Ancient Philosophy

Ancient philosophy is philosophy in antiquity, or ancient Greek philosophy. It can also

encompass various other intellectual traditions, such as Chinese philosophy, Indian
philosophy, and Iranian philosophy. Ancient philosophies are generally deeply rooted
in religious traditions. Accordingly, ancient philosophies have a comprehensive outlook
as opposed to modern or contemporary philosophies, which tend to have more narrow
methodologies and areas of focus.

In the Western tradition, ancient philosophy was developed primarily by Socrates, Plato,
and Aristotle. Ancient philosophy, however, also includes the Pre-Socratics, Hellenistic
philosophy, and Roman philosophy. Ancient philosophy in the West is distinguished
from Medieval philosophy, which was largely influenced by Christianity and Islam.
Ancient philosophies from non-Western traditions, such as Chinese or Indian philosophy,
often have strong ethical or religious concerns that continue to be major parts of the
traditions today.

The term ancient philosophy encompasses a variety of thoughts that emerged from the
early stages of various intellectual traditions. However, not all ideas are considered
philosophies since philosophy includes, as its primary component, a rational self-
refection and conceptualization of thought.

Major philosophies include: ancient Greek and Roman philosophy in the West, which
date approximately from the sixth century B.C.E. through the third century C.E.; Chinese
philosophy including Yin-yang philosophy, Taoism, Confucianism; Indian
philosophy including Upanishads and Vedic traditions, Jainism, Buddhist philosophy, and
Hindu philosophy; and ancient Iranian philosophy including Zoroastrianism.

Each philosophy has some distinct characteristics which reflect intellectual climates,
problematics, issues, and approaches; despite these differences, however, these
philosophies have some factors in common.

First, ancient philosophy tends to have a comprehensive perspective which includes a

wide range of components, including myth, religious beliefs, ethics, literature,
cosmology, and theories of nature. The synthetic characteristic of ancient philosophy is
different from modern and contemporary philosophies in that modern and
contemporary philosophies tend to focus on specific, often narrower, areas and their
approaches are accompanied with clearer methodological awareness. Because of its
synthetic character, thought processes found in ancient philosophy also differs from
those of modern philosophy. For example, the Pre-Socratics in ancient Greek
philosophy presented their metaphysical arguments in poetic verse and their arguments
are inflected with religious-ethical themes such as divine justice and salvation of
the soul. Second, ancient philosophy is often deeply rooted in religious traditions.

Ancient philosophy in the West refers to philosophies that date from approximately the
sixth century B.C.E. to about the third century C.E. and includes the philosophies of
the Pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and those developed in Hellenistic and
Roman periods.

Pre-Socratic philosophy

Pre-Socratics were the earliest Western philosophers, active during the fifth and sixth
centuries B.C.E. in ancient Greece. These philosophers tried to discover principles that
could uniformly, consistently, and comprehensively explain all natural phenomena and
the events in human life without resorting to mythology. They initiated a new method of
explanation known as philosophy which has continued in use until the present day, and
developed their thoughts primarily within the framework of cosmology and
cosmogony. Socrates was a pivotal philosopher who shifted the central focus of
philosophy from cosmology to ethics and morality. Although some of these earlier
philosophers were contemporary with, or even younger than Socrates, they were
considered pre-Socratics (or early Greek Philosophers) according to the classification
defined by Aristotle.

The pre-Socratic style of thought is often called natural philosophy, but their concept of
nature was much broader than ours, encompassing spiritual and mythical as well as
aesthetic and physical elements. They brought human thought to a new level of
abstraction; raised a number of central questions of ontology, which are still relevant
today; and cultivated the human spirit so as to open our eyes to the eternal truth.
Primary sources for their philosophical discourses have all been lost except in a
fragmentary form, and the best source is Aristotle. Although Aristotle’s interpretation of
their thought dominated for centuries, modern scholars have gone beyond Aristotle to
identify the original and unique contributions of the pre-Socratics.

Studies of Pre-Socratics
The study of ancient thinkers is restricted by a lack of primary sources. Their original
writings were lost and only fragments of their thoughts, words, and ideas have been
preserved in the works of other authors. The main secondary sources are works by
Aristotle, and his contemporary doxographers Theophrastus, Plato, Diogenes,
and Herodotus. These fragments have been gathered and indexed by H. Diels and W.
Kranz in their Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, now the standard source for the writings
of the pre-Socratics. This book introduced the term "pre-Socratics" which has come to
be widely used among scholars of philosophy.

The characterization and assessment of pre-Socratics and their thought owes much to
Aristotle. Aristotle attempted to establish a comprehensive thought system that could
integrate the views of his predecessors. His vision of philosophy as an all-encompassing
system of thought led him to evaluate their ideas. Aristotle classified pre-Socratics
primarily based upon his theory of four causes, setting a standard for the interpretation
of pre-Socratic thought. Pre-Socratic insights that were not compatible with Aristotle’s
framework of interpretation were simply left out.

Philosophy and Myth

Prior to the appearance of philosophers, myth explained the circumstances of human
life. When people wondered about where they came from, why and how evil came into
existence, why there was fortune and misfortune in life, and how they could attain peace
and happiness, they found an answer in mythology.

In ancient Greece, poets like Homer and Hesiod created mystic epics that explained the
origin of the world, genealogy of the gods, the origin of evil, responsibility and
punishment, destiny and chance, and life after death. Myth was the cradle of philosophy.
In the process of distinguishing their thoughts from myths, pre-Socratics gradually
developed their own style and form of knowledge. Pre-Socratic thought, however, still
contained mythical elements and was expressed in poetry similar to that of Homer.

Philosopher means “lover of wisdom.” Ancient wise men, whom Aristotle called “those
who speak about gods,” were certainly “lovers of wisdom.” They can, however, be
distinguished from philosophers who seek to define principles by which they can
uniformly, consistently, and comprehensively explain phenomena. Mythology is story
telling based upon uncritical social beliefs and the arbitrary will of the gods; philosophy
is an explanation based upon reason and principle. Aristotle distinguished “those who
speak of gods” from philosophers, who tried to rationally justify their claims using self-
examination, self-reflection, and a critical attitude.
Orphism was another major source of pre-Socratic philosophy. Orphics came into
Greece in the sixth century B.C.E. bringing their cosmology, a belief in reincarnation, and
an ascetic life style. They contributed to the development of pre-Socratic philosophy,
particularly that of Pythagoras and Pythagoreans. Orpheusians’ belief in the immortality
of soul and its reincarnation was transmitted through the Pythagoreans to Plato (see
Plato’s works such as Gorgias, Phaidon, and Republic).

While Aristotle is correct in distinguishing between philosophy and mythology, we must

also keep in mind their continuity. We can justify making a distinction between rational
discourse and poetic and intuitive mythical discourse, with one qualification. We should
note that insights and ideas from mythology exist in the philosophical discourses of post
pre-Socratic philosophers such as Plato. Indeed, one may hold certain beliefs underneath
rational thinking. Underneath rational discourse, human reason has unnoticed irrational
drives.

The distinction between philosophy and mythology, reason and belief, and poetic
intuition and critical reasoning can be justified only in a limited sense. While Pre-
Socratics took a step towards rationality, elements of mythology were still running in
their thoughts. The concept of pure and neutral rationality is an ideal of modern
philosophy rather than a reality, and it met with serious objections during the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries. Pre-Socratics exhibited a unique style of thought containing
both rational and mythical elements.

Phases of Pre-Socratic Philosophy: Approaches to the

Question of Being
Pre-Socratics approached the question of being primarily using two sets of questions:
first, whether the ultimate reality can be conceived of through a model based upon
sensible element(s) or intelligible element(s); second, whether the ultimate reality is
immutable or ever changing. This classification schema, however, is not exhaustive and
some pre-Socratics (like the Sophists) were not metaphysicians. The term “pre-Socratics”
does not designate any particular school or position, but simply all early Greek
philosophers who were not under the influence of Socrates.

The first set of questions is whether the ultimate reality (ousia) is conceived of based on
a model of sensible elements or one of intelligible elements; in other words, visible
materialistic elements or invisible intelligible elements. Milesians and Pythagoreans were
divided by their response to this question. Earlier Milesians such as Thales, Anaximander,
and Anaximenes approached being from a sensible or materialistic aspect, and
Pythagoreans approached being from an intelligible or non-sensible aspect. This
distinction between sensible and intelligible became the foundation for the distinction
between matter and form, which Aristotle fully developed later on.

The second set of questions is the question of whether the ultimate reality (ousia) is
unchanging or changing. Heraclites conceived of being as an ever-changing process or
becoming, and Parmenides conceived of being as unchanging or identical. The question
of being and becoming has become one of the perennial questions in the history of
philosophy.

The concepts of being and becoming and immutability and change posed questions to
Greek thinkers. While the Parmenidean argument of being was logically appealing, the
Heraclitian view of the change and diversity of phenomena was experientially
undeniable. Pluralists and Atomists responded differently to this question. Pluralists such
as Empedocles and Anaxagoras identified the essence of being with a number of
immutable elements and explained changes by their combinations. Atomists such
as Leucippus and Democritus identified the unchanging being with countless numbers
of small indivisible elements called atoms (means “indivisible”) and explained changes by
their combinations and movements.

Sophists, professional rhetoricians, who were described by Plato in his dialogues, are
customarily included with the pre-Socratics.

The Milesians and the Pythagoreans

The Milesians: Inquiry into the Principles of Being

The birthplace of Greek philosophy is Ionia in Asia Minor. The earliest Greek thinkers
lived in cities such as Miletus, Colophon, and Ephesus in this area. Thales, Anaximander,
and Anaximenes are grouped together as “the Milesians.” These thinkers sought
the ultimate principle which governs all phenomena in the element or elements of
nature. For this reason, they are often called natural philosophers. This nomenclature,
however, needs to be carefully understood.

The Milesians did not try to find laws of nature or basic elements in nature as modern
natural scientists do. Their concern was to find the ultimate principle that governs all
beings and phenomena. Their inquiry was metaphysical in the sense that it was directed
towards the discovery of the principles of being. This stance of inquiry into ultimate
principles distinguishes them from the attitude of natural scientists, who are trying to
find the laws and mechanisms of nature.
The Milesians conceived of the world as one. In spite of the diverse appearances of
phenomena, they thought that there was one unique being which was the ultimate
reality and that all phenomenal diversity was its manifestation. In the background of their
thought, there is a distinction between appearance and essence, and phenomena and

ultimate reality (ousia).

Thales
Thales (in Greek: Θαλης) of Miletus (ca. 624 – 546 B.C.E.), also known as Thales the
Milesian, was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher and one of the Seven Sages of Greece.
Since Aristotle credited him with being the first philosopher (Metaphysics 983b6), Thales
has been known to be the first representative of Western philosophy.

Contrary to polytheistic Greek mythology, which ascribed social and natural phenomena
to the arbitrary will, tricks, anger, and jealousy of the gods, Thales tried to explain these
phenomena based upon unchanging principles. His dramatic quest for the principle that
could uniformly explain all phenomena had the potential to free people from
superstitious beliefs. By opening this new perspective, Thales prepared the way for
subsequent pre-Socratic philosophers to pursue fundamental principles in their own
way.

By thus breaking the framework of Greek mythology and speculative beliefs of his day,
Thales opened a new ground for the pursuit of truth. Aristotle’s recognition of Thales as
the first philosopher rests on this perspective of inquiring for unchanging, unifying
principles. The significance of Thales lies not in his particular cosmology but in his way of
inquiry.

Life
Thales lived in the city of Miletus, in Ionia, now western Turkey. According to Herodotus,
he was of Phoenician descent. It was said that Thales had no children but adopted his
nephew as his son.

The well-traveled Ionians had many dealings with Egypt and Babylon, and Thales may
have had exposure to Egyptian mythology, astronomy, and mathematics, as well as to
other traditions foreign to the Homeric traditions of Greece. Proclus, a fifth-
century C.E. philosopher, noted Thales’ exposure to Egyptian geometry. The discovery of
several geometrical theorems was also credited to him.

Herodotus, a fifth-century B.C.E. historian, recorded Thales’ prediction of a solar eclipse

that put an end of the battle between King Alyattes of Lydia and King Cyaxares of Media.
Both Xenophanes and Diogenes Laertius also noted this event.

One story recounts that he bought all the olive presses in Miletus after predicting the
weather and a good harvest for a particular year. Another version of this same story
states that he bought the presses to demonstrate to his fellow Milesians that he could
use his intelligence to enrich himself. Herodotus recorded that Thales advised the city-
states of Ionia to form a federation.

Various sayings, discoveries, and accomplishments have been ascribed to him, but their
authenticity is uncertain. As is the case with other wise men, Thales probably had a
broad knowledge in diverse areas, such as mathematics, astronomy, meteorology,
politics, and others.

Thales is said to have died in his seat, while watching an athletic contest.

Philosophy
Thales ascribed ultimate being to water. Within the framework of
the ontology of form and matter, Aristotle interpreted him as a predecessor who had
discovered a material cause of being. Based upon Aristotle’s interpretation, Thales is
often characterized as a natural philosopher.

Like other pre-Socratic philosophers, however, his concept of material has mythical
connotations. Aristotle noted Thales’ word “All things are filled with gods” (On the
Soul 411a7). The phrase indicates that Thales’ cosmology has mystical elements and
“water” should not be interpreted as a pure material in a modern sense.

Thales’ philosophy can be characterized as a “philosophy of life” (water, development),

and his concept of water should be interpreted within this framework.

Thales seems to have maintained the reality of souls in beings such as the entire cosmos
and individual things in nature. Diogenes Laertius also notes Thales' view of the
immortality of the soul. Here we can thus find the indication of an incipient form of dual
characteristics of internal character (soul) and external form (body), a view which was
developed by subsequent thinkers. This idea of Thales is implicitly described by Aristotle
(De Anima A5411a7).
His writings only survive in fragmentary quotes and passages in the works of other
authors. No text contains Thales’ own views: what he meant by “water” and why he
thought that it is the ultimate remains unclear. We can only speculate about the likely
reasoning of Thales: that water is vital to life and nourishes living organisms; Thales
thought that the Earth existed as a mass that floats on water
(Aristotle, Metaphysics 983b21; On the Heaven 294a28); water can change from and to
vapor, liquid, and ice; water circulates in the entire natural world; water is used in
religious rituals for purification and other uses.

The origin of these ideas can be traced back to various traditions of his time. The idea
that the Earth is floating on water, for example, existed in Egyptian traditions. The vital
importance of water was commonly recognized. We can speculate that Thales developed
his thought based upon these ideas.

Anaximander

Anaximander (Greek: Αναξίμανδρος) (c. 609 – 547 B.C.E.) was a pre-Socratic Greek
philosopher, the second of the philosophers of Ionia (the first being Thales and the
third Anaximenes). He was a citizen of Miletus, a student of Thales, and the teacher of
Anaximenes.

