From Goodreads
I can't say that I enjoyed this book more than The Circling Song because there isn't much to enjoy about this book. It's not bad in the sense that it is poorly written. In fact there are passages that are exceptionally well written.
"Now I had learnt that honour required large sums of money to protect it, but that large sums of money could not be obtained without losing one's honour"
"I am speaking the truth. And truth is savage and dangerous".
"I only arrived at the savage, primitive truths of life after years of struggle. For it is only very rarely that people can arrive at the simple, but awesome and powerful truths of life after one no longer fears death. For death and truth are similar in that they both require a great courage if one wishes to face them".
It's beautiful writing, and like The Circling Song the story echoes itself and with each echo one sees more of the savage truth being unveiled. Having read the other book I was more prepared for thsi one, but it's still not a fun read. It reminds me a bit of the movie Dogville, especially with all the rape and the power structures between men and women ending in a reversal by the end. Like Dogville too, it's a good piece of work that I don't see me picking up again any time in the near future.
In some ways Firdaus is a bit of a stoic saint, suffering, but rising above the suffering. Her outlook on life as suffering and suffering as the path to truth have the feel of Stoicism about it. However, she has to have a final, explosive act of passion to move from the dissociative state to the state of enlightenment that doesn't quite fit the mold. But then again, Marcus Aurelius killed more than a single pimp. Firdaus is a character that is hard to empathize with, but she was made so by the male dominated society that was both the setting and the impetus for her abuse. I don't want to make light of anybody's suffering, but this book details a much more graphic and horrific situation than what more contemporary and Western feminist writers are having to deal with at the moment. It's probably wrong of me to look at the world with a sliding scale approach to oppression, but it's hard not to read something like this book and compare it to the railings against mansplaining or the fight over whether women athletes should be paid as much as their male counterparts. I'm sure some of this comes from a bit of a chauvinist way of thinking; but, it feels as though it is rooted in reality and common sense.
A comparison between this and Aristophane's Lysistrata would be an interesting endeavor.
Showing posts with label Stoic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stoic. Show all posts
Thursday, September 26, 2019
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Stoicism
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XXVIII Stoicism
Zeno, the founder of Stoicism was a materialist who combined Cynicism with Heraclitus. Later, Stoicism took on a bit of Platonism and eventually materialism died out.
Stoicism is the least Greek form of philosophy with the earliest Stoics coming from Syria and the later ones being primarily Roman.
Zeno was primarily concerned with virtue and ethics. Everything else was important only in how it pertained to virtue.
Zeno denied the existence of chance. Zeno believed in a determinism that was rigid, but set up by a beneficent creator through natural laws.
"In the life of an individual man, virtue is the sole good; such things as health, happiness,
possessions, are of no account. Since virtue resides in the will, everything really good or bad in a
man's life depends only upon himself. He may become poor, but what of it? He can still be virtuous. A tyrant may put him in prison, but he can still persevere in living in harmony with Nature. He may be sentenced to death, but he can die nobly, like Socrates" (Russell, 254-55).
There is a coldness to Stoicism as not only bad passions are condemned, but all passions.
"The Stoic is not virtuous in order to do good, but does good in order to
be virtuous" (Russell, 256).
"Kant--who resembles them--says that you must be kind to your brother, not because you are fond of him, but because the moral law enjoins kindness; I doubt, however, whether, in private life, he lived down to this precept" (Russell, 256).
Gradually stoicism incorporated other elements and became Platonic in nature under Panaetius (who in turn influenced Cicero). Under Posidonius (circa 135 - 51 BC) the Platonic element was stronger in Stoicism then in the Skeptical theories present at the Academy.
The three Roman Stoics: Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius were much more important historically than philosophically.
Seneca turned out to be the tutor of Nero and was forced to commit suicide in A.D. 65. His dying legacy of a virtuous life remained important to his followers and to later Christians.
Epictetus, a slave who flourished between 60 and 100 AD was originally a slave and then served as a minister for the emperors until Domitian banished all philosophers.
Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 121 - 180) was an emperor. His Meditations were a personal journal of Stoic virtue.
Stoicism is a philosophy of a tired age, not a hopeful one. Stoicism suited both Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus because it was a philosophy of survival.
"If we understand that virtue is the only true good, we shall see that no real evil can befall us" (Russell, 263).
"Every man is an actor in a play, in which God has assigned the parts; it is our duty to perform our part worthily, whatever it may be" (Russell, 264).
Aurelius taught that life in harmony with the universe is what was good and one should act accordingly.
Aurelius taught that all men were brothers and that we are to love them even when they do wrong because they only do wrong out of ignorance.
Although Stoics were mostly concerned with ethics, they made great strides in the theory of knowledge as well.
The theory of knowledge avoided Plato's distrust of the perceptions. They concluded that while the perceptions might not be certain, they are probable on the whole and worthy of trust.
The Stoics also believed in innate ideas and principles.
The Stoic notion of the equality of man and the doctrine of natural law, when backed by the weight of Christianity saw the end of despotism in the 17th century.
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XXVIII Stoicism
Zeno, the founder of Stoicism was a materialist who combined Cynicism with Heraclitus. Later, Stoicism took on a bit of Platonism and eventually materialism died out.
Stoicism is the least Greek form of philosophy with the earliest Stoics coming from Syria and the later ones being primarily Roman.
Zeno was primarily concerned with virtue and ethics. Everything else was important only in how it pertained to virtue.
Zeno denied the existence of chance. Zeno believed in a determinism that was rigid, but set up by a beneficent creator through natural laws.
"In the life of an individual man, virtue is the sole good; such things as health, happiness,
possessions, are of no account. Since virtue resides in the will, everything really good or bad in a
man's life depends only upon himself. He may become poor, but what of it? He can still be virtuous. A tyrant may put him in prison, but he can still persevere in living in harmony with Nature. He may be sentenced to death, but he can die nobly, like Socrates" (Russell, 254-55).
There is a coldness to Stoicism as not only bad passions are condemned, but all passions.
"The Stoic is not virtuous in order to do good, but does good in order to
be virtuous" (Russell, 256).
"Kant--who resembles them--says that you must be kind to your brother, not because you are fond of him, but because the moral law enjoins kindness; I doubt, however, whether, in private life, he lived down to this precept" (Russell, 256).
Gradually stoicism incorporated other elements and became Platonic in nature under Panaetius (who in turn influenced Cicero). Under Posidonius (circa 135 - 51 BC) the Platonic element was stronger in Stoicism then in the Skeptical theories present at the Academy.
The three Roman Stoics: Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius were much more important historically than philosophically.
Seneca turned out to be the tutor of Nero and was forced to commit suicide in A.D. 65. His dying legacy of a virtuous life remained important to his followers and to later Christians.
Epictetus, a slave who flourished between 60 and 100 AD was originally a slave and then served as a minister for the emperors until Domitian banished all philosophers.
Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 121 - 180) was an emperor. His Meditations were a personal journal of Stoic virtue.
Stoicism is a philosophy of a tired age, not a hopeful one. Stoicism suited both Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus because it was a philosophy of survival.
"If we understand that virtue is the only true good, we shall see that no real evil can befall us" (Russell, 263).
"Every man is an actor in a play, in which God has assigned the parts; it is our duty to perform our part worthily, whatever it may be" (Russell, 264).
Aurelius taught that life in harmony with the universe is what was good and one should act accordingly.
Aurelius taught that all men were brothers and that we are to love them even when they do wrong because they only do wrong out of ignorance.
Although Stoics were mostly concerned with ethics, they made great strides in the theory of knowledge as well.
The theory of knowledge avoided Plato's distrust of the perceptions. They concluded that while the perceptions might not be certain, they are probable on the whole and worthy of trust.
The Stoics also believed in innate ideas and principles.
The Stoic notion of the equality of man and the doctrine of natural law, when backed by the weight of Christianity saw the end of despotism in the 17th century.
The Epicureans
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XXVII - The Epicureans
Zeno, founder of Stoicism and Epicurus, the founder of the Epicureans were contemporaries of each other in Athens.
Epicurus was born circa 342-1 B.C. to a poor colonist in Samos. Epicurus traveled to Athens at age 18 and then lived as a refugee in Asia Minor. In 311 he began teaching and moved his school to Athens in 307 where he taught until he died in 271-70 BC.
Epicurus lived a poor life, partly on principle, partly on a lack of resources. While he was friendly and cheerful with people in his community, he was extremely harsh against other philosophers.
"The philosophy of Epicurus, like all those of his age (with the partial exception of Scepticism),
was primarily designed to secure tranquility" (Russell, 243).
Epicurus considered pleasure to be the good, noting, "the beginning and the root of all good is the pleasure of the stomach; even wisdom and culture must be referred to this".
The pleasure of the mind is the contemplation of pleasures of the body.
He considered virtue to be an empty name unless it was prudence in the pursuit of pleasure.
Epicurus distanced himself from some of the earlier hedonists by pursuing a static pleasure, an equilibrium that was free from pain. This he preferred to dynamic pleasures which always involve an element of pain.
The wise man's goal is absence of pain, not the presence of pleasure.
Epicurus considered prudence to be the most precious gift.
Philosophy was a practical system aimed at securing a happy life.
"The safest of social pleasures, in the opinion of Epicurus, is friendship. Epicurus, like Bentham,
is a man who considers that all men, at all times, pursue only their own pleasure, sometimes
wisely, sometimes unwisely; but, again like Bentham, he is constantly seduced by his own
kindly and affectionate nature into admirable behaviour from which, on his own theories, he
ought to have refrained." (Russell, 245).
Epicurus' teachings sought to live in such a way as to avoid fear.
Two great fears were religion and the dread of death. He taught that the gods did not interfere in human life so that religion was unnecessary and that the soul died with the body so there was nothing to fear in the afterlife.
