the retort of Antiochus given in the text. Numenius treats his polemic
against the [Greek: katal. phant.] as a mere feint intended to cover his
retreat towards dogmatism. A glimpse of his position is afforded in 112 of
this book, where we may suppose Cic. to be expressing the views of Philo,
and not those of Clitomachus as he usually does. It would seem from that
passage that he defined the cognisable to be "_quod impressum esset e
vero_" ([Greek: phantasia apo hyparchontos enapomemagmene]), refusing to
add "_quo modo imprimi non posset a falso_ ([Greek: hoia ouk an genoito apo
me hyparchontos]), cf. my n. on the passage. Thus defined, he most likely
tried to show that the cognisable was equivalent to the [Greek: delon] or
[Greek: pithanon] of Carneades, hence he eagerly pressed the doubtful
statement of the latter that the wise man would "opine," that is, would
pronounce definite judgments on phenomena. (See 78 of this book.) The
scarcity of references to Philo in ancient authorities does not allow of a