Thales, the first philosopher in Western philosophy, according to Aristotle, inquired into
the unchanging principle of being that can uniformly explain all phenomena and
identified it with “water.” This was an innovative form of inquiry in a society where Greek
mythology was the primary framework of interpretation.

Anaximander followed the path of his teacher Thales and similarly inquired into the
ultimate principles. While Thales identified the ultimate being as the extension of a
particular element in nature (water), Anaximander attempted to find a more universal
principle of being. In his view, if a particular element in nature, such as water, is the
origin, a being with contrary nature, such as fire, cannot emerge or co-exist. The origin
must be universal and free from any particular characteristics. Anaximander identified
the ultimate with the “indefinite” or “unbounded” (apeiron).

By “indefinite,” Anaximander meant the original matter out of which all beings in nature
originate. Anaximander characterized the “indefinite” to be divine and imperishable.
Within the framework of an ontology of form and matter, Aristotle interpreted
Anaximander as a predecessor who inquired into the material cause of being.
Anaximander further introduced the principle of diversification or individuation
separately from the origin of being. The “indefinite” is diversified by the principle of dual
characteristics of hot and cold, and wet and dry and these phenomena in nature are
governed by the principle of balance (Diels and Kranz 12A9). Although Anaximander did
not explicitly conceptualize the principle of dual characteristics, it exists in his thought in
an incipient form. This idea is somehow similar to that of the principle of Yin and Yang in
ancient Chinese thought.

Anaximander cultivated the path of truth his teacher Thales had opened up by extending
the level of abstraction to a remarkable degree. Anaximander also seems to have had a
broad knowledge in diverse areas of the sciences.

Life and work

Little is known of his life and work. Aelian makes him the leader of the Milesian colony to
Amphipolis, and hence some have inferred that he was a prominent citizen. The
computations of Apollodorus of Athens have fixed his birth in 611, and his death shortly
after 547 B.C.E.

Ancient sources represent him as an astronomer and geographer. He has been said to
have created such astronomical instruments as the sundial and the gnomon, and be the
first person who drew contours of land and sea on a map.

Anaximander also held a theory that some regard as an embryonic form of evolution
theory. Plutarch, an ancient Greek historian, records Anaximander’s view as man himself
and the animals had come into being by transmutations; man had sprung from some
other species of animal, probably aquatic (Diels and Kranz 12A30).

Hippolytus, a second- to third-century church father, explains Anaximander’s cosmology

as out of the vague and limitless body there sprang a central mass—this earth of ours,
cylindrical in shape, poised equidistant from surrounding orbs of fire, which had
originally clung to it like the bark round a tree, until their continuity was severed, and
they parted into several wheel-shaped and fire-filled bubbles of air (Diels and Kramz
12A11).

Anaximander is said to have written a work entitled On the Nature, which is the first
philosophy book in the history of Western philosophy. The only surviving fragmentary
quote taken from the book exists in Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s physics (Diels
and Kranz 12A9). Considering Anaximander’s breadth of knowledge, the book seemed to
contain studies of nature in broad areas including cosmogony,
cosmology, astronomy, biology, meteorology, geography, and others.

The quote in Simplicius’ commentary reads:

Whence things have their origin, Thence also their destruction happens, As is the order
of things;

For they execute the sentence upon one another—The condemnation for the crime—In
conformity with the ordinance of Time. (Diels and Kranz 12A9)

Commentators agree that this quoted passage was directly taken from Anaximander’s
work, but disagree on its interpretation.

Anaximander distinguished “indefinite,” the ultimate being, and all other existing beings.
The “indefinite” exists for eternity; thus, it is divine and does not perish. All other beings
have a beginning and an end to their existence. They come into existence from the
origin and will return to their origin and non-existence.

Martin Heidegger, a twentieth-century German philosopher, stresses the importance of

Anaximander’s insight that distinguishes being at the origin and all beings that came
into existence. According to Anaximander, being at the origin has no beginning and end,
and all other beings exist only in time. Beings in time are destined to perish and the
cosmos is governed by the principle of balance.

Anaximenes of Miletus
Anaximenes (in Greek: Άναξιμένης) of Miletus (c. 585 – 528 B.C.E.) was a pre-
Socratic Greek philosopher, the third of the philosophers of Ionia (the first
being Thales and the second Anaximander). He was a citizen of Miletus and a student of
Anaximander.

Thales, the first philosopher of Ionia, conceived the original being of all beings to be
“water,” based upon his philosophy of life. Anaximander, a student of Thales, heightened
the level of abstraction and identified the original being not with an element in the
world, such as “water,” but with the “indefinite” or “unbounded.” Anaximenes, a student
of Anaximander, conceived the original being to be “air,” the extension of an element of
the world.
Aristotle interpreted all these Ionian thinkers, within the framework of
his ontology of form and matter, as predecessors who inquired into the material cause
of being.

Anaximenes conceived “air” as an extension of breath, which implies a type of

philosophy of life. The wonder and mystery of life shaped his thoughts, and his primary
concept of being was taken from living beings. The concept of “air” should not be
interpreted to be purely material air in a modern sense. One may find some affinity
between Anaximenes’ “air”. Furthermore, one may find an intrinsic connection between
Anaximenes' "air" and the original concept of "ruach" found in the ancient pre-
Babylonian Exile Hebraic tradition. The one remaining passage in
Aetius’ Historiography reads:

As our soul, being air, holds us together and controls us, so does wind (or breath) and air
enclose the whole world. (Diels and Kranz 13B2)

Like “water” in Thales and the “indefinite” in Anaximander, “air” in Anaximenes is also
divine and imperishable. The origin of beings was conceived to be one and eternal for
these pioneers of Western philosophy.

Some regard Anaximander as the peak of Ionian philosophy due to his high level of
abstraction and Anaximenes as a recession from it, since Anaximenes conceived the
origin of being to be the extension of an element of the world as Thales had.

Others, however, regard Anaximenes as representing a development comparable to

Anaximander. While Anaximander conceived the origin of being, the “indefinite,” in the
sense of original matter, Anaximenes tried to find some intermediary element between
material and the human soul in an incipient form. By “air,” Anaximenes meant some
original element that can give life (breath or soul) to human beings and that can also
transform itself into diverse natural beings. His concept of “air,” like “qi” in Chinese
thought, seems not to be an element of the world, but a homogeneous existence that
can uniformly explain both spiritual and physical phenomena.

Life and works

Little is known about the life of Anaximenes, except for his being a Miletian, a student or
a colleague of Anaximander, and his approximate years of birth and death. Only a
limited number of fragments survive in the works of other authors. As is the case for the
other pre-Socratics, a definitive interpretation is impossible due to the lack of surviving
texts.
Anaximenes introduced the principle of dual characteristics of hot and cold as the
principle of diversification, which causes rarefaction and densification of “air,” generating
the diversity of the world. While Anaximander separated the principle of diversification
from the ultimate being (“indefinite”), Anaximenes made the principle of diversification
intrinsic to the original being. Some regard this as an advancement comparable with that
of Anaximander.

The theory of “qi” developed over the centuries and became a foundation for medical,
artistic, philosophical, and other cultural practices in Far Eastern culture. Unfortunately,
Anaximenes’ theory of “air” was not taken up and developed by subsequent thinkers and
theorists.

In Refutatio Omnium Haeresium (Refutation of Heretics), Hippolutus, a third-century

church father, records Anaximenes’ theory of diversification of the world, which reads:

Being made finer it [air] becomes fire, being made thicker it becomes wind, then cloud,
then (when thickened still more) water, then earth, then stone; and the rest comes into
being from those. He, too, makes motion eternal, and says that change, also, comes
about through it. (Diels and Kranz 13A7)

Every being is, in essence, air at different degrees of density, and under the influence of
heat, which expands, and of cold, which contracts its volume, it gives rise to the several
phases of existence. The process is gradual, and takes place in two directions, as heat or
cold predominates. In this way was formed a broad disc called earth, floating on the
circumambient air. Similar condensations produced the sun and stars; and the flaming
state of these bodies is due to the velocity of their motions.

Some scientific discoveries are also ascribed to Anaximenes: that rainbows are created as
light shines through condensed air (mist), how the moon reflects sunlight, and others.

Pythagoras and Pythagoreans

Pythagoras (c. 570 B.C.E. – 496 B.C.E., Greek: Πυθαγόρας) was a Greek pre-Socratic
philosopher, a mystic, and a mathematician, known best for the Pythagorean theorem.

The earliest Greek philosophers in Ionia, known as the Ionians, such

as Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes, explored the origin of existing beings and
developed theories of nature in order to explain the natural processes of the formation
of the world. Pythagoras, who was born on an island off the coast of Ionia and later
moved to Southern Italy, explored the question of the salvation of human beings by
clarifying the essence of existing beings, and developing a mystical religious philosophy.
Pythagoras developed both a theoretical foundation and a practical methodology, and
formed an ascetic religious community. Followers of Pythagoras are known as
Pythagoreans.

Pythagoras approached the question of being from an angle that was different from that
of early Ionian philosophers. While the Ionians tried to find the original matter out of
which the world is made, Pythagoras dove into the principles that give order and
harmony to the elements of the world. In other words, Pythagoras found the essence of
being not in “what is to be determined” but in “what determines.” From Pythagoras’
perspective, the Ionians’ prime elements, such as Thales’ “water” and Anaximander’s
“indefinite,” were beings that were equally determined, and they did not explain why and
how the world was orderly structured and maintained its rhythm and harmony.

According to Pythagoras, “number” or mathematical principle was that which gives

order, harmony, rhythm, and beauty to the world. This harmony keeps a balance both in
the cosmos and in the soul. For Pythagoras, “numbers” are not abstract concepts but
embodied entities manifested as norms, cosmos, and sensible natural objects.

The mathematical order in beings is perceivable not by the physical senses but by senses
of the soul. Unlike the modern concept of mathematical exercises, Pythagoras conceived
mathematics as the method for liberating the soul from the bondages of bodily senses
and essentially as religious training. For Pythagoras, the soul is immortal and the
cultivation of the soul is achieved by the studies of truth and the ascetic life. Aristotle
noted that Pythagoras was the first person who took up the issue of “ virtue” in
philosophy (DK. 58B4).

Pythagoras opened a new path to early Greek ontology by his focus on the soul, virtue,
and the ascetic life. He presented a new integral model of thought where the mystic and
the mathematical or the religious and the scientific (as well as the aesthetic) are uniquely
integrated. This type of thought is uncommon in mainstream philosophy today. Like
other wise men of antiquity, Pythagoras had a broad knowledge encompassing
medicine, music, cosmology, astronomy, mathematics and others. Finally, his thought
made a strong impact on Plato which is seen through his works.

Biography
Pythagoras was born on the island of Samos, off the coast of Ionia (Asia Minor). He was
born to Pythais (a native of Samos) and Mnesarchus (a merchant from Tyre). As a young
man he left his native city for Crotona in Southern Italy, to escape the tyrannical
government of Polycrates. Many writers credit him with visits to the sages
of Egypt and Babylon before going west; but such visits feature stereotypically in the
biographies of many Greek wise men, and are likely more legend than fact.

Upon his migration from Samos to Crotona, Pythagoras established a secret religious
society similar to, and possibly influenced by, the earlier Orphism.

Pythagoras undertook a reform of the cultural life of Croton, urging the citizens to follow
virtue, and formed a circle of followers around him. Very strict rules of conduct governed
this cultural center. He opened his school to men and women students alike. They called
themselves the Mathematikoi; a secret society of sorts.

According to Iamblichus, the Pythagoreans followed a structured life of religious

teaching, common meals, exercise, reading and philosophical study. We may infer from
this that participants required some degree of wealth and leisure to join the inner
circle. Music featured as an essential organizing factor of this life because musical
harmony was believed to be effective for the harmony of the soul: the disciples would
sing hymns to Apollo together regularly; they used the lyre to cure illness of the soul or
body; poetry recitations occurred before and after sleep to aid the memory.

The Pythagorean theorem that bears his name was known much earlier in Mesopotamia
and Egypt, but no proofs have been discovered before the proofs offered by the Greeks.
Whether Pythagoras himself proved this theorem is not known as it was common in the
ancient world to credit to a famous teacher the discoveries of his students.

No original texts survive. His thought is preserved in the fragments and quotes by other
authors such as Aristotle and Plato.

Pythagoreans
History

Pythagoras' followers were commonly called "Pythagoreans." The early Pythagorean

brotherhood was formed in Croton by Pythagoras and dissolved by the second half of
the fifth century B.C.E.. The group was re-formed in Tarentum soon after, and it lasted
until the end of the fourth century B.C.E. The teachings and theories of the Pythagoreans
were customarily ascribed to the founder Pythagoras. It is difficult to clearly distinguish
the ideas of Pythagoras from those of the Pythagoreans. The thought of the
Pythagoreans also survive only in fragments and quotations by other authors. Around
the first century B.C.E., the interest for Pythagoreanism was revived in Rome, and a
number of forgeries were written under the name of Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans
until the first century.

Transmigration of souls

The Pythagoreans were known for their teachings of the transmigration of souls, and
also for their theory that numbers constitute the true nature of things. The doctrine of
transmigration of souls is constituted by the following core beliefs: the soul is immortal;
the soul migrates from a living thing to another upon its birth and death; the human
body is like a prison of the soul, and bodily desires impede the freedom of a soul (“the
body is a tomb”). This doctrine led Pythagoreans to a number of prescriptive rules
concerning the killing and eating of animals and plants.

They had performed purification rites and followed ascetic, dietary and moral rules that
they believed would enable their soul to achieve a higher rank among the gods.
Consequentially, they expected they would be set free from the wheel of life. Religious
training included: studies of philosophy and mathematics (thereby cultivating the senses
of the soul); exercises of music (musical harmony enhancing the balance and harmony of
human beings); and physical exercises (training of bodily control).

Cosmology

For the Pythagoreans, harmony and balance was the principle that determines the order
of the cosmos. Numerical and geometrical ratios represented this orderly construction of
the world. Pythagorean numerology contained the principle of dual characteristics of
masculinity and femininity, comparable to the principle of yin and yang in ancient
Chinese thought. The Pythagoreans divided all numbers into a pair of odd and even, and
associated odd with masculinity, and even with femininity. Hippolytus, a second and
third century doxographist, described the Pythagorean principle of dual characteristics in
the following way:

Number is the first principle, a thing which is undefined, incomprehensible, having in

itself all numbers which could reach infinity in amount. And the first principle of numbers
is in substance the first monad, which is a male monad, begetting as a father all other
numbers. Secondly the dyad is female number, and the same is called by the
arithmeticians even. Thirdly the triad is male number; this the arithmeticians have been
wont to call odd. Finally the tetrad is a female number, and the same is called even
because it is female.
The Pythagorean perspective on duality was extended to paired elements in the world:
finite and infinite; one and many, light and darkness, and others. In Metaphysics (985 b
23-986 b 8.), Aristotle explains this Pythagorean perspective:

…the first principles are ten, named according to the following table: finite and infinite,
even and odd, one and many, right and left, male and female, rest and motion, straight
and crooked, light and darkness, good and bad, square and oblong.