Epicurus had no real need for science. He didn't care what was used to explain natural phenomena as long as it didn't refer to the gods. Figuring out which explanation was best was just idle curiosity and did nothing to promote the happiness of man so Epicurus thought it unimportant.
The only major disciple of Epicurus was Lucretius, a contemporary of Julius Caesar (99 - 55 BC). Towards the end of the Roman Republic free thinking was fashionable. When Augustus reinvigorated ancient religion and virtue Lucretius' work, On the Nature of Things became unpopular until the Renaissance.
Unlike Epicurus who was prudent by nature, Lucretius looked to the philosophy of Epicurus as salvation from his passions. Unfortunately, it didn't work and he committed suicide.
Lucretius put the philosophy of Epicurus into poetic form. This poem is what has opened Epicurus to most readers since the Renaissance. "What has most impressed them, when they were not
professional philosophers, is the contrast with Christian belief in such matters as materialism,
denial of Providence, and rejection of immortality. What is especially striking to a modern
reader is to have these views--which, now-a-days, are generally regarded as gloomy and
depressing-presented as a gospel of liberation from the burden of fear" (Russell, 250).
The philosophy of Epicurus was too gloomy to garner widespread appeal. As the world became more oppressive seekers of consolation through philosophy and religion demanded a stronger medicine that what Epicurus had to offer. "The philosophers took refuge, with few exceptions, in Neoplatonism; the uneducated turned to various Eastern superstitions, and then, in continually increasing numbers, to Christianity, which, in its early form, placed all good in the life beyond the grave, thus offering men a gospel which was the exact opposite of that of Epicurus. Doctrines very similar to his, however, were revived by the French philosophers at the end of the eighteenth century, and brought to England by Bentham and his followers; this was done in conscious opposition to Christianity, which these men regarded as hostilely as Epicurus regarded the religions of his day" (Russell, 251).
Bertrand Russell
Chapter XXVII - The Epicureans
Zeno, founder of Stoicism and Epicurus, the founder of the Epicureans were contemporaries of each other in Athens.
Epicurus was born circa 342-1 B.C. to a poor colonist in Samos. Epicurus traveled to Athens at age 18 and then lived as a refugee in Asia Minor. In 311 he began teaching and moved his school to Athens in 307 where he taught until he died in 271-70 BC.
Epicurus lived a poor life, partly on principle, partly on a lack of resources. While he was friendly and cheerful with people in his community, he was extremely harsh against other philosophers.
"The philosophy of Epicurus, like all those of his age (with the partial exception of Scepticism),
was primarily designed to secure tranquility" (Russell, 243).
Epicurus considered pleasure to be the good, noting, "the beginning and the root of all good is the pleasure of the stomach; even wisdom and culture must be referred to this".
The pleasure of the mind is the contemplation of pleasures of the body.
He considered virtue to be an empty name unless it was prudence in the pursuit of pleasure.
Epicurus distanced himself from some of the earlier hedonists by pursuing a static pleasure, an equilibrium that was free from pain. This he preferred to dynamic pleasures which always involve an element of pain.
The wise man's goal is absence of pain, not the presence of pleasure.
Epicurus considered prudence to be the most precious gift.
Philosophy was a practical system aimed at securing a happy life.
"The safest of social pleasures, in the opinion of Epicurus, is friendship. Epicurus, like Bentham,
is a man who considers that all men, at all times, pursue only their own pleasure, sometimes
wisely, sometimes unwisely; but, again like Bentham, he is constantly seduced by his own
kindly and affectionate nature into admirable behaviour from which, on his own theories, he
ought to have refrained." (Russell, 245).
Epicurus' teachings sought to live in such a way as to avoid fear.
Two great fears were religion and the dread of death. He taught that the gods did not interfere in human life so that religion was unnecessary and that the soul died with the body so there was nothing to fear in the afterlife.
Epicurus had no real need for science. He didn't care what was used to explain natural phenomena as long as it didn't refer to the gods. Figuring out which explanation was best was just idle curiosity and did nothing to promote the happiness of man so Epicurus thought it unimportant.
The only major disciple of Epicurus was Lucretius, a contemporary of Julius Caesar (99 - 55 BC). Towards the end of the Roman Republic free thinking was fashionable. When Augustus reinvigorated ancient religion and virtue Lucretius' work, On the Nature of Things became unpopular until the Renaissance.
Unlike Epicurus who was prudent by nature, Lucretius looked to the philosophy of Epicurus as salvation from his passions. Unfortunately, it didn't work and he committed suicide.
Lucretius put the philosophy of Epicurus into poetic form. This poem is what has opened Epicurus to most readers since the Renaissance. "What has most impressed them, when they were not
professional philosophers, is the contrast with Christian belief in such matters as materialism,
denial of Providence, and rejection of immortality. What is especially striking to a modern
reader is to have these views--which, now-a-days, are generally regarded as gloomy and
depressing-presented as a gospel of liberation from the burden of fear" (Russell, 250).
The philosophy of Epicurus was too gloomy to garner widespread appeal. As the world became more oppressive seekers of consolation through philosophy and religion demanded a stronger medicine that what Epicurus had to offer. "The philosophers took refuge, with few exceptions, in Neoplatonism; the uneducated turned to various Eastern superstitions, and then, in continually increasing numbers, to Christianity, which, in its early form, placed all good in the life beyond the grave, thus offering men a gospel which was the exact opposite of that of Epicurus. Doctrines very similar to his, however, were revived by the French philosophers at the end of the eighteenth century, and brought to England by Bentham and his followers; this was done in conscious opposition to Christianity, which these men regarded as hostilely as Epicurus regarded the religions of his day" (Russell, 251).
Monday, September 23, 2019
Cynics & Sceptics
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXVI Cynics & Sceptics
Three types of intellectual stances to the world:
1) In harmony with their surroundings, light reformist thinking
2) Radical and revolutionary, major reforms needed and an expectation of radical reforms coming
3) Despair at the current situation and a lack of hope for the world, good only comes from mystical transfiguration
"The psychological preparation for the other-worldliness of Christianity begins in the Hellenistic
period, and is connected with the eclipse of the City State" (Russell, 229). Philosophy shifted from the question of how to make a good state to how to survive in suffering, how can one be good in a world gone bad?
Four famous schools of philosophy formed around the time of Alexander: Epicureans, Stoics, Cynics and Sceptics.
Cynicism began with Antisthenes and Diogenes. Antisthenes was a contemporary of Plato & Socrates, being about 20 years older than Plato. He formed a protocommunism and took up for the uneducated, common man. He believed that anything that can be known can be known by all.
Diogenes, Antisthenes pupil, was the founder of cynicism. He lived like a dog, rejecting every social convention. (Cynic comes from the word canine).
"He sought virtue and moral freedom in liberation from desire: be indifferent to the
goods that fortune has to bestow, and you will be emancipated from fear" (Russell, 231).
All Greek philosophers after Aristotle had a withdrawal sort of look at life, the world is not good, let's learn how to be independent of it.
Cynicism did not teach abstinence to the good things of the world, only an indifference to them.
Scepticism, built on what was good in Cynicism and became a more complete and rounded philosophy.
Pyrrho of Elis, who traveled with Alexander all the way to India, moved back home and founded Scepticism, a formalization and synthesizing of older thoughts.
Scepticism took on a local flavor wherever it was. They adopted the local religious customs, not because they were inherently right, but that they could not be proved wrong and it was beneficial to follow the custom.
Scepticism became popular because it allowed people to not worry about the future. The future was uncontrollable so why not enjoy the present.
After Pyrrho came Timon, who practiced a skepticism similar to Hume. After Pyrrho came Arcesilaus who housed skepticism in Platonic thought. Rather than focusing on Plato's belief in the Forms and the superiority of the immortal soul, Arcesilaus treated the Socratic dialogues as the end, not the means. Most of the dialogues don't end with a positive conclusion and a lot of them argue both sides well. Arcesilaus saw this as the embodiment of skepticism.
The Academy became skeptical for two hundred years after Arcesilaus and produced a number of variations on the school. One of which, that of Clitomachus, seemed to agree with more modern philosophers as he based his skepticism on probabilities: "Probability should be our guide in practice, since it is reasonable to act on the most probable of possible hypotheses" (Russell, 238).
Sextus Empiricus, a Roman skeptic, used the problem of evil and his skepticism to argue against the existence of God, or at least, knowing that God exists: "Those who affirm positively that God exists cannot avoid falling into an impiety. For if they say that God controls everything, they make Him the author of evil things; if, on the other hand, they say that He controls some things only, or that He controls nothing, they are compelled to make God either grudging or impotent, and to do that is quite obviously an impiety" (Russell, 239).
Ancient skepticism had enough power in it to make men dissatisfied with the ancient, traditional and state religion. But it had no answer to fill the void. (Modern skepticism, Russell notes, is "supplemented, in most of its advocates, by an enthusiastic belief in science" (Russell, 239). The hollowing out done by Skepticism paved the way for an invasion of oriental religions that competed with one another until the domination of Christianity.
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXVI Cynics & Sceptics
Three types of intellectual stances to the world:
1) In harmony with their surroundings, light reformist thinking
2) Radical and revolutionary, major reforms needed and an expectation of radical reforms coming
3) Despair at the current situation and a lack of hope for the world, good only comes from mystical transfiguration
"The psychological preparation for the other-worldliness of Christianity begins in the Hellenistic
period, and is connected with the eclipse of the City State" (Russell, 229). Philosophy shifted from the question of how to make a good state to how to survive in suffering, how can one be good in a world gone bad?
Four famous schools of philosophy formed around the time of Alexander: Epicureans, Stoics, Cynics and Sceptics.
Cynicism began with Antisthenes and Diogenes. Antisthenes was a contemporary of Plato & Socrates, being about 20 years older than Plato. He formed a protocommunism and took up for the uneducated, common man. He believed that anything that can be known can be known by all.
Diogenes, Antisthenes pupil, was the founder of cynicism. He lived like a dog, rejecting every social convention. (Cynic comes from the word canine).
"He sought virtue and moral freedom in liberation from desire: be indifferent to the
goods that fortune has to bestow, and you will be emancipated from fear" (Russell, 231).
All Greek philosophers after Aristotle had a withdrawal sort of look at life, the world is not good, let's learn how to be independent of it.
Cynicism did not teach abstinence to the good things of the world, only an indifference to them.
Scepticism, built on what was good in Cynicism and became a more complete and rounded philosophy.
Pyrrho of Elis, who traveled with Alexander all the way to India, moved back home and founded Scepticism, a formalization and synthesizing of older thoughts.
Scepticism took on a local flavor wherever it was. They adopted the local religious customs, not because they were inherently right, but that they could not be proved wrong and it was beneficial to follow the custom.
Scepticism became popular because it allowed people to not worry about the future. The future was uncontrollable so why not enjoy the present.
After Pyrrho came Timon, who practiced a skepticism similar to Hume. After Pyrrho came Arcesilaus who housed skepticism in Platonic thought. Rather than focusing on Plato's belief in the Forms and the superiority of the immortal soul, Arcesilaus treated the Socratic dialogues as the end, not the means. Most of the dialogues don't end with a positive conclusion and a lot of them argue both sides well. Arcesilaus saw this as the embodiment of skepticism.
The Academy became skeptical for two hundred years after Arcesilaus and produced a number of variations on the school. One of which, that of Clitomachus, seemed to agree with more modern philosophers as he based his skepticism on probabilities: "Probability should be our guide in practice, since it is reasonable to act on the most probable of possible hypotheses" (Russell, 238).
Sextus Empiricus, a Roman skeptic, used the problem of evil and his skepticism to argue against the existence of God, or at least, knowing that God exists: "Those who affirm positively that God exists cannot avoid falling into an impiety. For if they say that God controls everything, they make Him the author of evil things; if, on the other hand, they say that He controls some things only, or that He controls nothing, they are compelled to make God either grudging or impotent, and to do that is quite obviously an impiety" (Russell, 239).
Ancient skepticism had enough power in it to make men dissatisfied with the ancient, traditional and state religion. But it had no answer to fill the void. (Modern skepticism, Russell notes, is "supplemented, in most of its advocates, by an enthusiastic belief in science" (Russell, 239). The hollowing out done by Skepticism paved the way for an invasion of oriental religions that competed with one another until the domination of Christianity.
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Aristotle's Ethics
Ch. XX Aristotle's Ethics
Russell notes that Aristotle's Ethics appeal to middle-aged men and have been used by middle-aged men to "repress the ardours and enthusiasm of the young".
The good is happiness, an activity of the soul.
2 parts of the soul:
1) Rational
2) Irrational (divided again into two:)
a) Vegetative
b) Appetitive
2 kinds of virtues (that correlate to the parts of the soul):
1. Intellectual - come from teaching
2. Moral - come from habit
The Golden Mean - each virtue is a mean between two extremes, both of which are vices. Russell points out that this is problematic as truthfulness is a virtue but doesn't seem to be a mean between two vices.
"Aristotle's opinions on moral questions are always such as were conventional in his day" (Russell, 174). Thus, they differ occasionally from modern points because of an inherent aristocracy in Aristotle's world view. The relationships within the power structures of Aristotle's time lead to points that would seem horrible to the modern reader: "In unequal relations, it is
right, since everybody should be loved in proportion to his worth, that the inferior should love the
superior more than the superior love the inferior: wives, children, subjects, should have more love
for husbands, parents, and monarchs than the latter have for them" (174).
Aristotle's ideal individual is not the Christian saint. He should have proper pride, despise what is worthy of being despised and he should be magnanimous (great-souled).
The magnanimous man by definition must be higher than others and seeks only honor in what he does. Honor from unworthy people is beneath him and he despises them rightly.
"He is one who will possess beautiful and profitless things rather than profitable and useful ones" (Russell, 176).
The magnanimous man must be rare, not because virtue acquisition is hard (which it is) but because there cannot be too many magnanimous men in a given society. Thus, Aristotle approves of Monarchy as the best political system, aristocracy as second best.
"This brings up a question which is half ethical, half political. Can we regard as morally satisfactory a community which, by its essential constitution, confines the best things to a few, and requires the majority to be content with the second-best? Plato and Aristotle say yes, and Nietzsche agrees with them. Stoics, Christians, and democrats say no. But there are great differences in their ways of saying no." (Russell, 176-77). Russell states that Stoics and Christians disagree with it because they see social injustice as being less important than the greatest good (virtue). They do not need to change the circumstances around them to be virtuous because being virtuous is above politics. The democrat holds private property and power to be the highest good (at least in a political context). Thus, the democrat cannot abide a system that plays favorites to only a few.
The Stoic-Christian view of virtue dismisses the intellectual virtues of Aristotle because the poor and humble can be as virtuous as the wealthy and powerful. Pride is also seen as a vice in Stoic and Christian worldviews, opposed to Aristotle's view as pride being a virtue.
Aristotle subordinates ethics to politics; and, being Aristocratic his ethics reflect a view that heaps praises on to a few rather than to the masses.
Christianity has narrowed the term, "ethics". A better educated man is not necessarily a more moral man. In fact, the two have no connection whatsoever in the Christian worldview. Aristotle had a much broader definition of the term, "ethics". Thus, a more educated man was obviously a more moral man in his estimation.
More modern theories have begun to mirror Aristotle's ethical theories. They define what is the good and list out ways of reaching it. For Aristotle, this good is happiness. That happiness is only open to the philosopher seems to have no problems for Aristotle in his theory.
To judge an ethical system three questions to ask:
1) Is it internally consistent?
2) Is it consistent with the rest of the author's views?
3) Does it give answers to ethical problems that are consonant with our own feelings.
If the answer to 1 or 2 is no then the philosophy is intellectually wrong. If the answer to 3 is no we cannot say it is wrong only that we do not like the ethical system.
Aristotle is mostly internally consistent according to Russell.
Aristotle's metaphysics is pretty consistent with his ethics.
Aristotle sees virtue as a means to an end. Virtues result in happiness.
A difference between happiness and pleasure: there can be no happiness without pleasure but they aren't synonymous.
"Happiness lies in virtuous activity, and perfect happiness lies in the best activity, which is contemplative" (Russell, 181).
Leisure is essential to happiness.
God is pure contemplation. Man, when he is contemplative, is godlike. The philosopher, who is afforded time to contemplate by wealth/status is the most godlike.
Ethics is a subject on which modern advancements make no impact because no scientific advancements can ever be made in ethics.
"There is in Aristotle an almost complete absence of what may be called benevolence or
philanthropy. The sufferings of mankind, in so far as he is aware of them, do not move him emotionally; he holds them, intellectually, to be an evil, but there is no evidence that they cause him unhappiness except when the sufferers happen to be his friends" (Russell, 182-83).
There is an emotional poverty in Aristotle's ethics that is not found in earlier philosophers.
"What he has to say is what will be useful to comfortable men of weak passions; but he has nothing to say to those who are possessed by a god or a devil, or whom outward misfortune drives to despair. For these reasons, in my judgement, his Ethics, in spite of its fame, is lacking in intrinsic importance" (Russell, 184).
Russell notes that Aristotle's Ethics appeal to middle-aged men and have been used by middle-aged men to "repress the ardours and enthusiasm of the young".
The good is happiness, an activity of the soul.
2 parts of the soul:
1) Rational
2) Irrational (divided again into two:)
a) Vegetative
b) Appetitive
2 kinds of virtues (that correlate to the parts of the soul):
1. Intellectual - come from teaching
2. Moral - come from habit
The Golden Mean - each virtue is a mean between two extremes, both of which are vices. Russell points out that this is problematic as truthfulness is a virtue but doesn't seem to be a mean between two vices.
"Aristotle's opinions on moral questions are always such as were conventional in his day" (Russell, 174). Thus, they differ occasionally from modern points because of an inherent aristocracy in Aristotle's world view. The relationships within the power structures of Aristotle's time lead to points that would seem horrible to the modern reader: "In unequal relations, it is
right, since everybody should be loved in proportion to his worth, that the inferior should love the
superior more than the superior love the inferior: wives, children, subjects, should have more love
for husbands, parents, and monarchs than the latter have for them" (174).
Aristotle's ideal individual is not the Christian saint. He should have proper pride, despise what is worthy of being despised and he should be magnanimous (great-souled).
The magnanimous man by definition must be higher than others and seeks only honor in what he does. Honor from unworthy people is beneath him and he despises them rightly.
"He is one who will possess beautiful and profitless things rather than profitable and useful ones" (Russell, 176).
The magnanimous man must be rare, not because virtue acquisition is hard (which it is) but because there cannot be too many magnanimous men in a given society. Thus, Aristotle approves of Monarchy as the best political system, aristocracy as second best.
"This brings up a question which is half ethical, half political. Can we regard as morally satisfactory a community which, by its essential constitution, confines the best things to a few, and requires the majority to be content with the second-best? Plato and Aristotle say yes, and Nietzsche agrees with them. Stoics, Christians, and democrats say no. But there are great differences in their ways of saying no." (Russell, 176-77). Russell states that Stoics and Christians disagree with it because they see social injustice as being less important than the greatest good (virtue). They do not need to change the circumstances around them to be virtuous because being virtuous is above politics. The democrat holds private property and power to be the highest good (at least in a political context). Thus, the democrat cannot abide a system that plays favorites to only a few.
The Stoic-Christian view of virtue dismisses the intellectual virtues of Aristotle because the poor and humble can be as virtuous as the wealthy and powerful. Pride is also seen as a vice in Stoic and Christian worldviews, opposed to Aristotle's view as pride being a virtue.
Aristotle subordinates ethics to politics; and, being Aristocratic his ethics reflect a view that heaps praises on to a few rather than to the masses.