In Pythagorean numerology, the number ten is the perfect and sacred number, which is
the sum of four numbers: one, two, three, and four. These four numbers and their sum
(the number ten) were conceived as the fundamental units of all numbers and the world.
Hippolytus records the Pythagorean number theory:

All numbers, then, taken by classes are fours (for number is undefined in reference to
class), of which is composed the perfect number, the decad. For the series, one two three
and four, becomes ten, if its own name is kept in its essence by each of the numbers.
Pythagoras said that this sacred tetraktys is 'the spring having the roots of ever-flowing
nature in itself,’ and from this numbers have their first principle.

Scientific contributions
In astronomy, the Pythagoreans were well aware of the periodic numerical relations of
the planets, moon, and sun. The celestial spheres of the planets were thought to
produce a harmony called the music of the spheres. These ideas, as well as the ideas of
the perfect solids, would later be used by Johannes Kepler in his attempt to formulate a
model of the solar system in his work Harmonice Mundi {“The Harmony of the Worlds”).
Pythagoreans also believed that the earth itself was in motion and that the laws of
nature could be derived from pure mathematics. It is believed by modern astronomers
that Pythagoras coined the term cosmos, a term implying a universe with orderly
movements and events.

While he clearly attached great importance to geometry, classical Greek writers tended
to cite Thales as the great pioneer of this science rather than Pythagoras. The later
tradition of Pythagoras as the inventor of mathematics stems largely from the Roman
period.

Whether or not the Pythagorean theorem should be attributed to Pythagoras, it seems

fairly certain that he had the pioneering insight into the numerical ratios which
determine the musical scale, since this plays a key role in many other areas of the
Pythagorean tradition, and since no evidence remains of earlier Greek or Egyptian
musical theories. Another important discovery of this school—which upset Greek
mathematics, as well as the Pythagoreans' own belief that whole numbers and their
ratios could account for geometrical properties — was the incommensurability of the
diagonal of a square with its side. This result showed the existence of irrational numbers.

Heraclitus and Eleatics

Heraclitus conceived of being as a process or an event, and represented its essence as
“fire.” Fire exists not as a stable object but as a process of burning. The moment it stops
the process of changing, it ceases to exist. His well-known phrase, “No one can enter the
same river again” expresses his thought that every being exists in the process of change.
The river is already changing at the moment one steps into it. The water is moving past
and the river bed is changing, and the river can never be the same as it was a moment
ago.

Parmenides held an opposite position. He separated phenomena appearance

and essence, and ascribed changes to matters of appearance. The world looks diverse
and changes, but the essence is permanent, immutable, and eternal. Parmenides
identified essence with being, and argued that we cannot even think without
presupposing the existence and permanence of being; even the principle of changes
must presuppose the existence of this principle itself. Zeno of Elea followed the path of
Parmenides and presented a number of paradoxes such as Achilles and the Tortoise.
Both Heraclites and Parmenides brought Greek philosophy to a higher level of
abstraction and presented a number of central questions of ontology. They presented
the task of reconciling two views on the question of existence: being and becoming,
immutability and change, oneness and diversity. The Parmenidean view of the
permanence and immutability of the ultimate reality was logically plausible. However,
phenomena are apparently diverse and changing. Pluralists and atomists responded to

this question differently.

Parmenides
Parmenides of Elea (c. 515 – 450 B.C.E.) was a Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, born in
Elea, a Greek city on the southern coast of Italy. He is reported to have been a student
of Xenophanes, a teacher of Zeno of Elea, and a major thinker of the Eleatic school.

Earlier pre-Socratic philosophers identified the ultimate principle of the world with its
elements (“water” in Thales; “air” in Anaximenes; “number” in Pythagoras) or an
unspecified element “undetermined” in Anaximander). Parmenides comprehended
both existential and logical characteristics of the principle, and formulated them as a
philosophical doctrine. Earlier pre-Socratics presupposed that the principle was logically
identical with itself (the principle of self-identity) and it exists by itself (self-subsistence)
as an immutable, immobile, eternal being. Although earlier thinkers implicitly
presupposed these ontological and logical characteristics of the principle, they never
conceptualized and presented them in explicit form.

Parmenides conceptualized self-existence and logical self-identity as the first principle of

philosophy. In other words, Parmenides established self-reflexivity and self-sufficiency of
truth. That is truth exists by itself without change for eternity. He ascribed perfection and
permanence as the qualifications to the true being or existence. Evaluating from this
criteria, Parmenides disqualified all beings subject to change and alternation as non-
being or mere appearance, not true existence.

He characterized the ultimate reality as “one” and “whole.” Individuals and diversity we
experience in the phenomenal world are, according to Parmenides, the illusory
perception of mortals. His insight to the self-subsistence of eternal being as the ultimate
reality may also be comparable to the idea of God as a self-subsisting being
in monotheistic traditions.
Parmenides divided philosophical inquiries into two ways: “the Way of Truth” and “the
Way of Seeming or Opinion.” The former is the sphere of ontology and logic, permanent
and unchanging, accessible by reason alone. The latter is the sphere of phenomena,
change, and alteration, accessible by senses and ordinary perception. Only the “Way of
Truth” is a path to truth and the “Way of Seeming” leads to false beliefs, illusion, and
deception. Parmenides interpreted previous philosophers as belonging to the latter path.

The sharp distinction between the world of unchanging true reality and that of changing
phenomena was succeeded by philosophers such as Plato and Democritus. Plato
identified immutable, permanent true reality with ideas, and Democritus with atoms.
Parmenides’ concept of existence as permanence is a sharp contrast to that
of Heraclitus who conceived existence as flux, or a process. His thought is quite one-
sided and radical, but it is also challenging and provocative. Aristotle later tried to clarify
various senses of being, which led him to the formation of metaphysics whose central
theme is the question of being.

Parmenides is known as the first philosopher who brought the question of ontology and
logic into the foreground of philosophical investigations.

Life and works

Much of Parmenides’ life is unknown. In Parmenides, Plato portrayed Parmenides
visiting Athens and having a dialogue with young Socrates. The historical accuracy of the
account is uncertain. In Theaetetus, Plato described Parmenides as noble and
reverend. Diogenes Laertius and Plutarch also reported that Parmenides legislated for
the city of Elea (Diels and Kranz 28A1). Plutarch wrote:

Parmenides set his own state in order with such admirable laws that the government
yearly wears its citizens to abide by the laws of Parmenides.

Parmenides wrote On Nature, and presented his philosophy in an epic poem written in
hexameter verse, the same poetic form as the works of Homer and Hesiod. The poem
consists of three parts: the prologue, the Way of Truth, and the Way of Seeming or
Opinion. All of 155 lines survive in Simplicius’ commentary to Aristotle’s physics. Diels
and Kranz estimated 90 percent of the Way of Truth and 10 percent of the Way of
Seeming survived. The poem describes a mythical story of Parmenides’ journey to the
world of light and the message a goddess revealed to him. Commentators agree on the
difficulty of interpreting and translating Parmenides’ poem.

Philosophy
Reality and Appearance

The distinction between the Way of Truth and the Way of Seeming is the first attempt in
Greek philosophy to distinguish between reality and appearance, or essence and
phenomena, which had lasting effects on the subsequent history of Western philosophy.

In the Way of Truth, Parmenides presented his ontology: a real being is timeless,
immobile, immutable, permanent, unborn, imperishable, one, and whole. Parmenides did
not discuss what that was, which exists permanently, but highlighted the fact of
existence as the truth.

There is only one other description of the way remaining, namely, that What Is. To this
way there are very many sign-posts: that Being has no coming-into-being and no
destruction, for it is whole of limb, without motion, and without end. And it never Was,
nor Will be, because it Is now, a Whole all together, One, continuous; for what creation
of it will you look for?

One should both say and think that Being Is; for To Be is possible, and Nothingness is
not possible.

Parmenides represented the real being as a sphere, a symbol of perfection for the
Greeks.

But since there is a (spatial) Limit, it is complete on every side, like the mass of a well
rounded sphere, equally balanced from its center in every direction; for it is not bound to
be at all either greater or less in this direction or that.

In the Way of Seeming, Parmenides dismissed changes and motion as illusory, which we
experience as real in everyday life. In everyday parlance, we speak of absence, void, and
non-being or non-existence as if they are real. Coming into being is perceived as a
process from non-being to being, and disappearance from being to non-being. For
Parmenides, non-being in a genuine sense is a total absence or a sheer nothing that
cannot be in principle an object of thought. What we can think of has existence by the
fact of being thought. The moment one thinks something, an object of thought is
posited as a being. Thinking inherently involves positing an object of thought.

To think is the same as the thought that It Is; for you will not find thinking without Being,
in (regard to) which there is an expression.

Being and Knowledge: a correspondence theory of truth:

Parmenides presented a view of truth, which is known as a correspondence theory of
truth. In this view, truth is defined as the accordance of idea with reality. Since
Parmenides conceived the eternal and unchanging being as the sole reality, true
knowledge is a realization of this being and this knowledge is attainable not by senses
but by reason alone.

For this (view) can never predominate, that That Which I Not exists. You must debar your
thought from this way of search, nor let ordinary experience in its variety force you along
this way, (namely, that of allowing) the eyes, sightless as it is, and the ear, full of sound,
and the tongue, to rule; but (you must) judge by means of the Reason (Logos) the much-
contested proof which is expounded by me.

In our everyday discourse, we distinguish beings according to their kind, mode, and
sense of existence. Diversity of beings is established based upon differences in these
existential characteristics. What is common to all beings is the fact of existence.
Parmenides conceived the fact of existence as the common denominator to all beings
and conceptualized it as the One. True knowledge is the realization of the fact of to-be
as the first principle of being. Our perception of diversity among beings is, for
Parmenides, merely a view of mortals in the World of Seeming.

Zeno of Elea
Zeno of Elea should not be confused with Zeno of Citium.

Zeno of Elea (Greek. Ζήνων)(c. 490 B.C.E. – 430 B.C.E.) was a pre-Socratic Greek
philosopher of southern Italy and a member of the Eleatic School, which began
with Xenophanes and was developed by Parmenides. Called by Aristotle the inventor of
the dialectic, he is best known for his paradoxes.

Zeno presented paradoxes in order to support the claims of Parmenides: that real
existence is indivisible, which means it is immobile, immutable, and permanent; the
movement, changes, and multiplicity of the world are illusory perceptions based upon
sense experiences; truth is accessible by reason alone.

Zeno’s best known paradoxes are: “a flying arrow is stopping,” and “Achilles can never
pass over a tortoise in a race.” These paradoxes are contrary to everyday experiences and
look absurd. Zeno’s paradoxes were, however, thought-provoking and a number of
philosophers and mathematicians, including Plato,
Aristotle, Descartes, Bergson, Peirce, Russell, Whitehead, Hilbert, and Bernays, analyzed
the issues involved and tried to answer them. There is, however, little agreement on how
to resolve them.

His paradoxes include questions concerning: concepts of space and time; relationships
between logical reasoning and sense experience; the meaning of reality; and concepts of
the infinite and finite.

Life
Little is known for certain about Zeno's life. Although written nearly a century after
Zeno's death, the primary source for biographical information on Zeno is the dialogue of
Plato called the Parmenides [1]. In this dialogue, Plato describes a visit to Athens by Zeno
and Parmenides, at a time when Parmenides is "about 65," Zeno is "nearly 40"
and Socrates is "a very young man" (Parmenides 127). Assuming an age for Socrates of
around 20, and taking the date of Socrates birth as 470 B.C.E., gives an approximate date
of birth for Zeno of 490 B.C.E.

Plato says that Zeno was "tall and fair to look upon" and was "in the days of his youth…
reported to have been beloved by Parmenides" (Parmenides 127).

Other perhaps less reliable details of Zeno's life are given in Diogenes Laertius' Lives of
Eminent Philosophers [2], where it is reported that he was the son of Teleutagoras. The
adopted son of Parmenides, was "skilled to argue both sides of any question, the
universal critic," and further that he was arrested and perhaps killed at the hands of a
tyrant of Elea.

Works
Although several ancient writers refer to the writings of Zeno, none survive intact. His
views are presented mainly in the works of Plato, Proclus, and Simplicius.

Plato says that Zeno's writings were "brought to Athens for the first time on the occasion
of…" the visit of Zeno and Parmenides. Plato also has Zeno say that this work, "meant to
protect the arguments of Parmenides" was written in Zeno's youth, stolen, and published
without his consent. Plato has Socrates paraphrase the "first thesis of the first argument"
of Zeno's work as follows: "…if being is many, it must be both like and unlike, and this is
impossible, for neither can the like be unlike, nor the unlike like."

According to Proclus in his Commentary on Plato's Parmenides, Zeno produced "…not

less than forty arguments revealing contradictions..." (p. 29).
Zeno's arguments are perhaps the first examples of a method of proof called reductio ad
absurdum also known as proof by contradiction.

Zeno's paradoxes
Zeno's paradoxes have puzzled, challenged, influenced, inspired, and amused
philosophers, mathematicians, physicists, and school children, for over two millennia. The
most famous are the so-called "arguments against motion" described by Aristotle in
his Physics [3]. The first three are given here, in the order, and with the names, as given
by Aristotle, followed by a plausible modern interpretation:

 The Dichotomy: Motion is impossible since "that which is in locomotion must

arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal." (Aristotle Physics VI:9,
239b10)

That is, suppose an object moves from point A to point B. To get to point B the object
must first reach the midpoint B1 between points A and B. However before this can be
done the object must reach the midpoint B2 between points A and B1. Likewise before it
can do this, it must reach the midpoint B3 between points A and B2, and so on.
Therefore the motion can never begin.

A-----B3-----B2-----------B1-------------------------B

 The Achilles: "In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since
the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the
slower must always hold a lead." (Aristotle Physics VI:9, 239b15)

That is, suppose Achilles is in a race with a tortoise. Achilles runs 10 times faster than the
tortoise, but starts at point A, 100 yards behind the tortoise at point T1. To overtake the
tortoise, Achilles must first reach the point T1. However when Achilles arrives at T1, the
tortoise is now 10 yards in front at point T2. Again Achilles runs to T2. But, as before,
once he has covered the 10 yards the tortoise is now a yard ahead of him, at point T3,
and so on. Therefore Achilles can never overtake the tortoise.

A----------------------------T1----------------T2---T3

 The Arrow: "If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that
which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the
flying arrow is therefore motionless." (Aristotle Physics VI:9, 239b5)
That is, suppose an arrow is flying continuously forward during a certain time interval.
Take any instant in that time interval. It is impossible that the arrow is moving during
that instant because an instant has a duration of zero, and the arrow cannot be in two
different places at the same time. Therefore, at every instant the arrow is motionless;
hence the arrow is motionless throughout the entire interval.