Christianity has narrowed the term, "ethics". A better educated man is not necessarily a more moral man. In fact, the two have no connection whatsoever in the Christian worldview. Aristotle had a much broader definition of the term, "ethics". Thus, a more educated man was obviously a more moral man in his estimation.
More modern theories have begun to mirror Aristotle's ethical theories. They define what is the good and list out ways of reaching it. For Aristotle, this good is happiness. That happiness is only open to the philosopher seems to have no problems for Aristotle in his theory.
To judge an ethical system three questions to ask:
1) Is it internally consistent?
2) Is it consistent with the rest of the author's views?
3) Does it give answers to ethical problems that are consonant with our own feelings.
If the answer to 1 or 2 is no then the philosophy is intellectually wrong. If the answer to 3 is no we cannot say it is wrong only that we do not like the ethical system.
Aristotle is mostly internally consistent according to Russell.
Aristotle's metaphysics is pretty consistent with his ethics.
Aristotle sees virtue as a means to an end. Virtues result in happiness.
A difference between happiness and pleasure: there can be no happiness without pleasure but they aren't synonymous.
"Happiness lies in virtuous activity, and perfect happiness lies in the best activity, which is contemplative" (Russell, 181).
Leisure is essential to happiness.
God is pure contemplation. Man, when he is contemplative, is godlike. The philosopher, who is afforded time to contemplate by wealth/status is the most godlike.
Ethics is a subject on which modern advancements make no impact because no scientific advancements can ever be made in ethics.
"There is in Aristotle an almost complete absence of what may be called benevolence or
philanthropy. The sufferings of mankind, in so far as he is aware of them, do not move him emotionally; he holds them, intellectually, to be an evil, but there is no evidence that they cause him unhappiness except when the sufferers happen to be his friends" (Russell, 182-83).
There is an emotional poverty in Aristotle's ethics that is not found in earlier philosophers.
"What he has to say is what will be useful to comfortable men of weak passions; but he has nothing to say to those who are possessed by a god or a devil, or whom outward misfortune drives to despair. For these reasons, in my judgement, his Ethics, in spite of its fame, is lacking in intrinsic importance" (Russell, 184).
Sunday, November 12, 2006
The Christianity of John and the Institutionalization of the Church
(Originally written November 12, 2006 in Book 11)
John and the Logos Mystery
The Problem of Incarnation
Even if the problem of reconciling the notion of Jesus being the son of God and monotheistic YHWH was completed, the problem of the Incarnation had to be solved. Paul was blissfully unconcerned with this problem. It was enough for Paul to simply state that Jesus was God.
John identifies Christ as Logos. The Logos was with God in the beginning and through the Logos all was created. Then the Logos became flesh and dwelled among his creation for a time, but his own creation did not recognize it.
John and Paul's views compared
John, using the term "Logos" introduced a technical Greek philosophical term to Judaism and the mystery cults.
Paul and John's views are similar. Neither knew Jesus personally and each were driven by a profound mysticism.
Linehan: Didn't John know him?
Both were Jewish and both opened Christianity to Jews and Gentiles alike. Both agreed that salvation was not continued existence in time, but a rebirth free of sins, frustration and defeat.
John rose above the provincialism of Jesus and interpreted the personality of Jesus from the broad perspective of non-Jewish thought.
John was mystical in the sense of Hellenized Alexandria. He was more philosophical than Paul.
John's Jesus was not Paul's resurrected God, he was the Logos of Hellenistic Philosophy
Origins of the Logos Doctrine
The Logos had a faint beginning in Heraclitus, but was developed by Stoicism.
Stoicism's logos influenced much of Hellenistic philosophy and even some Jewish sects.
The Jewish logos appears in Philo, a Jewish philosopher of the Diaspora.
Philo was an Alexandrian Jew. Alexandria was the center of logos - thinking.
Philo was a younger contemporary of Jesus but seems never to have heard of him.
Philo was a younger contemporary of Jesus, but seems never to have heard of him.
Phil worked to harmonize Judaism with the current philosophical trend of the Roman world. In doing so he provided a basis for Christianity to develop.
YHWH began as an anthropomorphic being, but became so cosmic a deity that He seemed indifferent to man.
The changing of the times saw all religions seek to bring man closer to God and Philo attempted this within Judaism.
The logos of Philo was how God interacted with man; how He bridged the chasm between man and God, and how He revealed Himself to man.
John's Account of the Logos
John's use of the Logos in Christianity made it philosophically respectable to the world.
John saw Jesus as the eternal and divine Logos which happened to take a human form at a particular point in space and time.
How did the logos take form of man? John's answer was we do not know how and must accept it on faith.
Why did it come about? John stated that God so loved the world he sent the logos to save it.
Philo was interested with the logos for epistemic and metaphysical functions. John was interested with he logos for its redemptive qualities.
John's emphasis of love, kindness and mercy did not add anything new to YHWH. His non-emphasis of wrath is what added something to YHWH.
The Effects of Institutionalism
John and Paul were the most important figures in shaping the conception of God in Christianity.
After John and Paul, Christianity (like every other institutionalized movement) began to settle down and be reinterpreted.
What the Message Gained and Lost
Mysticism as a basis was too exclusive for the masses. Non-mystics had to reinterpret the message for themselves.
Salvation as an inner change became a notion that was to happen down the road and not immediately.
The otherworldliness of Paul became a Christian notion of separating one's self from the physical world.
The Church moved from mysticism and logos to an appeal to the magic of the sacraments, a new rigorous ascetic law, a fear worship of God and fear of hellfire instead of love and identification with the divine.
The Church and its Mystics
The Church and Christian mystics have had trouble achieving a Christian unity
The mystic views the Church as unnecessary and dangerous; the Church views the mystic as a maverick and a trouble-maker.
The amazing part of Christianity is the Church's use of mystics to continually revitalize itself.
The Church as an institution owes its longevity to the mystics. The massive lifespan of Christianity has caused its adherents to claim a divine establishment.
The Institutionalization of the Jesus Movement
Initially the disciples and Paul wanted to institutionalize the Church.
As the Apostles and Paul died off, interpretation of their writings became key. Heresies and orthodoxy became an issue.
The ideal of Orthodoxy
Christianity distinguished itself from the other mystery cults by being intolerant of the other ones. While every cult claimed to posses the key to salvation they allowed other cults to exist. With an intolerant God, Christianity could not be tolerant of rival salvation processes.
The Christians demanded uniform worship, the demanded orthodoxy. Determining what was orthodoxy was the growth of the Church as an institution.
Irenaeus, a bishop of the 2nd century put forth a view held by the Church still today. Bishops received (originally) the true doctrine from the authority of the Apostles. Successive bishops received this authority upon appointment and disagreements between bishops were to be solved by our infallible episcopate vote.
John and the Logos Mystery
The Problem of Incarnation
Even if the problem of reconciling the notion of Jesus being the son of God and monotheistic YHWH was completed, the problem of the Incarnation had to be solved. Paul was blissfully unconcerned with this problem. It was enough for Paul to simply state that Jesus was God.
John identifies Christ as Logos. The Logos was with God in the beginning and through the Logos all was created. Then the Logos became flesh and dwelled among his creation for a time, but his own creation did not recognize it.
John and Paul's views compared
John, using the term "Logos" introduced a technical Greek philosophical term to Judaism and the mystery cults.
Paul and John's views are similar. Neither knew Jesus personally and each were driven by a profound mysticism.
Linehan: Didn't John know him?
Both were Jewish and both opened Christianity to Jews and Gentiles alike. Both agreed that salvation was not continued existence in time, but a rebirth free of sins, frustration and defeat.
John rose above the provincialism of Jesus and interpreted the personality of Jesus from the broad perspective of non-Jewish thought.
John was mystical in the sense of Hellenized Alexandria. He was more philosophical than Paul.
John's Jesus was not Paul's resurrected God, he was the Logos of Hellenistic Philosophy
Origins of the Logos Doctrine
The Logos had a faint beginning in Heraclitus, but was developed by Stoicism.
Stoicism's logos influenced much of Hellenistic philosophy and even some Jewish sects.
The Jewish logos appears in Philo, a Jewish philosopher of the Diaspora.
Philo was an Alexandrian Jew. Alexandria was the center of logos - thinking.
Philo was a younger contemporary of Jesus but seems never to have heard of him.
Philo was a younger contemporary of Jesus, but seems never to have heard of him.
Phil worked to harmonize Judaism with the current philosophical trend of the Roman world. In doing so he provided a basis for Christianity to develop.
YHWH began as an anthropomorphic being, but became so cosmic a deity that He seemed indifferent to man.
The changing of the times saw all religions seek to bring man closer to God and Philo attempted this within Judaism.
The logos of Philo was how God interacted with man; how He bridged the chasm between man and God, and how He revealed Himself to man.
John's Account of the Logos
John's use of the Logos in Christianity made it philosophically respectable to the world.
John saw Jesus as the eternal and divine Logos which happened to take a human form at a particular point in space and time.
How did the logos take form of man? John's answer was we do not know how and must accept it on faith.
Why did it come about? John stated that God so loved the world he sent the logos to save it.
Philo was interested with the logos for epistemic and metaphysical functions. John was interested with he logos for its redemptive qualities.
John's emphasis of love, kindness and mercy did not add anything new to YHWH. His non-emphasis of wrath is what added something to YHWH.
The Effects of Institutionalism
John and Paul were the most important figures in shaping the conception of God in Christianity.
After John and Paul, Christianity (like every other institutionalized movement) began to settle down and be reinterpreted.
What the Message Gained and Lost
Mysticism as a basis was too exclusive for the masses. Non-mystics had to reinterpret the message for themselves.
Salvation as an inner change became a notion that was to happen down the road and not immediately.
The otherworldliness of Paul became a Christian notion of separating one's self from the physical world.