Heraclitus

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus (Greek Ἡράκλειτος Herakleitos) (c. 535 – 475 B.C.E.) is
one of the most important pre-Socratic philosophers. Born in Ephesus, Asia Minor, he is
known as the predecessor of the idea of dialectical movement, which identified the
principle of change and progress with struggles. Although some subsequent thinkers
attributed the full concept of dialectic to Heraclitus, much of his concept is unknown. As
with other pre-Socratics, his writings only survived in fragments quoted by other authors.
Much of his appeal comes from the immediacy of his pre-conceptual or proto-
conceptual statements.

His words resemble those of a prophet, rather than those of a philosopher. There is a
notable parallel to the contemporary prophets of the Old Testament, one major
difference being that Heraclitus' focus is the cosmos, rather than the creator. He directed
people away from the sensory world, which can be seen and touched with physical
senses, to the underlying unifying principles or logos only the mind can see. By
identifying principles of all phenomena with an invisible, unchanging principle, Heraclitus
opened up a path to ontology in a preliminary mode.

He disagreed with Thales, Anaximander, and Pythagoras about the nature of the ultimate
substance and claimed instead that everything is derived from the Greek classical
element fire, rather than from air, water, or earth. This is related to his belief that change
is real, and stability illusory. “Fire” exists not as a stable thing, but as a process or an
event. In order to explain this process-like character of existence, Heraclitus described it
as “Fire.” Fire here is not to be simply taken as literal, physical fire, any more than Thales’
water is to be taken as ordinary water. “Fire” signifies his conception of the principle of
being as a process. In his focus on struggle in progress and change, however, Heraclitus
failed to realize the deeper point that progressive change is achieved by mutual
cooperation and that struggle is eventually an obstacle to progress.
For Heraclitus, everything is “in flux," as exemplified in the famous aphorism "Panta Rhei"
that has been attributed to him:

Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει

Everything flows, nothing stands still

The "Book"
Heraclitus’ work, referred to as the "book" has been lost, and his entire legacy consists of
a mere 130 fragments, i.e. quotes extracted from later writers (such
as Aristotle and Plutarch), some of which are inevitably doubtful. All of it can be read
in less than 20 minutes. (The same, of course, cannot be said of the numerous
elaborations on Heraclitus' thought.) The problem of reconstructing a thought based on
such fragments is universally recognized. Heidegger goes further in questioning our very
ability to comprehend pre-Socratic texts from our contemporary perspective without
fundamentally altering their originally intended meaning. Issues of translation underline
the difficulty of resurrecting these fragments even through the most careful exegesis.
The various translations given by scholars to the word logos illustrate the problem.

Logos and the Dialectic

The idea of the logos is credited to Heraclitus, as he proclaims that everything originates
out of the logos. Further, Heraclitus said "I am as I am not," and "He who hears not me
but the logos will say: All is one." Heraclitus' use of the term logos prefigures its later
"glorious" career in classical Greek thinking and in Trinitarian Christianity. However, here,
its meaning is still somewhat indefinite. There is a clear hint of a reference to a supreme,
pervasive, cosmic (perhaps heavenly) law, or even a supreme being; but the term could
also simply mean report, account, word(s), speech, etc., and, generally, more than just
simply the author's own opinion, i.e., some unspecified authority.

But Heraclitus is primarily recognized as the earliest dialectical philosopher with his
acknowledgment of the universality of change and development through internal
contradictions, as in his statements:

 "By cosmic rule, as day yields night, so winter summer, war peace, plenty famine.
All things change. Fire penetrates the lump of myrrh, until the joining bodies die
and rise again in smoke called incense."
 "Men do not know how that which is drawn in different directions harmonizes
with itself. The harmonious structure of the world depends upon opposite tension
like that of the bow and the lyre."
Pluralists and Atomists
Empedocles and Anaxagoras presented pluralist views. Empedocles identified the
ultimate reality with four elements: air, water, fire, and earth. He defined these four
elements as immutable and permanent, and explained changes and diversity by
combinations of them. Anaxagoras, another pluralist, identified the ultimate reality with
an infinite number of “seeds.”

Leucippus and Democritus identified the ultimate reality with countless numbers of
immutable, permanent elements called “atoms” and presented a purely mechanical
materialism. Atoms were different in form, size, and shape but qualitatively identical.
Quantitative differences and physical movements of atoms could explain all the
qualitative diversity of the world, and mental and spiritual phenomena. These two
philosophers reduced all phenomena to physical phenomena and presented a pure
mechanical materialism, which was rare in Greek philosophy.

Leucippus
Leucippus or Leukippos (first half of the fifth century B.C.E.) was a pre-
Socratic Greek philosopher, and the founder of atomism. Leucippus identified the real
existence of the cosmos with infinite numbers of permanent, imperishable, immutable,
and indivisible elements called “atomon” (atoms; means “indivisible”), conceived the
world as the composite of these material elements, and developed a purely mechanical
materialism, devoid of any trace of mythical element, which was rare in Greek
philosophy. His ideas were developed by his follower, Democritus.

Life and work

Nothing was known about his life. Epicurus doubted his very existence,
but Aristotle and Theophrastus explicitly credited Leucippus with the invention of
atomism. His fame was completely overshadowed by that of his follower, Democritus,
who systematized his view on atoms.

There are no existing writings which can be attributed to Leucippus, since his writings
seem to have been enfolded into the work of his famous student Democritus. In fact, it is
virtually impossible to identify any views about which Democritus and Leucippus
disagreed.
Leucippus' lost works were titled Megas Diakosmos (The Great World-System or The
Great Order of the Universe) and Peri Nou (On mind). A single fragment of the former
survives:

Nothing happens at random (maten), but everything from reason (ek logou) and by
necessity.(Diels and Kranz 67 B1)

Philosophy
See Democritus for a detailed account of atomism.

Atomism

Leucippus tried to answer two opposing views of reality by Parmenides and Heraclitus.
Parmenides identified the real being of the world as a self-subsisting, immutable,
immobile being (the One), whereas in Heraclitus' view the world is in an ever-changing
process or flux. Leucippus replaced the Parmenidean "One" with an infinite number of
minuscule material elements (“atoms”), which were immutable, permanent, and
indivisible units of the world, and explained changes by composition and decomposition,
motion and constellation of atoms. He believed that all atoms are homogeneous
(qualitatively the same), and different only in shapes and sizes. All beings including the
soul are the composites of these material units. Leucippus extended the materialist
explanation to all phenomena from natural phenomena, to perception and thinking.

Mechanical materialism

His predecessors presented various elements as the real being of the world: “water”
by Thales; “air” by Anaximenes; “air,” “fire,” “water,” “earth” by Empedocles, and so on.
These elements are not purely material beings but some intermediary existence that is
both spiritual and physical. Some introduced a spiritual principle as a part of their
cosmology: “love” and “hate” by Empedocles, “nous” (mind or reason) by Anaxagoras.
There was always a trace of mythical or spiritual element in their thought.

Leucippus was distinguished from all other pre-Socratics by his radical materialism. He
refused and removed mythical or spiritual elements in the concept of atom and gave a
mechanical explanation to all phenomena including perception and sense experiences.
He was the first Greek philosopher who took materialistic monism.

Democritus
Democritus was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher. He was born at Abdera in Thrace and
lived from around 460 B.C.E. to 370 B.C.E. Democritus developed atomism which originated
with Leucippus. Democritus identified the real existence of the cosmos with infinite
numbers of permanent, imperishable, immutable, and indivisible elements called
“atomon” (atoms; means “indivisible”), conceived the world as the composite of these
material elements, and developed purely mechanical materialism, devoid of any trace of
the mythical, which is rare in Greek philosophy.

All atoms are qualitatively homogeneous, different only in form, shape, and size. The
qualitative diversity of the world is reduced to and explained by quantitative and
physical differences. From physical phenomena to perception and thinking, all
phenomena both physical and spiritual were explained by mechanical materialism. This
was the first purely materialist thought in the history of Greek philosophy. It is virtually
impossible to tell which of these ideas were unique to Democritus, and which were
attributable to Leucippus due to a lack of surviving fragments, aside from ascribing the
originator to Leucippus and the successor to Democritus.

Life and works

Details of Democritus’ life are unknown due to a lack of surviving texts. It was known
that Democritus produced works on a wide range of subjects, and that Thrasyllus, a first
century Roman scholar, arranged his writings which included works on ethics, natural
science, mathematics, music, and technical matters. Nothing survived except a limited
number of fragments. His atomist ontology and hedonism was succeeded by Epicurus.

Democritus is said to have had a happy disposition, and is sometimes referred to as the
"laughing philosopher," as opposed to Heraclitus, who is known as the "weeping
philosopher." In the Divine Comedy, Dante sees the shade of Heraclitus in Limbo with
those of other classical philosophers.

Philosophy
Atomism

Atoms are in constant motion. Democritus argued for the reality of “void” that gives
space for atoms to move. When the atoms move they come into contact with other
atoms and form bodies. A thing comes into being when the atoms that compose it are
appropriately associated, and passes away when these parts disperse.

This leaves no room for the intelligent direction of things, either by human or divine
intelligence, as all that exist are atoms and the void. For Democritus, the entire world is
physical material organized by mechanical physical principles.

Democritus argued that atoms only had several properties, particularly size, shape, and
mass; all other properties that we attribute to matter, such as color and taste, are merely
the result of complex interactions between the atoms in our bodies and the atoms of the
matter that we are examining.

Different tastes are a result of differently shaped atoms in contact with the tongue.
Smells and sounds are explained similarly. Vision works by the eye receiving "images" or
"effluences" that are emanated by bodies. Democritus stated, "Sweet exists by
convention, bitter by convention; color by convention; but in reality atoms and the void
alone exist." This, of course, means that the senses cannot provide a direct or certain
knowledge of reality.

There are two forms of knowledge: one legitimate, one bastard. To the bastard sort
belong all the following: sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch. The legitimate is quite distinct
from this. When the bastard form cannot see more minutely, nor hear nor smell nor taste
nor perceive through the touch, then another finer form must be employed.(Fragment
11)

Democritus gave a materialist interpretation to the soul, which he contends is composed

of exceedingly fine and spherical atoms. He holds that, "spherical atoms move because it
is their nature never to be still, and that as they move they draw the whole body along
with them, and set it in motion."

Ethics

Democritus identified the good with “pleasantness” and developed a form of hedonism.
Pleasantness is achieved by observing justice, controlling desires, and keeping a balance
in life. While Democritus held a radical materialism in ontology, he developed a secular
idealism in ethics and left a number of maxims for life.

Cosmology
Democritus is also the first philosopher we know of who realized that what we perceive
as the Milky Way is the light of distant stars. Other philosophers, including later Aristotle,
argued against this. Democritus was among the first to propose that the universe
contains many worlds, some of them inhabited:

In some worlds there is no Sun and Moon, in others they are larger than in our world,
and in others more numerous. In some parts there are more worlds, in others fewer (...);
in some parts they are arising, in others failing. There are some worlds devoid of living
creatures or plants or any moisture.

Quotations
The following excerpts are from Democritus' extensive writings on ethics, of which little
remain:

 "Disease occurs in a household, or in a life, just as it does in a body."

 "Medicine cures the diseases of the body; wisdom, on the other hand, relieves the
soul of its sufferings."

 "The needy animal knows how much it needs, but the needy man does not."

 "It is hard to fight with desire; but to overcome it is the mark of a rational man."

 "Moderation increases enjoyment, and makes pleasure even greater."

 "It is childish, not manly, to have immoderate desires."

 "The good things of life are produced by learning with hard work; the bad are
reaped of their own accord, without hard work."

 "The brave man is he who overcomes not only his enemies but his pleasures.
There are some men who are masters of cities but slaves to women."

 "In cattle excellence is displayed in strength of body; but in men it lies in strength
of character."

 "I would rather discover a single cause than become king of the Persians."

Sophists
Sophists, professional rhetoricians contemporary to or younger than Socrates, are
customarily included as Pre-Socratics. The term Sophists does not designate any
particular individual but a group of professional teachers of rhetoric, active in the Greek
political environment. Some explicitly presented moral relativism and a secularist
concept of happiness. Socrates challenged them and Plato depicted their arguments in

his dialogues.

The term sophists originally meant “wise men” in Ancient Greece. By the fifth
century B.C.E., the term designated a profession in or a group of teachers of rhetoric.
Rhetoricians do not necessary hold particular philosophical views and arts of rhetoric in
themselves do not have any associated philosophical positions. A number of
rhetoricians, however, appeared and promoted particular philosophical views mainly
in Athens, and it was their philosophical positions against which
both Socrates and Plato addressed severe criticisms. Socrates and Plato challenged
sophist ideas of replacing rhetorical skills to genuine knowledge, moral
relativism, epistemological skepticism, and their secularist concept of happiness. Both
Socrates and Plato saw endangerment of the moral foundation of society in their
philosophical views. Some of the Sophist's ideas have been compared to
Machiavellianism and Hobbesianism.

History
Origins

The meaning of the word sophist (greek sophistes meaning "wise-ist," or one who 'does'
wisdom, i.e. who makes a business out of wisdom; cf. sophós, "wise man", cf. also wizard)
has changed greatly over time. Initially, a sophist was someone who gave sophia to his
disciples, that is, wisdom made from knowledge. It was a highly complimentary term,
applied to early philosophers such as the Seven Wise Men of Greece.

The Fifth Century B.C.E.

In the second half of the fifth century B.C.E., and especially at Athens, "sophist" came to
be applied to an unorganized group of thinkers who employed debate and rhetoric to
teach and disseminate their ideas and offered to teach these skills to others. Due to the
importance of such skills in the litigious social life and the democratic political system
of Athens, practitioners of such skills often commanded high fees. The practice of taking
fees, coupled with the willingness of many practitioners to use their rhetorical skills to
pursue unjust lawsuits and political power eventually led to a decline in respect for
practitioners of this form of teaching and the ideas and writings associated with it.

Protagoras is generally regarded as the first sophist. Other leading sophists

included Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias, Thrasymachus, Lycophron, Callicles, Antiphon, and
Cratylus. Socrates was perhaps the first philosopher to significantly challenge the
Sophists, and Plato addressed his criticisms by depicting Socrates’ debates with them in
his works.

Socrates was also misconceived as a sophist. To avoid this misconception and clearly
distinguish Socrates from sophists, Plato described the difference of their philosophical
positions.

Some sophists held a relativistic view on ethics and knowledge. Their philosophy
contains criticism of religion, law and ethics. Though some sophists were as religious as
their contemporaries, some held atheistic or agnostic views. Both Socrates and Plato
challenged not sophistry as rhetorical technique but their philosophical foundations:
moral relativism, secular conception of happiness, and epistemological skepticism.