The Church moved from mysticism and logos to an appeal to the magic of the sacraments, a new rigorous ascetic law, a fear worship of God and fear of hellfire instead of love and identification with the divine.
The Church and its Mystics
The Church and Christian mystics have had trouble achieving a Christian unity
The mystic views the Church as unnecessary and dangerous; the Church views the mystic as a maverick and a trouble-maker.
The amazing part of Christianity is the Church's use of mystics to continually revitalize itself.
The Church as an institution owes its longevity to the mystics. The massive lifespan of Christianity has caused its adherents to claim a divine establishment.
The Institutionalization of the Jesus Movement
Initially the disciples and Paul wanted to institutionalize the Church.
As the Apostles and Paul died off, interpretation of their writings became key. Heresies and orthodoxy became an issue.
The ideal of Orthodoxy
Christianity distinguished itself from the other mystery cults by being intolerant of the other ones. While every cult claimed to posses the key to salvation they allowed other cults to exist. With an intolerant God, Christianity could not be tolerant of rival salvation processes.
The Christians demanded uniform worship, the demanded orthodoxy. Determining what was orthodoxy was the growth of the Church as an institution.
Irenaeus, a bishop of the 2nd century put forth a view held by the Church still today. Bishops received (originally) the true doctrine from the authority of the Apostles. Successive bishops received this authority upon appointment and disagreements between bishops were to be solved by our infallible episcopate vote.
Thursday, November 9, 2006
Book Notes - Marcus Aurelius
(Originally written November 9, 2006 in Book 11)
Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) was a nobleman adopted into the Emperor line by Emperor Hadrian.
Aurelius became Emperor in 161. Despite being a peaceful man his reign was plagued with war with barbarians in the frontier and quelling revolutions.
He instituted a host of social and political reforms.
"His reign and that of Antoninus Pius were, according to Gibbon, 'possibly the only period of history in which the happiness of a great people was the sole object of government'" (Jones, 341).
Aurelius' son and heir, Commodus was incompetent and violent. He marks the beginning of the fall of the Empire.
Aurelius marks the end of an epoch.
Aurelius' Meditations were not intended for instruction, but for his own personal use.
They were random reflections of his doubts and indecisions and faith in philosophy.
While Aurelius does not provide an encompassing philosophical view he does show how deeply Stoicism had penetrated Roman thought.
Conception of Nature
Nature, for Aurelius, was a cosmos that persisted is a Heraclitean flux. Change was orderly and regular. The universe was rational and intelligent. The universe was one living Being. It possessed a single soul.
Man was a portion of this rational cosmos. His reason was how he participated in the rationality of the universe.
Emphasis on Social Duties
Aurelius' temperament and outgoing nature caused him to interpret Stoicism differently than Epictetus.
Aurelius' mantra of that all men as fellow creatures led him to a number of social and political duties.
Plato's and Aristotle's view of man as both rational and civic was used by Aurelius, but Aurelius added the concept of obligation to it.
Aurelius lived in a time when the culture was tired and discouraged. Since their was no real hope, the appeal of Aurelius' brand of Stoicism was to "stiffen the back and endure until the end" (Jones, 343).
Aurelius was wont to say that we are to welcome dear as inevitable, but he thought it was wrong to commit suicide.
The Stoics maintained the notion of moderation. Aurelius was the last to hold this notion for a long time.
Stoicism as an Operative Ideal in Roman Life
The world of the Romans was dying with Aurelius' death. The old Greek schools were to begin to decay.
Law
The law was instituted with new changes due to the change in Roman society. The old ways were finished and the freeing of tons of slaves caused a new law to be needed.
Charity
Humanizing became prevalent in this age.
Charity became commonplace in Roman society.
Jus Naturale
Juris prudence was introduced to the notion of natural law because of Stoicism's influence.
Natural law demanded that everyone be under one law, not just citizens.
Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) was a nobleman adopted into the Emperor line by Emperor Hadrian.
Aurelius became Emperor in 161. Despite being a peaceful man his reign was plagued with war with barbarians in the frontier and quelling revolutions.
He instituted a host of social and political reforms.
"His reign and that of Antoninus Pius were, according to Gibbon, 'possibly the only period of history in which the happiness of a great people was the sole object of government'" (Jones, 341).
Aurelius' son and heir, Commodus was incompetent and violent. He marks the beginning of the fall of the Empire.
Aurelius marks the end of an epoch.
Aurelius' Meditations were not intended for instruction, but for his own personal use.
They were random reflections of his doubts and indecisions and faith in philosophy.
While Aurelius does not provide an encompassing philosophical view he does show how deeply Stoicism had penetrated Roman thought.
Conception of Nature
Nature, for Aurelius, was a cosmos that persisted is a Heraclitean flux. Change was orderly and regular. The universe was rational and intelligent. The universe was one living Being. It possessed a single soul.
Man was a portion of this rational cosmos. His reason was how he participated in the rationality of the universe.
Emphasis on Social Duties
Aurelius' temperament and outgoing nature caused him to interpret Stoicism differently than Epictetus.
Aurelius' mantra of that all men as fellow creatures led him to a number of social and political duties.
Plato's and Aristotle's view of man as both rational and civic was used by Aurelius, but Aurelius added the concept of obligation to it.
Aurelius lived in a time when the culture was tired and discouraged. Since their was no real hope, the appeal of Aurelius' brand of Stoicism was to "stiffen the back and endure until the end" (Jones, 343).
Aurelius was wont to say that we are to welcome dear as inevitable, but he thought it was wrong to commit suicide.
The Stoics maintained the notion of moderation. Aurelius was the last to hold this notion for a long time.
Stoicism as an Operative Ideal in Roman Life
The world of the Romans was dying with Aurelius' death. The old Greek schools were to begin to decay.
Law
The law was instituted with new changes due to the change in Roman society. The old ways were finished and the freeing of tons of slaves caused a new law to be needed.
Charity
Humanizing became prevalent in this age.
Charity became commonplace in Roman society.
Jus Naturale
Juris prudence was introduced to the notion of natural law because of Stoicism's influence.
Natural law demanded that everyone be under one law, not just citizens.
Book Notes - Epictetus
(Originally written November 9, 2006 in Book 11)
Epictetus
Epictetus was a slave in Rome during the reign of Nero.
He got his freedom at some point and taught in Rome until 98 AD. He was expelled with all other philosophers by Emperor Domitian.
Like Socrates, Epictetus never wrote anything but his disciples wrote down his "discourses" and many have survived.
Religious Temperament
He had a Stoic religious tendency.
He maintained that God exists and nothing man could do can be hidden from him.
God provided man with the intellectual faculty.
Man was a "fragment turn from God" according to Epictetus. Every man has a portion of God.
From this Epictetus concluded that man's duty to live up to his high moral duty was because of his kinship with God.
Epictetus held that we ought to accept whatever God gives us.
All men are equally God's creatures; they are all equally members of one community.
Man is to be willing to lose his individuality. He is to sacrifice himself for the sake of the whole if need be.
Epictetus gravitated towards the asocial tendency of the Stoics.
Epictetus preached quietude and religious piety.
Epictetus
Epictetus was a slave in Rome during the reign of Nero.
He got his freedom at some point and taught in Rome until 98 AD. He was expelled with all other philosophers by Emperor Domitian.
Like Socrates, Epictetus never wrote anything but his disciples wrote down his "discourses" and many have survived.
Religious Temperament
He had a Stoic religious tendency.
He maintained that God exists and nothing man could do can be hidden from him.
God provided man with the intellectual faculty.
Man was a "fragment turn from God" according to Epictetus. Every man has a portion of God.
From this Epictetus concluded that man's duty to live up to his high moral duty was because of his kinship with God.
Epictetus held that we ought to accept whatever God gives us.
All men are equally God's creatures; they are all equally members of one community.
Man is to be willing to lose his individuality. He is to sacrifice himself for the sake of the whole if need be.
Epictetus gravitated towards the asocial tendency of the Stoics.
Epictetus preached quietude and religious piety.
Book Notes - Cicero
(Originally written November 9, 2006 in Book 11)
Cicero
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC)
Cicero was a lawyer. He became a consulship in 63 BC. But his excellent lawyer skills did not make him a good politician. He was ill equipped to deal with Rome's problems.
Cicero advocated for the Republic. His loyalty to the Senate and the old ways go him executed by Marc Antony in 43 BC.
Cicero turned to philosophy late in his political career. His roots were in the Peripatetic, Academic, old Roman and even Stoic schools.
Cicero was not at all original, but his hodgepodge background is indicative of Roman thought at his time.
What is Nature?
Cicero adopted the Stoic ethic, so his first job was to define nature.
Cicero criticized extreme Stoicism for its impracticality.
Cicero's modified Stoicism
Cicero hoped to marry the Stoic ideal of virtue (altruism) and real life practicalities.
Cicero distinguished between:
1) Laws as products of government
2) Laws based on the nature of things
Reason was the force that commanded men to act in accordance with nature, not some divine will.
All men are citizens of one state and subject to one law and equal.
Cicero
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC)
Cicero was a lawyer. He became a consulship in 63 BC. But his excellent lawyer skills did not make him a good politician. He was ill equipped to deal with Rome's problems.
Cicero advocated for the Republic. His loyalty to the Senate and the old ways go him executed by Marc Antony in 43 BC.
Cicero turned to philosophy late in his political career. His roots were in the Peripatetic, Academic, old Roman and even Stoic schools.
Cicero was not at all original, but his hodgepodge background is indicative of Roman thought at his time.
What is Nature?
Cicero adopted the Stoic ethic, so his first job was to define nature.
Cicero criticized extreme Stoicism for its impracticality.
Cicero's modified Stoicism
Cicero hoped to marry the Stoic ideal of virtue (altruism) and real life practicalities.
Cicero distinguished between:
1) Laws as products of government
2) Laws based on the nature of things
Reason was the force that commanded men to act in accordance with nature, not some divine will.
All men are citizens of one state and subject to one law and equal.
The Late Classical Period
(Originally written November 9, 2006 in Book 11)
The Classical Mind 2nd Edition
W.T. Jones
Chapter 8 - Late Classical Period
Epicureanism
Epicurus was born circa 341 BC in Samos
He visited Athens around the death of Socrates.
He set up a school in Athens in 306 BC and was worshipped almost like a god.
He lived a simple life and was extremely friendly to everyone.
Epicurus 341 BC - 270 BC
Egocentric Hedonism
Epicurus' physics and theory of knowledge are consistent with Atomism and Democritus.
His ethics were radically different from the Atomists and Democritus.
Epicurus held that the end of life is to maximize pleasure.
While in theory it superficially looks synonymous to radical Sophism, Epicurus' lifestyle was not conducive to the Sophist notion.
Epicurus held that a simple, frugal life was more conducive to pleasure than extreme pleasure feelings like the Sophist's advocated.
He distinguishes between desires:
1) Natural and Necessary - food, sleep
2) Natural and Unnecessary - sex
3) Vain and Idle (Unnatural) - exotic food, fancy clothes
He held that necessary desires must be satisfied. Unnatural desires do not need to be satisfied ever.
Natural desires are easy to satisfy, unnatural ones are not for two reasons:
1) Objects of unnatural desires are exotic and harder to come by.
2) Unnatural desires have no limits.
Difficulties with Egocentric Hedonism
Epicurus held that his ethics of natural, necessary and vain desires were grounded in psychology.
Desires are subjective and vary from person to person so what is an objective standard for necessary.
Epicurus' virtues restend on whether or not they produced pleasure.
The problem with Epicurus' virtue is that some noble acts are painful and some acts that are pleasurable are un-virtuous by nature.
Epicurus was ambiguous in his teachings and that led to his popularity.
Repose
Repose was a necessary and natural desire for Epicurus.
Repose - (Physical) rest and relaxation
Repose - (Mental) freedom from worry
Repose was necessary for the blessed life.
Quietude was the ultimate pleasure.
Competition destroyed repose so competition was to be avoided.
Worry destroyed repose.
The two greatest worries:
1) Fear of death
2) Fear of divine intervention
Epicurus' atomism alleviated both of these groundless, superstitious fears.
Fear of death is due to ignorance of man's nature. Fear of divine intervention was ignorant of the true atomistic materialism.
Epicurus pursued knowledge because science created repose not because knowledge was a good in and of itself.
Epicureanism in Rome: Lucretius
Lucretius was the chief Roman Epicurean
Lucretius was concerned with man's irrational fear of death.
Lucretius attacked religion stating, "religion has given birth to deeds most sinful and unholy" (Jones, 323).
Lucretius suggested that fear of death may be the underlying motive for vices. He predicted some of Freudian Psychology.
Both Lucretius and Epicurus saw religion as being superstitious and disruptive of repose.
The appeal of Epicureanism
Repose appealed to the changing times of post-Alexander and the tumultuous evolution of Rome.
Stoicism
Founded by Zeno
Zeno was from Cyprus and founded a school in Athens circa 300 BC.
Zeno was inspired by the simple ethical opinions of Socrates, not the elaborate metaphysical theories of Plato.
The Cynics were followers of Socrates who shunned the amenities of life.
They focused on Socrates' indifference of circumstances and independence of Character. They ignored Socrates' claim "virtue is knowledge" but clung to his belief that no harm can befall a good man.
Poverty, pain, suffering and death come to all good men all the time, thus the Cynics held that these were not bad.
Virtue, to the Cynics, was indifference to what happened to him.
The Cynics' interpretation of Socrates was completely the opposite of the Platonic Socrates.
Zeno first was influenced by the Cynics' teachings, but their anarchist temperament caused him to shun their interpretations.
Zeno wanted to reconcile the Cynic sage ideal with he political temperament of Aristotle and Plato.
The Reconciliation process of Zeno was left for the Roman Stoics who wished to reconcile the ideal with Roman politics.
Stoics divided philosophy into three parts:
1) Logic (Theory of Knowledge)
2) Physics (including psychology)
3) Ethics
Theory of Knowledge
Stoic theory of knowledge is rooted in extreme sensationalism.
Perceptions are the basis for concepts
Stoics believed in the tabula rosa of the mind. There are no innate ideas.
Form, in the Stoics, differed from Plato and Aristotle. It is neither an independent entity (Plato) nor a component of spatiotemporal substance (Aristotle). It is merely a construct of the mind and has no existence outside of the mind.
The Stoic account of form is conceptualism. Conceptualism, despite problems, has had many adherents in the history of philosophy.
One problem is how one perception is known to be true or false. The Stoics assumed that true perceptions are known to be true because of their vividness and strength. False perceptions are hallucinations and illusions.
Aristotle argued that true perceptions were true because they were derived from real objects with a form.
Veridical perception - the transference of the object's sensible form to the percipient.
Aristotle, with vertical perception, had a criteria to distinguish true and false perceptions. But, "there is no way of applying this criterion in specific cases" (Jones, 327).
The Stoics abandoned Aristotle's criteria without realizing the problem that would follow.
Physics
Only matter is real. Nothing exists except the body.
The Stoics faced a paradoxical situation with this because not only does god and the soul have to be body, but good and bad must also be corporeal.
The Stoics identified fire with matter. This is an influence of Heraclitus.
The Stoics were content to basically follow Aristotelian physics and made no advances in the field.
Ethics
The Stoics were original in their ethical theory.
The highest good for anything was for that thing to act in accordance to its nature. They called this happiness.
Unlike Aristotle who called contemplation the highest happiness, the Stoics saw knowledge merely as a means to happiness. They valued science for its utility.
The utility of science in Stoicism is that it helps man to discover its nature (contra to the utility of science in Epicureanism, which is debunking superstition and fear).
The Stoic determinism involved (somehow) divine providence.
Matter was fire, but god was also fire in Stoicism.
The Universe is rational in Stoicism.
"The universe and man, they reasoned, stand to each other as macrocosm and microcosm" (Jones, 321).
Man's life has order, law and reason. Sure, man is a microcosm of the universe, so to0 the universe has these properties.
The "nature" (or logos or providence) of the universe was to be rational.
The old question of law vs. convention had been argued since the 5th century B.C. The Sophists maintained that the nature of the world (its order and laws) was merely a convention of man's mind. Conversely, Plato and Aristotle held that there is a nature of laws in the universe. They held morality as being in accordance with the nature of the world.
The "norm" of a thing is its nature. It is a pattern or a relationship of that thing's parts.
Everything has a nature. This was held by Plato and Aristotle and the Stoics latched onto it.
Humans have a norm and a nature. The deviation from that norm in any particular human being is what can be judged as a deviation from the good or ethical.
The Stoics' conception of nature led them to the idea of universal brotherhood of all men.
The idea of a cosmopolis or universal city was a Stoic invention. Had Plato or Aristotle not been so indoctrinated in the polis or city-state mentality they would most likely have come up with it.
The Stoics held that nature is a criterion and a universal order.
The expansion of the Roman Empire was justified by the notion of the brotherhood and by the ideal of the cosmopolis.
The Stoics maintained that there was a nature or laws that governed men that superseded the laws of any state. Thus, the laws that bound them are not issued by any state. This provided the chance for assimilation of cultures in the expanding empire.
This concept of Stoicism's natural law was absorbed by the Romans, the Christians (reinterpreting it as divine law) and the U.S. founding fathers (Bill of Rights).
The notion of duty was derived from the concept of nature. Though duty was a very old concept by the Stoics' time they gave it a primacy that it never received before.
They separated duty from advantage and spoke of man's end being happiness in negative terms.
Stoic happiness was not Platonic or Aristotelian development of a person or Sophist pleasure.
Stoic happiness was apathy, the peace of mind that comes to accept the world as the way it is. Happiness is indifference to reality.
Stoics held that only motive, not consequences had moral significance. Intention, not outcome mattered.
The stoics utterly rejected emotions.
While the Greeks had been working for centuries to control emotions and had gravitated towards moderation, temperance and the mean. The Stoics held that moderation was as bad as excess. Only apathy is good.
Virtue in Stoicism is either wholly present or wholly absent.
Virtue is obtained at a single point, after years of training. It is achieved when worldly things are put aside and the true perspective of the universe is seen.
Stoicism's extreme asceticism and narrowness are problematic.
Another problem is the rejection of the forms, but the emergence of natural laws.
Another problem is the determinism vs. choice problem. If the universe is determined can we make the choice to be in accordance with nature?
Despite these problems, the Stoic ideal of men living in one community where men act for respect of natural law, not personal gain, is still appealing today.
The Stoic notion of equality for men is another appeal for their theory. A universal state with universal citizenship was centuries ahead of its time.
The Appeal of Stoicism to Romans
Romans, rather than rejecting Stoicism, aimed to purge it of exaggerations.
Rather the apathy, Romans wanted their politicians to put aside personal gain for the well-being of Rome.
Rather than focusing on acceptance as the sole virtue/duty of man, Roman Stoics devised many natures of man and how to act in accordance to one's own nature.
Throughout Roman Stoicism, an ascetic and altruistic tone continued to dominate their views because of their insistence and focus on obligation over interest.
Roman Stoicism's ideal of courage was taking one's political duties seriously and unflinchingly.
Stoicism failed to create a consistent moral philosophy. This fact did not trouble the Stoics themselves because they are more interested with how their philosophy could be used to live in a troubled world rather than how well their philosophy could explain the world.
"Stoicism, in fact, was more a religion (doubtless a rather secular religion) than a philosophical theory" (Jones, 333). This fact came out in their usage of more emotive terminology, rather than cognitively precise meanings.
The Classical Mind 2nd Edition
W.T. Jones
Chapter 8 - Late Classical Period
Epicureanism
Epicurus was born circa 341 BC in Samos
He visited Athens around the death of Socrates.