Unfortunately most of the original texts written by the sophists have been lost, and
modern understanding of the sophistic movement comes from analysis of Plato's
writings, which also became the source for the modern view of the "sophist" as someone
who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or
to support fallacious reasoning.

In the Roman Empire, sophists were just professors of rhetoric. For instance, Libanius,
Himerius, Aelius Aristides and Fronto were considered sophists in this sense.

Modern Usage
While a particular bad and insincere argument is likely to be labeled a
sophism the practice of using such arguments is known as sophistry. In its modern
meaning, "sophistry" is a derogatory term for rhetoric that is designed to appeal to the
listener on grounds other than the strict logical cogency of the statements being made.

In traditional logical argument, a set of premises are connected together according to

the rules of logic and lead therefore to some conclusion. When someone criticizes the
argument, they do so by pointing out either falsehoods among the premises or logical
fallacies, flaws in the logical scaffolding. These criticisms may be subject to counter-
criticisms, which in turn may be subject to counter-counter-criticisms, etc. Generally,
some judge or audience eventually either concurs with or rejects the position of one side
and thus a consensus opinion of the truth is arrived upon.

The essential claim of sophistry is that the actual logical validity of an argument is
irrelevant (if not non-existent); it is only the ruling of the audience that ultimately
determines whether a conclusion is considered "true" or not. By appealing to the
prejudices and emotions of the judges, one can garner favorable treatment for one's
side of the argument and cause a factually false position to be ruled true.

The philosophical Sophist goes one step beyond that and claims that since it was
traditionally accepted that the position ruled valid by the judges was literally true, any
position ruled true by the judges must be considered literally true, even if it was arrived
at by naked pandering to the judges' prejudices — or even by bribery.

Critics would argue that this claim relies on a straw man caricature of logical discourse
and is, in fact, a self-justifying act of sophistry.

Philosophy
Philosophical perspectives of sophists were critically exposed and analyzed by Plato.
Although all sophists may not have shared the same view, Plato depicted their general
perspective.

Skepticism and relativism

Sophists traveled and witnessed diverse views of god and customs, and developed
relativistic or antagonistic views for religious faith, morality, and values. They presented a
skeptical or critical or antagonistic view to the existence of an absolute, permanent, and
objective standard of truth. They viewed truth or a standard of good and evil as a matter
of interpretation. A major sophist, Protagoras’ phrase, “man is the measure of all things”
indicates this relativistic view of truth.

If there is no objective standard of truth we can appeal to or can determine the validity
of claims, arguments become like a game or a battle where winning or losing is at stake
and rhetorical skills become a definitive universal tool.

Might is right
In the absence of the objective standard of truth or right and wrong, the perspective of
“might is right” emerged. Thrasymachus, another prominent sophist, developed this
view. Citing historical cases, he challenged Socrates, and explained how winners in fact
defined and determined justice and judged losers according to the standard they set.
Thrasymachus held a view that power determines and defines good and evil. Even
deceptive measures were justified as far as they serve for winning over opponents. This
power based value perspective entails a nihilistic view of life. One may also find an
incipient idea of Machiavellianism.

In Plato’s Gorgias, Callicles explained that: the original state of society was a chaotic state
of “war by all against all” (see Thomas Hobbes); domination by power is a natural
(physis) state of human life; the masses and the weak invent laws "(nomos)" to protect
themselves; the powerful can break the laws and establish their rule.

The ancient notion of nomos as divine laws that dominated both gods and humans were
no longer present in Callicles’ thought. There was no permanent or absolute principle
such as divine justice that abided human society.

Reality and Appearance

If winning or losing is the essential matter, how one appears or looks to others becomes
far more important than how one in fact is. Due to the denial of the existence of
unchanging, permanent truth or reality, the world is dissolved and reduced to only
appearance or phenomena. In Plato’s terms, Sophists stressed the importance of
“appearance” over “reality,” “opinion” over “knowledge,” or eradicated their distinction
since the world is theoretically limited to appearance in sophist worldview.

Secular conception of happiness

Sophists often identified happiness with pleasure and promoted secular materialistic
social success. In their view, happiness can be achieved and joy can be experienced
without moral goodness. Plato challenged and argued that human beings cannot
experience genuine joy and happiness without being morally good. Kant also argued
that moral goodness was the condition for happiness.

While sophists defined joy as all forms of pleasure in general, Plato distinguished joy,
pleasure, and happiness in two modes: authentic and inauthentic, or genuine and false.
Sophists missed this distinction in their analyses of human nature and life.
Gorgias

Gorgias (in Greek Γοργἰας; c. 483 - 375 B.C.E.), was one of the most important
Greek sophists of the fifth century B.C.E., a philosopher, rhetorician, and a gifted writer of
artistic prose. Originally a native of Leontini in Sicily, he was sent to Athens in 427 B.C.E. at
the head of an embassy to ask for Athenian protection against the aggression of
neighboring Syracuse. He subsequently settled in Athens, and supported himself by the
practice of oratory and by teaching rhetoric. He died at Larissa in Thessaly. A brilliant
rhetorician, Gorgias also contributed to the diffusion of the Attic dialect as the language
of literary prose. Several of his works remain in existence. Two of his performatory
speeches, Encomium and Palamedes, illustrate the principles he used to make a weak
argument strong, and On the Nature of Things uses Eleatic arguments to reach a number
of nihilistic conclusions. Gorgias appeared in Plato's dialogues as a moral relativist and
one of dialogues was named after him.

Life
Gorgias was a native of Leontini, a Greek colony in Sicily, which is often called the home
of Greek rhetoric. Very little is known of his life before he emigrated to Athens, except
that he had a father named Charmantides and two siblings; a brother named Herodicus
and a sister who dedicated a statue to Gorgias in Delphi (McComiskey 2001, 6-7). In
427 B.C.E. Gorgias was sent to Athens as an ambassador to ask Athenian protection from
the aggressive Syracusans (Leitch, et al 29). Gorgias’ impressive oratorical style was said
to have brought many of the leading politicians and intellectuals under his influence
(Wardy 1996, 6). His mission completed, Gorgias settled in Athens. He was a student
of Empedocles, and made a successful living by practicing oratory and teaching rhetoric
to students, including Pericles, Critias, Menos, Isocrates and possibly Aspasia.
Philostratus (Lives of the Sophists I 9, I) recounts that Gorgias began the practice of
extemporaneous oratory, and that he would say to his audiences, "'suggest a
subject' ...he was the first to proclaim himself willing to take the chance, showing
apparently that he knew everything and would trust the moment to speak on any
subject." He spoke at Panhellenic festivals, becoming well-known in Olympia and Delphi.
His existing works include the Encomium of Helen, the Defense of Palamedes, On Non-
Existence (or On Nature), and Epitaphios. Gorgias is reputed to have lived to be over one
hundred years old. He died at Larissa in Thessaly in 375 B.C.E.

Thought and Works

Gorgias of Leontini has been credited with introducing rhetorical innovations involving
structure and ornamentation; and paradoxologia, the idea of paradoxical thought and
paradoxical expression, to Greece, and is sometimes called the ‘father of sophistry’
(Wardy 1996, 6). Gorgias is also known for contributing to the diffusion of the Attic
dialect as the language of literary prose.

Gorgias’ surviving rhetorical works (Encomium of Helen, Defense of Palamedes, On Non-

Existence, and Epitaphios) exist in the form of rhetorical exercises that were used to teach
his pupils and demonstrate various principles of rhetorical practice. Although some
scholars claim that each work presents opposing statements, the four texts can be read
as interrelated contributions to the up-and-coming theory and art (technê) of rhetoric
(McComiskey 2001, 32). Of Gorgias’ surviving works, only the Encomium and
the Defense are believed to exist in their entirety. Gorgias’ Epitaphios is probably only a
fragment of a significantly larger funeral oration, and On Non-Existence appears in
summary form. These works are each part of the Diels-Kranz collection; although
academics consider this source reliable, many of the works included in it are fragmentary
and corrupt.

Gorgias’ writings are both rhetorical and performative, exhibiting his ability to make a
weak argument appear strong. Each of his works defends positions that are unpopular,
paradoxical and even absurd. The performative nature of Gorgias’ writings is exemplified
by the way that he playfully approaches each argument with stylistic devices such as
parody, artificial figuration and theatricality (Consigny 2001, 149). Gorgias’ style of
argumentation can be described as poetics-minus-the-meter (poiêsis-minus-meter).
Gorgias argues that persuasive words have power (dunamis) equivalent to that of the
gods and as strong as physical force. In the Encomium, Gorgias likens the effect of
speech on the soul to the effect of drugs on the body: “Just as different drugs draw forth
different humors from the body – some putting a stop to disease, others to life – so too
with words: some cause pain, others joy, some strike fear, some stir the audience to
boldness, some benumb and bewitch the soul with evil persuasion” (Gorgias, 32).

Gorgias also believed that his "magical incantations" could bring healing to the human
psyche by controlling powerful emotions. He paid particular attention to the sounds of
words, which, like poetry, could captivate audiences. His florid, rhyming style seemed to
hypnotize his audiences (Herrick, 42). Gorgias' legendary powers of persuasion would
suggest that he had a somewhat supernatural influence over his audience and their
emotions. Gorgias thought that an orator had an ethical obligation to avoid deception,
and that it was "…the duty of the same man both to declare what he should rightly and
to refute what has been spoken falsely."
Rhetoric and Oratory
Encomium of Helen

Of the three divisions of rhetoric discussed by Aristotle in his Rhetoric (forensic,

deliberative, and epideictic), the Encomium can be classified as an epideictic speech,
expressing praise for Helen of Troy and absolving her of responsibility for causing the
Trojan War. The popular and literary tradition of the time blamed Helen of Troy for
instigating the Trojan War by leaving her husband and eloping with Paris.

The Encomium opens with Gorgias explaining that “a man, woman, speech, deed, city or
action that is worthy of praise should be honored with acclaim, but the unworthy should
be branded with blame” (Gorgias, 30). Gorgias discusses the possible reasons for Helen’s
journey to Troy. He explains that Helen could have been persuaded in one of four ways:
by the gods, by physical force, by love, or by speech (logos). If it was the plan of the gods
that caused Helen to depart for Troy, Gorgias argues that those who blame her should
face blame themselves, “for a human’s anticipation cannot restrain a god’s inclination”
(Gorgias, 31). Gorgias explains that, by nature, the weak are ruled by the strong, and,
since the gods are stronger than humans in all respects, Helen should not be held
responsible. If Helen was abducted by force, it is clear that the aggressor committed a
crime and should be blamed for the consequences. And if Helen was persuaded by love,
she should also be absolved because “…if love is a god, with the divine power of the
gods, how could a weaker person refuse and reject him? But if love is a human sickness
and a mental weakness, it must not be blamed as mistake, but claimed as misfortune”
(Gorgias, 32). Finally, if it was speech that persuaded Helen, she should not be blamed,
because speech (logos) is a powerful force that can persuade people to do things against
their own interests. In the final section of the Encomium he writes: “I wished to write this
speech for Helen’s encomium and my amusement” (Gorgias, 33).

Defense of Palamedes

Defense of Palamedes is another performative speech in which Gorgias shows how

plausible arguments can cause an audience to doubt conventional truths. The speech is
presented as the legal self-defense, in a trial setting, of Palamedes, a figure from Greek
mythology credited with the invention of the alphabet, written laws, numbers, armor,
and measures and weights. Odysseus feigned madness in order to avoid going
to Troy with Agamemnon and Menelaus to bring Helen back to Sparta. Palamedes
tricked Odysseus into revealing that he was only pretending to be mad, and Odysseus
never forgave him. Later Odysseus accused him of cooperating with Troy, and
Palamedes was condemned and executed.
Throughout the speech, Gorgias composes logical (logos) and ethical (ethos) arguments
from possibility, a type of argument that Aristotle later defined as forensic topoi.
Palamedes rejects the use of emotional arguments (pathos), saying "among you, who are
the foremost of the Greeks...there is no need to persuade such ones as you with the aid
of friends and sorrowful prayers and lamentations." Gorgias posits that in order to prove
that treason was committed, we must first establish that a set of possible events took
place. In the Defense these events are: communication between Palamedes and the
enemy, exchange of a pledge in the form of hostages or money, and not being detected
by guards or citizens. In his defense, Palamedes claims that a small sum of money would
not have warranted such a large undertaking and reasons that a large sum of money, if
indeed such a transaction had been made, would have required the aid of many
confederates to transport it. Palamedes reasons further that such an exchange could
neither have occurred at night because the guards would be watching, nor in the day
because everyone would be able to see. Palamedes continues, explaining that if the
aforementioned conditions were, in fact, arranged then action would need to follow.
Such action would take place either with or without confederates. If these confederates
were free men then they were free to disclose any information they desired, and had not
done so. If they were slaves there was a risk of them voluntarily accusing to earn
freedom, or accusing by force when tortured. Slaves, Palamedes says, are untrustworthy.
Palamedes goes on to list a variety of possible motives for committing treason, such as
status, wealth, honor or security, all of which he proves groundless.

On Nature, or the Non-Existent

The original work has been lost, and there are two existing transcripts which differ
slightly from each other, one preserved by the philosopher Sextus Empirica in Against
the Professors, and another by the author (possible Aristotle or Theophrastus) of De
Melissus, Xenophane, Gorgia. There is some disagreement among scholars as to whether
this was intended as a serious philosophical work, or as a caricature of the metaphysical
arguments of Parmenides.

The subject of On Nature is ontological (about the nature of being), and it also
discusses epistemology and language. It is also a rhetorical exercise that showcases
Gorgias’ oratorical skill. He attacks the idea that if we examine our world, we must
conclude that things exist, and demonstrates that 1) Nothing exists; 2) Even if existence
exists, it cannot be known; and 3) Even if it could be known, it cannot be communicated.

He does not completely deny the possibility of communication altogether; rather it

is logos that is communicated to others (Jarratt 1991, 55), because those things that the
human mind can know, believe, and communicate are merely mental representations
created by logos. But the relationship between logos and reality presents a problem
because logos, existing only within the realm of human speech and thought, is different
from the reality it represents (Walker 2000, 27).

This argument has led some to label Gorgias as either an ontological skeptic or a nihilist
(one who believes nothing exists, or that the world is incomprehensible, and that the
concept of truth is fictitious). But it can also be interpreted as an assertion that it
is logos and logos alone which is the proper object of our inquiries, since it is the only
thing we can really know. On Nature is sometimes seen as a refutation of pre-
Socratic essentialist philosophy (McComiskey 2001, 37).

Critics

Gorgias and other sophists were often criticized for placing more emphasis on rhetoric
and oratory than on a legitimate quest for truth, and for tearing down arguments rather
than building a system of thought which could make a positive contribution to the
improvement of society. Oratory played an important role in the Athenian democracy,
where the ability to persuade an audience meant political influence and power. Teachers
of rhetoric made a living by giving instruction on how to argue successfully.