He set up a school in Athens in 306 BC and was worshipped almost like a god.
He lived a simple life and was extremely friendly to everyone.
Epicurus 341 BC - 270 BC
Egocentric Hedonism
Epicurus' physics and theory of knowledge are consistent with Atomism and Democritus.
His ethics were radically different from the Atomists and Democritus.
Epicurus held that the end of life is to maximize pleasure.
While in theory it superficially looks synonymous to radical Sophism, Epicurus' lifestyle was not conducive to the Sophist notion.
Epicurus held that a simple, frugal life was more conducive to pleasure than extreme pleasure feelings like the Sophist's advocated.
He distinguishes between desires:
1) Natural and Necessary - food, sleep
2) Natural and Unnecessary - sex
3) Vain and Idle (Unnatural) - exotic food, fancy clothes
He held that necessary desires must be satisfied. Unnatural desires do not need to be satisfied ever.
Natural desires are easy to satisfy, unnatural ones are not for two reasons:
1) Objects of unnatural desires are exotic and harder to come by.
2) Unnatural desires have no limits.
Difficulties with Egocentric Hedonism
Epicurus held that his ethics of natural, necessary and vain desires were grounded in psychology.
Desires are subjective and vary from person to person so what is an objective standard for necessary.
Epicurus' virtues restend on whether or not they produced pleasure.
The problem with Epicurus' virtue is that some noble acts are painful and some acts that are pleasurable are un-virtuous by nature.
Epicurus was ambiguous in his teachings and that led to his popularity.
Repose
Repose was a necessary and natural desire for Epicurus.
Repose - (Physical) rest and relaxation
Repose - (Mental) freedom from worry
Repose was necessary for the blessed life.
Quietude was the ultimate pleasure.
Competition destroyed repose so competition was to be avoided.
Worry destroyed repose.
The two greatest worries:
1) Fear of death
2) Fear of divine intervention
Epicurus' atomism alleviated both of these groundless, superstitious fears.
Fear of death is due to ignorance of man's nature. Fear of divine intervention was ignorant of the true atomistic materialism.
Epicurus pursued knowledge because science created repose not because knowledge was a good in and of itself.
Epicureanism in Rome: Lucretius
Lucretius was the chief Roman Epicurean
Lucretius was concerned with man's irrational fear of death.
Lucretius attacked religion stating, "religion has given birth to deeds most sinful and unholy" (Jones, 323).
Lucretius suggested that fear of death may be the underlying motive for vices. He predicted some of Freudian Psychology.
Both Lucretius and Epicurus saw religion as being superstitious and disruptive of repose.
The appeal of Epicureanism
Repose appealed to the changing times of post-Alexander and the tumultuous evolution of Rome.
Stoicism
Founded by Zeno
Zeno was from Cyprus and founded a school in Athens circa 300 BC.
Zeno was inspired by the simple ethical opinions of Socrates, not the elaborate metaphysical theories of Plato.
The Cynics were followers of Socrates who shunned the amenities of life.
They focused on Socrates' indifference of circumstances and independence of Character. They ignored Socrates' claim "virtue is knowledge" but clung to his belief that no harm can befall a good man.
Poverty, pain, suffering and death come to all good men all the time, thus the Cynics held that these were not bad.
Virtue, to the Cynics, was indifference to what happened to him.
The Cynics' interpretation of Socrates was completely the opposite of the Platonic Socrates.
Zeno first was influenced by the Cynics' teachings, but their anarchist temperament caused him to shun their interpretations.
Zeno wanted to reconcile the Cynic sage ideal with he political temperament of Aristotle and Plato.
The Reconciliation process of Zeno was left for the Roman Stoics who wished to reconcile the ideal with Roman politics.
Stoics divided philosophy into three parts:
1) Logic (Theory of Knowledge)
2) Physics (including psychology)
3) Ethics
Theory of Knowledge
Stoic theory of knowledge is rooted in extreme sensationalism.
Perceptions are the basis for concepts
Stoics believed in the tabula rosa of the mind. There are no innate ideas.
Form, in the Stoics, differed from Plato and Aristotle. It is neither an independent entity (Plato) nor a component of spatiotemporal substance (Aristotle). It is merely a construct of the mind and has no existence outside of the mind.
The Stoic account of form is conceptualism. Conceptualism, despite problems, has had many adherents in the history of philosophy.
One problem is how one perception is known to be true or false. The Stoics assumed that true perceptions are known to be true because of their vividness and strength. False perceptions are hallucinations and illusions.
Aristotle argued that true perceptions were true because they were derived from real objects with a form.
Veridical perception - the transference of the object's sensible form to the percipient.
Aristotle, with vertical perception, had a criteria to distinguish true and false perceptions. But, "there is no way of applying this criterion in specific cases" (Jones, 327).
The Stoics abandoned Aristotle's criteria without realizing the problem that would follow.
Physics
Only matter is real. Nothing exists except the body.
The Stoics faced a paradoxical situation with this because not only does god and the soul have to be body, but good and bad must also be corporeal.
The Stoics identified fire with matter. This is an influence of Heraclitus.
The Stoics were content to basically follow Aristotelian physics and made no advances in the field.
Ethics
The Stoics were original in their ethical theory.
The highest good for anything was for that thing to act in accordance to its nature. They called this happiness.
Unlike Aristotle who called contemplation the highest happiness, the Stoics saw knowledge merely as a means to happiness. They valued science for its utility.
The utility of science in Stoicism is that it helps man to discover its nature (contra to the utility of science in Epicureanism, which is debunking superstition and fear).
The Stoic determinism involved (somehow) divine providence.
Matter was fire, but god was also fire in Stoicism.
The Universe is rational in Stoicism.
"The universe and man, they reasoned, stand to each other as macrocosm and microcosm" (Jones, 321).
Man's life has order, law and reason. Sure, man is a microcosm of the universe, so to0 the universe has these properties.
The "nature" (or logos or providence) of the universe was to be rational.
The old question of law vs. convention had been argued since the 5th century B.C. The Sophists maintained that the nature of the world (its order and laws) was merely a convention of man's mind. Conversely, Plato and Aristotle held that there is a nature of laws in the universe. They held morality as being in accordance with the nature of the world.
The "norm" of a thing is its nature. It is a pattern or a relationship of that thing's parts.
Everything has a nature. This was held by Plato and Aristotle and the Stoics latched onto it.
Humans have a norm and a nature. The deviation from that norm in any particular human being is what can be judged as a deviation from the good or ethical.
The Stoics' conception of nature led them to the idea of universal brotherhood of all men.
The idea of a cosmopolis or universal city was a Stoic invention. Had Plato or Aristotle not been so indoctrinated in the polis or city-state mentality they would most likely have come up with it.
The Stoics held that nature is a criterion and a universal order.
The expansion of the Roman Empire was justified by the notion of the brotherhood and by the ideal of the cosmopolis.
The Stoics maintained that there was a nature or laws that governed men that superseded the laws of any state. Thus, the laws that bound them are not issued by any state. This provided the chance for assimilation of cultures in the expanding empire.
This concept of Stoicism's natural law was absorbed by the Romans, the Christians (reinterpreting it as divine law) and the U.S. founding fathers (Bill of Rights).
The notion of duty was derived from the concept of nature. Though duty was a very old concept by the Stoics' time they gave it a primacy that it never received before.
They separated duty from advantage and spoke of man's end being happiness in negative terms.
Stoic happiness was not Platonic or Aristotelian development of a person or Sophist pleasure.
Stoic happiness was apathy, the peace of mind that comes to accept the world as the way it is. Happiness is indifference to reality.
Stoics held that only motive, not consequences had moral significance. Intention, not outcome mattered.
The stoics utterly rejected emotions.
While the Greeks had been working for centuries to control emotions and had gravitated towards moderation, temperance and the mean. The Stoics held that moderation was as bad as excess. Only apathy is good.
Virtue in Stoicism is either wholly present or wholly absent.
Virtue is obtained at a single point, after years of training. It is achieved when worldly things are put aside and the true perspective of the universe is seen.
Stoicism's extreme asceticism and narrowness are problematic.
Another problem is the rejection of the forms, but the emergence of natural laws.
Another problem is the determinism vs. choice problem. If the universe is determined can we make the choice to be in accordance with nature?
Despite these problems, the Stoic ideal of men living in one community where men act for respect of natural law, not personal gain, is still appealing today.
The Stoic notion of equality for men is another appeal for their theory. A universal state with universal citizenship was centuries ahead of its time.
The Appeal of Stoicism to Romans
Romans, rather than rejecting Stoicism, aimed to purge it of exaggerations.
Rather the apathy, Romans wanted their politicians to put aside personal gain for the well-being of Rome.
Rather than focusing on acceptance as the sole virtue/duty of man, Roman Stoics devised many natures of man and how to act in accordance to one's own nature.
Throughout Roman Stoicism, an ascetic and altruistic tone continued to dominate their views because of their insistence and focus on obligation over interest.
Roman Stoicism's ideal of courage was taking one's political duties seriously and unflinchingly.
Stoicism failed to create a consistent moral philosophy. This fact did not trouble the Stoics themselves because they are more interested with how their philosophy could be used to live in a troubled world rather than how well their philosophy could explain the world.