Plato ridiculed Gorgias and his rhetorical beliefs in a well-known dialogue, Gorgias. Plato
distinguished between philosophy and rhetoric, characterizing Gorgias as an orator who
entertained his audience with eloquent words and who believed that it is unnecessary to
learn the truth about actual matters when one has discovered the art of persuasion
(Consigny 2001, 36). In the dialogue, Gorgias responded to one of Socrates’ statements
as follows: “Rhetoric is the only area of expertise you need to learn. You can ignore all
the rest and still get the better of the professionals!” (Plato, 24). Plato argued that
Gorgias was not a true philosopher. Gorgias described philosophy as a type of seduction,
but did offer some respect to philosophers (Consigny 2001, 37). Plato answered Gorgias
by reaffirming the Parmenidean ideal that being is the basic substance and reality of
which all things are composed, insisting that it is a philosophical dialectic distinct from
and superior to rhetoric (Wardy 1996, 52).

Aristotle also criticized Gorgias, calling him a mere sophist whose primary goal was to
make money by appearing wise and clever, and faulting his excessive use of compound
words and overly poetic language.

Protagoras
Protagoras is best known for his dictum: "Man is the measure of all things." He denied
the existence of objective truth and values, replaced reality with appearance, and
reduced truth to a matter of individual’s interpretation and perspective (perspectivism).
Truth became thus relative to a group of people and individuals (relativism). Based upon
the relativist view, as a Sophist he taught rhetorical skills to win arguments, thereby
reducing philosophy from a quest for truth to mere skills of argumentation and
persuasion. The shift of the locus of truth from the sphere of existence to language
parallels an orientation of postmodernism. Both Socrates and Plato challenged his
philosophy, and Plato named one of his dialogues after him.

Life and works

Protagoras taught for nearly 40 years traveling Athens and surrounding cities, teaching
the art of rhetoric and his philosophy to mostly wealthy Greek citizens. By the request of
his friend Pericles, he drafted the laws of a new Greek colony Thurii. Protagoras wrote at
least two books, Truth (or Refutatory Arguments or On Being) and On the
Gods. His agnostic view of the gods presented in the latter caused his conviction on
impiety and forced him to flee Athens, and his books were publicly burned. None of his
works have survived except a few fragments. He was discussed in Plato’s
dialogues, Protagoras and Theaetetus in particular, and Aristotle’s Metaphysics (IV. 4-5).
In Aristophanes’ play, The Clouds, a teacher of rhetoric named Socrates was probably
modeled after Protagoras or one of his followers.

Philosophy
Relativism, subjectivism, and perspectivism

Protagoras is best known for the dictum: "Man is the measure of all things: of things
which are, that they are so, and of things which are not, that they are not" (DK. 80b1). He
denied the existence of objective, eternal, and unchanging criteria of truth, values, good
and evil.

Because the existence of unchanging truth, the common criteria to establish the
objectivity of truth was denied; truth became merely what appeared to people living in
diverse traditions and customs, and ultimately to individuals holding different beliefs and
perspectives. ontologically, reality was replaced and reduced to appearance. Within this
framework of thought, people can no longer argue about what is “real” since there is no
objective reality, but can only argue what appears or looks real to each person.

Truth and values become relative to each person (relativism), and his or her perspectives
(perspectivism), against which both Socrates and Plato strongly challenged.
Agnosticism

Protagoras was probably the first theological agnostic. In On the Gods, he wrote,
"Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what
sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life"
(DK 80b4). Protagoras neither denied nor affirmed the existence of gods but denied or
was skeptical of the capacity of human beings to know gods, which is not atheism but
agnosticism, a philosophical position in the theory of knowledge.

Socrates
Socrates (ca. 469 – 399 B.C.E.) (Greek Σωκράτης Sōkrátēs) was an ancient Greek
philosopher and one of the pillars of the Western tradition. Having left behind no
writings of his own, he is known mainly through Plato, one of his students. Plato used
the life of his teacher and the Socratic method of inquiry to advance a philosophy of
idealism that would come to influence later Christian thought and the development of
Western civilization.

Socrates made a clear distinction between true knowledge and opinion. Based upon his
conviction about the immortality of the soul, Socrates defined true knowledge as eternal,
unchanging, and absolute compared to opinions which are temporal, changing, and
relative. Socrates was convinced that true knowledge and moral virtues are inscribed
within the soul of every individual. Learning is, therefore, to cultivate the soul and make
one’s implicit understanding of truth explicit. Socrates engaged in dialogues, not to
teach knowledge, but in order to awaken the soul of a partner, a method comparable to
certain practices in Zen Buddhism.

Truth, for Socrates, is something that should not only be discussed but lived, embodied,
and practiced. Socrates understood the care of the soul as the primary task of
philosophy and fought against moral relativists such as the Sophists. They mistakenly
replaced the effort to discover truth with the practice of rhetorical skills understood as
tools for social success, and substituted the pursuit of pleasure for the attainment of
genuine happiness.

Socrates was prosecuted, imprisoned, and sentenced to death for charges of impiety and
corrupting youth, a legal but unjust prosecution. Refusing to compromise with politically
motivated opponents, Socrates took poison in prison, preferring an honorable death
than flight from Athens to preserve his life. Thus he is revered as a martyr for the truth of
philosophy.
Socrates' seminal role in the development of Western thought, providing the basis for
individuals to arrive at the truth through investigation of the self and the world apart
from the dictates of communal tradition, draws comparisons to near his contemporaries
(Buddha), Confucius, and Lao Tsu. The near-simultaneous appearance of history's great
sages led the nineteenth-century philosopher Karl Jaspers to posit an "Axial Age"—the
period from roughly 600 B.C.E. to 400 B.C.E.—during which "the spiritual foundations of
humanity were laid simultaneously and independently… upon which humanity still
subsists today." Jaspers saw Socrates, Confucius and Siddhartha Gautama as
"paradigmatic personalities," whose quest for meaning would bring transformative
change in humanity's self-understanding.

Socrates in Greek Philosophy

Historians divide the history of Greek philosophy into two periods: before Socrates and
after Socrates. All philosophers who appeared before Socrates are grouped together and
called Pre-Socratics.

Philosophy began as the quest for unchanging principles. This distinguishes philosophy
from Greek mythology, which sought transcendent meaning through imaginative
projections of observed phenomena to origins among the divinities. Pre-Socratics tried
to find natural principles without a clear understanding of the distinct characteristics of
human beings. Socrates is the first person who brought the issues of human beings to
the center of philosophical inquiry. With Socrates, deep inquiries into human life and
human beings really began. “The unexamined life is not worth living,” (Apology, 38) is
one of the best-known phrases of Socrates.

Every philosophy is built upon certain a priori presuppositions, and Socrates’ thought
follows from two important insights: the soul is immortal, and the care of the soul is the
task of philosophy. Human life does not end at one’s death, Socrates taught. Death is
merely the departure for afterlife. Facing his own death, Socrates explained the meaning
of death in front of weeping friends and disciples and asked, why not celebrate death?
Death, he explained, is the departure of the soul for the eternal world.

Upon the conviction that the essence of the self is the soul and that one continues to live
in the world after death, Socrates took the caring of the soul to be the most important
issue in human life. Socrates challenged a variety of secular relativists, Sophists in
particular, who taught the art of success and promoted a hedonistic way of life.

Interestingly, three of history’s greatest thinkers, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, appeared
synchronously in fourth-century B.C.E. Greece. Socrates was the teacher of Plato, who in
turn was the teacher of Aristotle. Karl Jaspers, a twentieth-century philosopher, noticed
the roughly simultaneous appearance of major thinkers in human history worldwide,
such as Jewish prophets, Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, and writers of the Upanishads.
He conceived the period of three centuries before and three centuries after 500 B.C.E. as
the Axial Age which laid the foundation for religions and philosophies.

Contemporaneous accounts of Socrates

There are no recorded works by Socrates. Modern knowledge concerning the

philosopher essentially depends upon a limited number of contemporaneous secondary
sources, primarily the works of his student Plato, accounts of conversations with Socrates
by the historian Xenophon, and historically problematic references in the writings of the
satirist Aristophanes. While Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle are the main sources for the
historical Socrates, Xenophon and Plato were direct disciples of Socrates, and perhaps
idealize him. They wrote the only continuous descriptions of Socrates that have come
down to us. Aristotle refers frequently, but in passing, to Socrates in his writings.

Socrates was prominently lampooned in Aristophanes' comedy The Clouds, produced

when Socrates was in his mid-forties. Socrates later said at his trial (in Plato's version)
that the laughter of the theater was a harder task to answer than the arguments of his
accusers. Socrates is also ridiculed in Aristophanes' play The Birds and in plays by Callias,
Eupolis, and Telecleides. In all of these, Socrates and the Sophists were criticized for the
"moral dangers inherent in contemporary thought and literature."

Fragmentary evidence also exists from Socrates' contemporaries. Giannantoni collects

every scrap of evidence pertaining to Socrates in his monumental work Socratis et
Socraticorum Reliquiae, which includes writers such as Aeschines Socraticus (not the
orator), Antisthenes, and a number of others who knew Socrates.

Life, trial and death

According to accounts from antiquity, Socrates' father was Sophroniscus, a sculptor, and
his mother Phaenarete, a midwife. He was married to Xanthippe, who bore him three
sons. She was considered a shrew, and Socrates himself attested that, having learned to
live with Xanthippe, he would be able to cope with any other human being, just as a
horse trainer accustomed to wilder horses might be more competent than one not. He
also saw military action, fighting at the Battle of Potidaea, the Battle of Delium, and the
Battle of Amphipolis. It is believed, based on Plato's Symposium, that Socrates was
decorated for bravery. In one instance he stayed with his wounded friend Alcibiades, and
probably saved his life; despite the objections of Alcibiades, Socrates refused any sort of
official recognition and instead encouraged the decoration of Alcibiades. During such
campaigns, he also showed his extraordinary hardiness, walking without shoes and a
coat in winter.

It is unclear what exactly Socrates did for a living. In Xenophon's Symposium, he explicitly
states that he devotes himself only to discussing philosophy, and that he thinks this is
the most important art or occupation. It is unlikely that he was able to live off of family
inheritance, given his father's occupation as an artisan. In the accounts of Plato, Socrates
explicitly denies accepting money for teaching; however, Xenophon's Symposium clearly
has Socrates state that he is paid by his students, and Aristophanes depicts Socrates as
running a school of sophistry with his friend Chaerephon. It is also possible that Socrates
survived off of the generosity of his wealthy and powerful friends, such as Alcibiades.

Socrates lived during the time of the transition from the height of the Athenian Empire
to its decline after its defeat by Sparta and its allies in the Peloponnesian War. At a time
when Athens was seeking to recover from humiliating defeat, the Athenian public court
was induced by three leading public figures to try Socrates for impiety and for
corrupting the youth of Athens.

According to the version of his defense speech presented in Plato's Apology, Socrates'
life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle
at Delphi if anyone was wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded negatively. Socrates,
interpreting this as a riddle, set out to find men who were wiser than him. He questioned
the men of Athens about their knowledge of good, beauty, and virtue. Finding that they
knew nothing and yet believing themselves to know much, Socrates came to the
conclusion that he was wise only in so far as he knew that he knew nothing. The others
only falsely thought they had knowledge.

By questioning everything and everyone, in particular those who claimed to have

knowledge, Socrates apparently offended the leaders of his time. Brought to trial, he was
found guilty as charged, and sentenced to death by drinking hemlock. His friends and
students bribed the prison guard and prepared a ship to escape, but he refused to leave
and took a poisonous herb. The dramatic court scene and his final speech in the prison
are depicted by Plato in his Apology. Socrates’ attitude when facing his own death
brought about by unjust charges, as recorded by Plato, is remembered in human history
as the martyrdom of a just man.

Philosophy
Socratic Method

One of his contributions to Western thought is his dialogical method of inquiry, known
as the Socratic Method, which he largely applied to the examination of key moral
concepts such as the Good and Justice, concepts used constantly without any real
definition.

In this method, a series of questions are posed to help a person or group to determine
their underlying beliefs* and the extent of their knowledge. The Socratic Method is
a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by
steadily identifying and eliminating those which lead to contradictions. It was designed
to force one to examine their beliefs and the validity of such beliefs.

Philosophical theories and views are supported by one’s convictions or beliefs at a

deeper level. Socrates tried to awaken the soul of his partner in dialogue, rather than
trying to give them knowledge, so that they would be led to self-realization about their
own beliefs and their validity.

This method is supported by Socrates’ theory of knowledge. From Socrates’ perspective,

true knowledge is inherently inscribed in the soul of every individual. Knowing the truth
is therefore a matter of realizing or bringing into explicit awareness what one implicitly
understands without consciously knowing it. This insight was developed by his
student Plato as a theory of recollection. Plato formulated knowing the truth as
recollection. One can find similar insight in Augustine’s concepts of “inner truth” and the
“teacher within.”

Socrates described his method of dialogue as the art of midwifery. The midwife serves to
help a pregnant mother deliver her baby. The baby is born from the mother. The role of
midwife is to assist the mother so that she can smoothly and safely deliver the baby.
Socrates understood his role as a helper to lead a partner in dialogue to self-realize the
truth within his or her soul. Truth exists within the partner as a baby exists inside a
mother’s womb. The Socratic Method consists in a series of inquiries paired with replies
through which a partner is led to the point where he or she sees the truth within.

Just as delivery is a painful and difficult process, seeing the truth is difficult and the
partner in dialogue sometimes goes through uncomfortable experiences. In the scenes
of Socrates’ dialogues, Plato describes the discomfort and anger of the partner in
dialogue.

There are a number of obstacles that prevent one from attaining true knowledge. The
greatest obstacle is one’s conviction that he or she already has knowledge, even if he or
she does not. From Socrates’ perspective, people often mistakenly believe that they have
knowledge, when in fact they hold only opinions. For Socrates, true knowledge is
unchanging and eternal truth inscribed within one’s soul. Such truth belongs to the
eternal spiritual world or the world of immortals in Socrates’ terminology. Opinions, on
the other hand, are changeable and offer only temporal views, ideas, and mere beliefs.

Knowing the truth or possessing true knowledge is not the same thing as having some
additional information. Realization of the eternal nature of truth or true knowledge is a
process of becoming aware of the eternal nature of the human soul. This realization
opens up one’s mind to a whole different world of eternity. One is opened up to the
spiritual dimension. It is a turn of consciousness from the materially dominated world to
the spiritual realm.

This turn of awareness also involves embracing a different concept of reality. For
Socrates, the world of true knowledge or eternal truth is the real world. What is sensible
or what one can perceive with the five senses is temporal, changing, and less real than
the world of true knowledge or eternal truth. This line of thought was fully developed by
his student, Plato.

Socratic Method involves a turn of consciousness or one’s self-awareness. In this sense,

what he means by method is comparable to that of existentialism and Zen Buddhism.

Knowledge

Socrates believed that his wisdom sprung from an awareness of his own ignorance. He
never claimed to be actually wise, only to understand the path one must take to become
wise. On the one hand, he drew a clear line between human ignorance and ideal
knowledge; on the other, Plato's Symposium and Republic describe a method for
ascending to wisdom.

The world of true knowledge or eternal truth is, for Socrates, vastly superior to the world
of everyday reality. Socrates seems aware of its inexhaustible openness, vastness, and
potentiality. One cannot really grasp this world at all through conceptual language.
Socrates was aware of the reality of this world and he claimed that he only knew the
path or gate to it but not the world itself. To express this point differently, truth is, in a
sense, both transcendent of and, at the same time, immanent to the soul. Socrates
attempted to grasp this insight and express it in his own language.

Virtue
Socrates was convinced that the best way for people to live was to focus on cultivating
the soul through living a virtuous life rather than through the pursuit of material wealth.
The idea that humans possessed certain virtues formed a common thread in Socrates'
teachings. These virtues represented the most important qualities for a person to have,
foremost of which were the philosophical or intellectual virtues.

Ultimately, virtue relates to the form of the Good; to truly be good and not just act with
"right opinion" one must come to know the unchanging Good in itself. In
the Republic, he describes the "divided line," a continuum of ignorance to knowledge
with the Good on top of it all; only at the top of this line do we find true good and the
knowledge of such.

For Socrates, the foundation of virtues consists in their immutable and eternal nature,
which belongs to a divine realm. The truthfulness of truth is established in itself and
truth self-exists for eternity. It transcends human interpretations. Socrates challenged
the Sophists, professional rhetoricians who promoted moral relativism, skepticism, and
secular, materialistic life styles. Protagoras, one of the major Sophists, argued that good
and evil is a matter of interpretation. “Man is the measure of all things,” is a phrase
attributed to him. Some sophists held Machiavellian views of value and argued that
good and evil were determined by a winner. Sophists generally promoted a view of value
based upon power, wealth, and honor. Socrates seriously challenged them and Plato’s
dialogues depicted the scenes of their arguments.

Politics

It is often argued that Socrates believed "ideals belong in a world that only the wise man
can understand," making the philosopher the only type of person suitable to govern
others. According to Plato's account, Socrates was in no way subtle about his particular
beliefs on government. He openly objected to the democracy that ran Athens during his
adult life. It was not only Athenian democracy: Socrates objected to any form of
government that did not conform to his ideal of a perfect republic led by philosophers,
and Athenian government was far from that. During the last years of Socrates' life,
Athens was in continual flux due to political upheaval. Democracy was at last overthrown
by a junta known as the Thirty Tyrants, led by Plato's relative, Critias, who had been a
student of Socrates. The Tyrants ruled for nearly a year before the democracy was
reinstated, at which point it declared an amnesty for all recent events. Four years later, it
acted to silence the voice of Socrates.

This argument is often challenged, and what, exactly, Socrates believed is one of the
most enduring philosophical debates. The strongest argument of those who claim that
Socrates did not actually believe in the idea of philosopher kings is Socrates' constant
refusal to enter into politics or participate in government of any sort; he often stated that
he could not look into other matters or tell people how to live when he did not yet
understand himself. The philosopher is a lover of wisdom, and not actually wise.
Socrates' acceptance of his death sentence after his conviction by the Boule can also
support this view.

It is often claimed that the anti-democratic leanings attributed to Socrates are better
attributed to Plato, who was never able to overcome his disgust at what was done to his
teacher. In any case, it is clear that Socrates thought that the rule of the Thirty Tyrants
was at least as objectionable as democracy; when called before them to assist in the
arrest of a fellow Athenian, Socrates refused and narrowly escaped death before the
Tyrants were overthrown. Judging by his actions, he considered their rule less legitimate
than that of the democratic senate that sentenced him to death.

Mysticism

When reading the dialogues of Plato, Socrates often seems to manifest a mystical side,
discussing reincarnation and the mystery religions. Although this interest is generally
attributed to Plato, the distinctions between the views of Plato and Socrates remain
problematic; in addition, there seem to be some corollaries in the works of Xenophon. In
the culmination of the philosophical path as discussed in
Plato's Symposium and Republic, one comes to the sight of the form of the Good in an
experience akin to mystical revelation; only then can one become wise. In
the Symposium, Socrates credits his speech on the philosophic path to the priestess
Diotima. In the Meno, Socrates refers to the Eleusinian Mysteries, telling Meno he would
understand the answers better if only he could stay for the initiations next week.

Perhaps the most interesting facet of this is Socrates' reliance on what the Greeks called
his "daemon," a voice who spoke to Socrates only and always when Socrates is about to
make a mistake. It was this daemon that prevented Socrates from entering into politics.
In the Phaedrus, we are told Socrates considered this to be a form of "divine madness,"
the sort of insanity that is a gift from the gods and gives us poetry, mysticism, love, and
even philosophy itself. Alternately, the daemon is often taken to be what we would call
"intuition"; however, the Greek word was clearly used to signify a spirit or entity akin to
what we would call a guardian angel.

The Socratic Dialogues

The Socratic dialogues are a series of dialogues written by Plato and Xenophon in the
form of discussions between Socrates and other persons of his time, or as discussions
between Socrates' followers over his concepts. Plato's Phaedo is an example of this latter
category. While Plato's Apology is a speech (with Socrates as speaker), it is nonetheless
generally counted as one of the Socratic dialogues.

Plato's dialogues only contain the direct words of each of the speakers, while
Xenophon's dialogues are written down as a continuous story, containing, along with the
narration of the circumstances of the dialogue, the quotes of the speakers.

Plato generally does not place his own ideas in the mouth of a specific speaker; he lets
ideas emerge via the Socratic Method, under the guidance of Socrates. Most of the
dialogues present Socrates applying this method to some extent, but nowhere as
completely as in the Euthyphro. In this dialogue, Socrates and Euthyphro go through
several iterations of refining the answer to Socrates' question: "What is piety?"

In Plato's dialogues, learning appears as a process of remembering. The soul, before its
incarnation in the body, was in the realm of ideas. There, it saw things the way they truly
are, rather than the pale shadows or copies we experience on earth. By a process of
questioning, the soul can be brought to remember the ideas in their pure form, thus
bringing wisdom.

Especially for Plato's writings referring to Socrates, it is not always clear which ideas
brought forward by Socrates (or his friends) actually belonged to Socrates and which of
these may have been new additions or elaborations by Plato—this is known as the
Socratic Problem. Generally, the early works of Plato are considered to be close to the
spirit of Socrates, whereas the later works, including Phaedo, are considered to be
possibly products of Plato's elaborations.

Other Views

Some hold that Socrates was a fictional character, invented by Plato and plagiarized by
Xenophon and Aristophanes to articulate points of view which were considered too
revolutionary for the author to admit to holding. However, this theory has little merit,
especially when it is considered that Aristophanes wrote about Socrates (in
a negative light) long before Socrates died and Plato began to write his dialogues.

Quotations
The following quotations are attributed to Socrates in Plato's and Xenophon's writings:
 ”The unexamined life is not worth living.”' (Apology, 38. In Greek, ho de
anexetastos bios ou biôtos anthorôpôi.)

 ”For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to
take thought for your persons or your properties, but first and chiefly to care
about the greatest improvement of the soul.” (Apology, by Plato. Translated by
Benjamin Jowett.)

 ”You, Antiphon, would seem to suggest that happiness consists of luxury and
extravagance; I hold a different creed. To have no wants at all is, to my mind, an
attribute of Godhead” (Memorabilia, by Xenophon. Translated by H.G. Dakyns.)

 ”False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.”
(Phaedo, 91)

 ”So now, Athenian men, more than on my own behalf must I defend myself, as
some may think, but on your behalf, so that you may not make a mistake
concerning the gift of god by condemning me. For if you kill me, you will not
easily find another such person at all, even if to say in a ludicrous way, attached
on the city by the god, like on a large and well-bred horse, by its size and laziness
both needing arousing by some gadfly; in this way the god seems to have
fastened me on the city, some such one who arousing and persuading and
reproaching each one of you I do not stop the whole day settling down all over.
Thus such another will not easily come to you, men, but if you believe me, you will
spare me; but perhaps you might possibly be offended, like the sleeping who are
awakened, striking me, believing Anytus, you might easily kill, then the rest of
your lives you might continue sleeping, unless the god caring for you should send
you another.” (Apology)

 ”Is the pious holy because it is loved by the gods, or is it loved by the gods
because it is holy?” (Eurythpro)

 ”It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of, but he
thinks that he knows something which des does know, whereas I am quite
conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this
small extent.” (“Apology” in The Collected Dialogues of Plato, edited by Edith
Hamilton and Huntington Cairns)

 ”Is not what we call death a freeing and separating of soul from body? Certainly,
he said.” (Phaedo)
  ”The soul is most like that which is divine, immortal, intelligible, uniform,
indissoluble, and ever self-consistent and invariable, whereas body is most like
that which is human, mortal, multiform, unintelligible, dissoluble, and never self-
consistent.” (Phaedo)

 “But no soul which has not practiced philosophy, and is not absolutely pure when
it leaves the body, may attain to the divine nature; that is only for the lover of
wisdom.” (Phaedo)

 And I say that there will only be a perfect city when philosophers have become
kings. (Republic)

Plato
Plato (c. 428 B.C.E. – c. 348 B.C.E.) was a Greek philosopher and is perhaps the most
famous and influential thinker in the history of Western thought. He was a student
of Socrates and a teacher of Aristotle. He founded the Academy in Athens where he
lectured and taught. He also wrote dialogues on a variety of philosophical subjects such
as metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, psychology, politics, and aesthetics. Because he
wrote in dialogue rather than treatise form, however, his ideas on these subjects are not
systematically analyzed but presented in the more ambiguous and ironic form of the
drama. This has resulted in a variety of interpretations of Plato’s work and debates
continue today over the precise meanings of his main philosophical ideas.

Among the most famous of his philosophical contributions are the accounts he provides
of his teacher Socrates and the Socratic method of teaching, his doctrine of the Ideas or
“forms,” his theory of recollection, and his notion of dialectic as collection and division.
His Republic remains one of the classic works in all of western civilization.

Biography
Plato was born in Athens in approximately 428 B.C.E. He was raised in a moderately
wealthy, aristocratic family with high political connections. His father was named Ariston
and his mother Perictione. According to a late Hellenistic account by Diogenes Laertius,
Plato's given name was Aristocles. Various alternatives are offered at how Plato received
his name. One possibility is that his wrestling coach, Ariston of Argos, dubbed him
"Platon" (meaning "broad") on account of his robust figure. Another alternative is that
his name derived from the breadth (platutês) of his eloquence, and still a third from the
fact that he was very wide (platus) across the forehead. In any case, in his youth Plato
was a gifted wrestler and his intellectual abilities were so advanced that his fellow Greeks
declared him to be the son of Apollo. In fact, it was rumored that in his infancy bees had
settled on his lips as a prophecy of the honeyed words which would flow from them.

At some point in his youth Plato became a devoted pupil of Socrates, the famous
“wandering scholar” who sat on the street corners of Athens and engaged the young
men of the city in intellectual discussions. It was primarily through the texts of Plato, in
fact, that we learn of the life, teachings, and death of Socrates. It is considered a matter
of record that Plato attended his master's trial and execution so that the Apology,
although written in dramatic form is nonetheless considered to be a fairly accurate
historical account. Moreover as he was deeply affected by the city's unfair treatment of
Socrates much of Plato’s work is devoted to the problem of social and political injustice.
During the twelve years following the death of Socrates, Plato traveled extensively
throughout Italy, Sicily, Egypt, and Cyrene. During his travels, however, he did not merely
wander about in search of pleasure but rather engaged in a sustained and
comprehensive quest for knowledge.

After his return to Athens at the age of 40, Plato founded one of the earliest known
organized schools in Western civilization on a plot of land in the grove of Academe. The
“Academy,” as it was famously called, was a large, protected plot of land that was
supposedly named after either an Athenian citizen named Academus or else
some ancient Greek hero. The school operated until 529 C.E., which makes it the longest
running academic institution in the history of western civilization. Many intellectuals
were schooled in the Academy, the most prominent one being Plato’s pupil Aristotle.

Plato died around 348 B.C.E. at the age of 80 or 81.

Dialogue as a Philosophical Form

Although not the first Greek philosopher, Plato is arguably the most famous and
influential; the twentieth-century philosopher Alfred North Whitehead famously said that
the history of philosophy is merely a footnote to Plato.

One of the main reasons for Plato’s primacy is that in Plato we have the first collected
body of philosophical literature. Unlike Socrates, who did not write at all and unlike
the pre-Socratics whose writings are retained in fragmented form in Plato, there is a
body of work which scholars have pored over for centuries. Interestingly, however, unlike
Aristotle, Plato did not write in the form of philosophical treatises; rather he chose to
write in the dramatic form of dialogue. Although the specific dialogues differ in various
ways, in general they approach philosophical subjects through the conversation of
characters, who pose questions to one another. In most of the dialogues Socrates figures
as the protagonist and a number of interlocutors are defeated by his logical form of
questioning initially known as “elenchus” and later in the more sophisticated form called
“dialectic.”

Some scholars believe that the nature of the dialogues changed a great deal over the
course of Plato's life. According to this theory, works believed to date from earlier in
Plato's life are more closely based on Socrates' thought, whereas later writings
increasingly break away from the views of his former teacher. This theory holds that in
the so-called middle dialogues, Socrates becomes a mouthpiece for Plato's own
philosophy, and the question-and-answer style is more formal: the main figure
represents Plato and the minor characters have little to say except "yes," "of course" and
"very true," or "by Zeus, yes." The late dialogues, then, read more like treatises, and
Socrates is often absent or quiet. It is assumed by defenders of this theory that while
some of the early dialogues could be based on Socrates' actual conversations, the later
dialogues were written entirely by Plato. The question of which, if any, of the dialogues
are truly Socratic is known as the “Socratic problem.”

Given that he wrote in the artistic style of a dialogue means that to some extent Plato
can be considered a poet as much as a philosopher. This makes the reader’s
interpretation of Plato’s texts more ambiguous and problematic, for the form of dialogue
distances both Plato (as author) and the given reader from the ideas that are being
discussed in the text.

For this reason, scholars tend to read the dialogues in one of two ways. Some scholars
choose to participate in the dialogues by concentrating on the ideas
and arguments under discussion and in doing so ignore the “aesthetic” aspects, such as
the personalities of the different characters, the use of irony, and the specific contexts in
which the discussions take place. Other scholars, however, read the personalities, ironies,
and contexts as contributing to the philosophical meanings contained within the text as
well as Plato’s overall understanding of philosophical discourse. In doing this, the latter
often interpret Plato as putting unpopular opinions in the mouth of unsympathetic
characters (such as with Thrasymachus in the Republic). In this way, Plato lets his readers
observe and compare the conversations that Socrates has with different characters and
so ponder why some of these conversations are more fruitful than others.