"Stoicism, in fact, was more a religion (doubtless a rather secular religion) than a philosophical theory" (Jones, 333). This fact came out in their usage of more emotive terminology, rather than cognitively precise meanings.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Aristotle, Epicurus & The Stoics
(Originally Written October 24, 2006 in History I)
Aristotle's Politics
Classifications of Government:
1. Kingship/Monarchy (right form) v. Tyranny (deviant form)
2. Aristocracy (right form) v. Oligarchy (deviant form)
3. Polity (right form) v. Mob rule (deviant form)
Criticism of monarchy
- Individuals are more corruptible than groups
- Problems of succession
The polity is the best form of government because:
- It is most just
- Its deviant form is the least worst of the three
Epicurus
341-270 BC
-Born in Samos
-Founded a school in Athens (The Epicureans)
Physics: Atomism (Atoms & The Void)
Added the concept of swerve to account for freedom
Freedom of the Will:
1. Hard determinism - universal causation and no freedom
2. Libertarianism/Indeterminism - Denies universal causation and affirms freedom
3. Compatibilism/Soft Determinism - combines universal causation & freedom
Metaphysics
1. Materialism
2. The 'gods'
3. No belief in afterlife
- But death is not to be feared because:
A) death brings end to pain
B) death is never experienced
Ethics: Hedonism
Two kinds of hedonism:
1. Psychological hedonism - all people in fact seek pleasure
2. Ethical hedonism - all people should always seek pleasure
Distinction between desires
-Should we satisfy every desire?
1. Natural desires
- merely natural (sex, good reputations, etc.)
- Necessary natural must be satisfied for life itself and for the blessed life
2. Groundless desires
-exotic foods, flashy clothes, vain and idle luxuries
3. Profligacy
-Epicurus condemns over-indulgence
4. Virtue
-Necessary for the blessed life
-prudence is the greatest virtue
Stoicism
Founded by Zeno (346-264 BC)
Famous Stoics include Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius.
Stoic Epistemology:
1. Empiricism - all knowledge via sense perception
2. Nominalism - all knowledge is particular, there is no universal
Stoic Physics & Metaphysics
1. Monism
2. Mutation (flux)
3. Deterministic
Aristotle's Politics
Classifications of Government:
1. Kingship/Monarchy (right form) v. Tyranny (deviant form)
2. Aristocracy (right form) v. Oligarchy (deviant form)
3. Polity (right form) v. Mob rule (deviant form)
Criticism of monarchy
- Individuals are more corruptible than groups
- Problems of succession
The polity is the best form of government because:
- It is most just
- Its deviant form is the least worst of the three
Epicurus
341-270 BC
-Born in Samos
-Founded a school in Athens (The Epicureans)
Physics: Atomism (Atoms & The Void)
Added the concept of swerve to account for freedom
Freedom of the Will:
1. Hard determinism - universal causation and no freedom
2. Libertarianism/Indeterminism - Denies universal causation and affirms freedom
3. Compatibilism/Soft Determinism - combines universal causation & freedom
Metaphysics
1. Materialism
2. The 'gods'
3. No belief in afterlife
- But death is not to be feared because:
A) death brings end to pain
B) death is never experienced
Ethics: Hedonism
Two kinds of hedonism:
1. Psychological hedonism - all people in fact seek pleasure
2. Ethical hedonism - all people should always seek pleasure
Distinction between desires
-Should we satisfy every desire?
1. Natural desires
- merely natural (sex, good reputations, etc.)
- Necessary natural must be satisfied for life itself and for the blessed life
2. Groundless desires
-exotic foods, flashy clothes, vain and idle luxuries
3. Profligacy
-Epicurus condemns over-indulgence
4. Virtue
-Necessary for the blessed life
-prudence is the greatest virtue
Stoicism
Founded by Zeno (346-264 BC)
Famous Stoics include Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius.
Stoic Epistemology:
1. Empiricism - all knowledge via sense perception
2. Nominalism - all knowledge is particular, there is no universal
Stoic Physics & Metaphysics
1. Monism
2. Mutation (flux)
3. Deterministic
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Class Notes on the Pre-Socratics
(Originally Written August 31, 2006 in History I)
Class Notes
"Chris' [paper] is a bit wordy and while he produces warm feelings in my heart, he gets the same amount of points" - Jim Spiegel
Major periods of Ancient Philosophy:
1. Pre-Socratic (6th-5th Century B.C.)
- interested with cosmology and physical philosophy
2. Socratic (5th-4th Century B.C.)
-Socrates, Plato & Aristotle
-mostly focused on ethics
3. Hellenistic (3rd century B.C. - Middle Ages)
-Stoicism, Cynicism, Epicureanism, Skepticism
4. Philosophy of the Roman Empire (1st Century B.C. - Middle Ages)
-Stoicism, Neo-Platonism, Early Christian, Neo-Aristotelian, Hellenistic branches
Pre-Socratic Problems:
1. The problem of the one and the many
-Metaphysical: one substance vs. many substances
-Epistemological: universal vs. particulars (what do I know?)
2. The problem of permanence and change
-Metaphysical: flux vs. permanence (What is reality?)
-Epistemological: How do I know perpetual flux or permanence?
Milesian Philosophers:
Thales (circa 624 BC - 546 BC)
-contemporary of Jeremiah, alive during the fall of Jerusalem
-did not write anything
-predicted an eclipse of the sun in 585 BC
-redirected a river for the Ionians during a struggle with Persia
-geometrician of note
-cornered the olive oil market
-very few fragments of his teaching survive:
"all things are water", "all things are full of soul"
-he was a monist, monism: all reality is made of one stuff
-for Thales, the one stuff was water
-he was a materialist, nothing beyond the physical world exists, everything is matter.
-he was a hylozoist, hylozoism - all material substances have life in them
-he was a naturalist, using naturalistic explanations and mechanistic approaches to problems
Anaximander (circa 610 BC - 545 BC)
-pupil of Thales
-engineer/traveler
-first Greek cartographer
-invented the sun dial
-believed in a catastrophic flood because there were marine fossils in the mountains
-believed that life began in the moist of the world
-early evolutionary theorist
-wrote a treatise
-he was a monist, "apeiron" (the boundless) was his one substance.
-The boundless was natural matter with no determinant qualities, it was an eternal substance
-held a cyclical cosmology - periodic creation and destruction of the universe
-he was naturalistic and mechanistic in approach
Anaximenes (circa 585 BC - 525 BC)
-he was a monist, air was his one stuff/substance
-he accounted for change: Fire <-> Air <-> Wind <-> Water <-> Earth <-> Stone
-he was naturalistic and mechanistic in approach
-he was a materialist
Other Pre-Socratics
Heraclitus (circa 544 BC - 484 BC)
-From Ephesus
-aristocratic
-poet/philosopher
-taught Cratylus (Plato named a dialogue after Cratylus)
-wrote in aphorisms
-known as "the obscure"
-pantheistic to varying degrees
-held a low view of humanity and was very pessimistic
1. Basic Cosmic Elements were not primary
2. Divine Fire - most basic/primary substance (Restless fire)
3. Flux - the constant change
4. Logos - the pattern of life, "formula", "Ratio", "Word", "Pattern"
5. Tension of opposites - strife
6. Human Nature - Ethics, the human soul is part of the Divine Fire and will return to the Divine Fire after death
Class Notes
"Chris' [paper] is a bit wordy and while he produces warm feelings in my heart, he gets the same amount of points" - Jim Spiegel
Major periods of Ancient Philosophy:
1. Pre-Socratic (6th-5th Century B.C.)
- interested with cosmology and physical philosophy
2. Socratic (5th-4th Century B.C.)
-Socrates, Plato & Aristotle
-mostly focused on ethics
3. Hellenistic (3rd century B.C. - Middle Ages)
-Stoicism, Cynicism, Epicureanism, Skepticism
4. Philosophy of the Roman Empire (1st Century B.C. - Middle Ages)
-Stoicism, Neo-Platonism, Early Christian, Neo-Aristotelian, Hellenistic branches
Pre-Socratic Problems:
1. The problem of the one and the many
-Metaphysical: one substance vs. many substances
-Epistemological: universal vs. particulars (what do I know?)
2. The problem of permanence and change
-Metaphysical: flux vs. permanence (What is reality?)
-Epistemological: How do I know perpetual flux or permanence?
Milesian Philosophers:
Thales (circa 624 BC - 546 BC)
-contemporary of Jeremiah, alive during the fall of Jerusalem
-did not write anything
-predicted an eclipse of the sun in 585 BC
-redirected a river for the Ionians during a struggle with Persia
-geometrician of note
-cornered the olive oil market
-very few fragments of his teaching survive:
"all things are water", "all things are full of soul"
-he was a monist, monism: all reality is made of one stuff
-for Thales, the one stuff was water
-he was a materialist, nothing beyond the physical world exists, everything is matter.
-he was a hylozoist, hylozoism - all material substances have life in them
-he was a naturalist, using naturalistic explanations and mechanistic approaches to problems
Anaximander (circa 610 BC - 545 BC)
-pupil of Thales
-engineer/traveler
-first Greek cartographer
-invented the sun dial
-believed in a catastrophic flood because there were marine fossils in the mountains
-believed that life began in the moist of the world
-early evolutionary theorist
-wrote a treatise
-he was a monist, "apeiron" (the boundless) was his one substance.
-The boundless was natural matter with no determinant qualities, it was an eternal substance
-held a cyclical cosmology - periodic creation and destruction of the universe
-he was naturalistic and mechanistic in approach
Anaximenes (circa 585 BC - 525 BC)
-he was a monist, air was his one stuff/substance
-he accounted for change: Fire <-> Air <-> Wind <-> Water <-> Earth <-> Stone
-he was naturalistic and mechanistic in approach
-he was a materialist
Other Pre-Socratics
Heraclitus (circa 544 BC - 484 BC)
-From Ephesus
-aristocratic
-poet/philosopher
-taught Cratylus (Plato named a dialogue after Cratylus)
-wrote in aphorisms
-known as "the obscure"
-pantheistic to varying degrees
-held a low view of humanity and was very pessimistic
1. Basic Cosmic Elements were not primary
2. Divine Fire - most basic/primary substance (Restless fire)
3. Flux - the constant change
4. Logos - the pattern of life, "formula", "Ratio", "Word", "Pattern"
5. Tension of opposites - strife
6. Human Nature - Ethics, the human soul is part of the Divine Fire and will return to the Divine Fire after death
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)