Chronology

The exact order in which Plato's dialogues were written is not known, nor is the extent to
which some might have been later revised and rewritten. However, according to scholars
there is enough information internal to the dialogues to form a rough chronology,
although the exact criteria to determine this chronology are often disputed. In any case,
as mentioned above the dialogues are normally grouped into three fairly distinct
periods, with a few of them considered transitional works, and some just difficult to
place. So although the ordering is still highly disputed, the generally agreed upon
chronology is divided into early, middle, and late dialogues.

Early dialogues

Socrates figures in all of these dialogues, and they are generally considered to be the
most faithful representations of the historical Socrates; hence they are also called the
“Socratic dialogues.” Most of them consist of Socrates discussing a subject, often an
ethical one (such as friendship or piety) with a friend or with some presumed expert on
the subject. Through a series of pointed questions Socrates usually demonstrates his
interlocutor’s ignorance. These dialogues usually end inconclusively and so the reader is
left to figure out how much Socrates (or the reader) really understands. These dialogues
tend to be considered examples of Socrates’ method of "indirect teaching,” which allows
readers to come to answers themselves without being directly told. This period also
includes several pieces surrounding the trial and execution of Socrates. The dialogues
from this period are as follows:

 Apology
 Crito

 Charmides

 Laches

 Lysis

 Euthyphro

 Menexenus

 Lesser Hippias

 Ion

The following dialogues are variously considered transitional or middle period dialogues:

 Gorgias
 Protagoras

 Meno
Middle dialogues

Late in the early dialogues, Plato's Socrates actually begins supplying direct answers to
some of the questions he poses and so puts forth positive doctrines on the subject
under discussion. That is, he offers “hypotheses” or scientific regarding the various
subject matter. This is generally interpreted to be the first appearance of Plato's own
views. The perhaps most prominent idea offered in the middle dialogues is the idea that
knowledge derives from unchanging forms or essences (“Doctrine of Ideas”). Other
Platonic theories include the immortality of the soul, recollection, and specific doctrines
about justice, truth, and beauty. The Symposium and the Republic are considered to be
the centerpieces of Plato's middle period.

 Euthydemus
 Cratylus

 Phaedo

 Phaedrus

 Symposium

 Republic

 Theaetetus

 Parmenides

Late Dialogues

In the Parmenides Plato presents a series of criticisms of his “Doctrine of Ideas,” which
are often taken to indicate Plato's abandonment of this theory, though some scholars
have challenged this characterization. In most of the remaining dialogues, however, the
theory is either absent or at least appears under a different guise in discussions about
kinds or classes of things. In these later dialogues Socrates is either absent or a minor
figure in the discussion. An apparently new method for doing dialectic known as
"collection and division" is also featured, most notably in the Sophist and Statesman.

A basic description of collection and division would go as follows: interlocutors attempt

to discern the similarities and differences among things in order to get a clear idea
about what they in fact are. One understanding, suggested in some passages of
the Sophist is that this is what philosophy is always in the business of doing and is doing
even in the early dialogues. In the later dialogues, however, this way of doing philosophy
is made explicit while it was only implicit in the earlier dialogues.
  Sophist
 Statesman

 Philebus

 Timaeus

 Critias

 Laws

Philosophical Themes
Ethics and the Good

As mentioned above, the early dialogues of Plato are usually considered to reflect the
teachings of the historical figure Socrates. The greatest legacy of Socrates is perhaps his
ethical striving for the “good life.” For both Socrates and Plato, the ethical life was
inextricably connected to the intellectual life such that “the unexamined life is not worth
living.” Now for the ancient Greeks, ethics was not as much about the instruction
of moral rules as it was the cultivation of a “way of life” which involved both the
acquisition of virtues as well as the practice of reflection.

“Philosophy” involved both of these and only through the practice of both does one
attain the happy or good life. This close connection between knowledge and goodness
meant that “evil” was aligned with ignorance. This means that no one willing does evil,
but only what one thinks to be good (i.e., the apparent good).

The Socratic dialogues are devoted, then, to the questioning of what are individual
virtues (e.g., friendship, piety) as well as what is virtue itself. Whereas the early Socratic
dialogues raise significant ethical questions by refuting those who are often reputed to
be “wise” (such as the Sophists), these dialogues often end inclusively. Plato’s middle
dialogues, on the other hand, tend to offer hypotheses (or possible answers) to such
questions of what is justice (the Republic) or what is love (the Symposium).

Plato’s analyses of these ethical concepts are usually presented by first considering the
most popular or ordinary ways of thinking of these concepts and moves to higher more
metaphysical ways of considering them. In fact, some interpreters view Plato’s
philosophy as mystical such that the ethical or good life is essentially an ascent of the
human soul to the Good. Other scholars, however, claim this mystical element is “read
into” Plato texts (mainly by his followers, called the Neoplatonists). Instead these other
commentators insist that Plato be understood as a rationalist. In any case, the one
undeniable aspect that Plato shares with both his mentor Socrates and his
pupil Aristotle is the centrality of the good life and the human search for happiness
through the practice of philosophy.

Plato’s Psychology and the Integrated Soul

While pursuing the subject of justice in the Republic Plato examines the notion of the
human soul (book IV). Although in the hindsight of 2,500 years it is easy to view Plato’s
separation of the soul into three fundamental parts as being overly simplistic, in doing
so we often overlook both the groundbreaking work Plato was doing as well as the
complexity of his ideas when studied in the relation to the complete texts in which we
find these ideas. In any case, Plato divided the soul into three parts: the appetitive part,
the spirited or emotional part, and the intellectual part. The appetitive part seeks the
fulfillment of various bodily pleasures such as food, drink, sex, etc. The spirited or
emotional part seeks honor and dignity. Finally, the intellectual part
seeks truth and knowledge.

Although Plato is often thought of as a dualist who degrades the bodily desires in favor
of the higher, intellectual pleasures of learning, it is important to see that his
understanding of justice and the happiness of the human soul is directed at attaining a
certain harmony or integration of the different parts or powers of ourselves. So he did
not hold that we should “starve” the physical desires of our bodily appetites but merely
to control them in an intelligent and wise manner.

This means that the intellectual part or power must be in control, or otherwise our bodily
desires will wreak havoc in its reckless striving for its own fulfillment (Plato uses the
metaphor of a many-headed beast, which devours itself in self-consumption). But if our
bodily appetites are to be directed by the intellect in an intelligently ordered way it
requires the discipline of the spirited part to tame and to cultivate the bodily desires in
an appropriate way. The harmonious or rightly ordered soul, then, is one which practices
the virtues of each part. The virtue of the appetites is moderation; the virtue of the spirit
is courage; the virtue of the intellect is wisdom. Through these virtues the human soul
attains a certain concord or integrity, which Plato understood as the only real happiness
worthy of the name.

We should note, then, that Plato’s division into three parts was not intended to be
exhaustive but merely points to the need for a well-ordered integration of all the
different powers of our being in order to attain happiness. At the same time, however,
we can see the longstanding impact his analysis of soul has had on western civilization,
particularly in the Christian tradition where the soul is considered to be a tripartite
relation of mind, body, and spirit. Moreover, various modern psychologies continually
draw from Plato, such as Sigmund Freud’s theory of the ego, superego, and id. Finally, in
the Phaedo, Plato offers arguments for the immortality of the soul such that philosophy
is to be understood primarily as a preparation for death.

Metaphysics and epistemology

Theory of recollection

One of the most famous elements in Plato’s philosophy is his theory of recollection.
Although the exact nature of this theory is disputed, it is commonly held that Plato
believed that all our ideas are innate such that all learning is a remembering. As said
above, for Plato the soul is immortal. At birth, however, as the soul is cast into a body it
is thrown into a state of forgetfulness. Learning, then, is a process of reawakening to
what we already know in the depths of our souls but is nonetheless concealed to our
normal, everyday consciousness.

Plato often viewed the process of life as a moving from darkness or a state of sleep
toward the light and full wakefulness. Given this view Plato viewed teachers such as
Socrates to be not instructors who instill knowledge but rather as “midwives” whose job
is simply to help give birth to those ideas that are already within us. In the Meno, for
example, Plato presents Socrates at work with a slave-boy who initially thinks he knows
the answer to a geometry problem but is shown that he really is ignorant. Once shown
his own ignorance, however, the boy is “perplexed” and so is now ready to learn.
Socrates walks him through the problem by asking the boy questions and eventually the
boy arrives at the correct answer. Plato uses this example in order to demonstrate that
our ideas are already within us, for how else could the boy “recognize” the correct
answer. The example, though, hardly offers indisputable proof and so Plato’s theory of
recollection has been widely contested by later philosophers, notably Aristotle.

The Doctrine of Ideas

Detail of The School of Athens by Raphael (1509), showing Plato (pointing upwards, as if to the Form
of the Good) and Aristotle (holding his hand palm down to Earth, favoring material evidence).

Besides being devoted to Socrates, Plato was also deeply influenced by a number of
earlier philosophers, known today as the “Pre-Socratics.” This included Pythagoras and
Pythagoreans, whose notions of numerical harmony have clear echoes in Plato's notion
of the Ideas; Anaxagoras, who was Socrates’ teacher and who held that the mind or
reason pervades everything; Parmenides, who argued for the unity of all things and who
may have influenced Plato's concept of the soul; and Heraclitus, who held that fire is the
fundamental element of the universe and who also said that “all is in flux” or in a state of
becoming.

In regard to the theory of knowledge it was the attempt to find a “middle way” between
Parmenides’ notion that “all is one” and Heraclitus’ notion that everything is in
movement and so changing that led Plato to introduce his famous Doctrine of Ideas.
Plato recognized with Heraclitus that everything in the material world is constantly
changing. And yet, if we can acquire knowledge (and Plato thought we could),
something must be stable or permanent such that when we know “it” we know the truth.
For this reason Plato held that our “Ideas” were these stable and permanent entities that
did not change. To know or “see” these Ideas is to know the truth, the unchangeable.
Today, these ideas are often called “universals.”

Plato considered philosophical knowledge to be closely aligned with mathematics

because in math we achieve perfect knowledge (e.g., 2 + 2 = 4 and no other answer is
possible). A mathematical example, then, helps us to understand his Doctrine of Ideas.
For example, we can come to know the definition of a triangle: an enclosed three-sided
figure whose lines are perfectly straight and whose angles add up to exactly 180
degrees. Now any individual or particular triangle that we draw, no matter how fine our
technical instruments, will always be slightly flawed even if only by the smallest fraction
(e.g., the angles only add up to 179.99999 degrees). These particular or material
triangles, therefore, are imperfect. Moreover, since they were drawn in some material or
sensible form means they can be destroyed (by burning the paper, chalkboard, etc.)
What and where, then, is the perfect triangle? It must be an Idea, one that exists only in
the immaterial realm that our minds can participate in. The Idea of a triangle, which is
perfect, will never change. It is permanent, ideal, or eternal.

Plato applied this theory, in turn, to all living things. The Idea of a human being is
eternal, permanent and perfect (ideal), although we individual humans are mortal,
changing, and imperfect. We will die (at least physically for Plato), though the Idea will
not. The same holds for the Idea of dog or flower. All the individual human beings, dogs,
and flowers merely participate in the one, eternal Idea (of Human Being, Dog, Flower).

Plato’s theory of Ideas has led many scholars to consider his philosophy to be a
“metaphysical dualism” (which is sometimes referred to as a “Platonic or metaphysical
realism”) in that the Ideas are not merely abstract entities in our minds but ontological
realities that exist in some higher, eternal realm. And so, Plato's metaphysics seems to
divide reality into two distinct worlds: the intelligible world of Ideas, and the perceptual,
sensible, or physical world of the earthly realm. The sensible world consists of imperfect
copies of the intelligible Ideas. Again, these Ideas are unchangeable and perfect, and are
only accessible and comprehensible by the use of the intellect or understanding. In Plato
the intellect often seems to be equated with the soul so that essentially it does not
include sensible perception or the imagination.

In the Republic books VI and VII, Plato uses a number of metaphors or analogies to
explain (or at least suggest) his metaphysical view. They are: the Analogy of the Sun, the
Divided Line and the Allegory of the Cave. Taken together, these metaphors offer a
complex but suggestive metaphysical and epistemological theory whose exact meaning
significance, and relation scholars have debated for over two millennia. Let us look at
each one in turn.

Analogy of the Sun

In all of Plato’s analogies it is important to remember that he often uses metaphors from
the physical world in order to reflect a relation that is similar in the intellectual world. In
the analogy of the sun, then, he compares the medium of light that allows us to perceive
visible things as similar to the medium of understanding that allows us to perceive
intellectual things. In order to see a physical object, like a tree, the organ of our eyes
requires light to shine on the object we are seeing. Without the light we would see
nothing, but remain in darkness. The source of the light that enables us to see is the sun.
A similar relation holds in the intellectual world of our minds. In order to see an
intellectual object (an idea) it requires the light of understanding. We may, at first,
perceive an idea dimly. That is, we have a sense of what something means, but only
vaguely. Often only after working at it or thinking about it, do we come to grasp the
concept or idea in a precise and clear manner. That is, we understand it or “see” it for
ourselves. But what, then, is the source of this light of understanding? Plato calls it the
Good. The Good is comparable to the sun in being the source of all the Ideas and the
source of the light that illuminates them so we can see or understand them.

Analogy of the Divided Line

In the Analogy of the Divided Line, Plato again divides the physical and intellectual
worlds. In the center of the line there is a dividing mark which separates the two realms.
Two other lines are drawn which further separate each of those two realms. There are,
then, four distinct regions. On one side of the line Plato marks the human power that
functions at a certain level of perception; on the other side of the line he marks the kind
of object that is being perceived. So at the very bottom region there is the human power
of imagination which perceives objects that are likened to shadows. This region is
considered to be a kind of fantasy made possible by our power of dreaming. The objects
we perceive are not “real” but fabricated or devised by our own fancy. In the next region
we have the power of our senses through which we perceive actual physical objects
(physical trees, flowers, humans, etc). As we saw earlier these objects in being physical
are susceptible to change. For this reason, the “knowledge” we achieve of these sensible
things is merely opinion.

In the third region we have now passed from the sensible world to the intellectual world.
The power we use here is the faculty of thought in which we now question and think
about those things in the lower realm that we had merely perceived through our senses.
In asking questions we inquire into what a flower or a tree or a human being really is.
What is their nature or essence? In doing this, we begin to form hypotheses or possible
answers to what these things really are. But only by passing into the fourth level do we
arrive at knowledge in the full sense of the word. In this region we perceive through the
power of understanding and now see the Idea itself. The exact nature of this fourth
region is often debated about, but it would seem that for Plato in understanding the
mind grasps the Idea through a kind of immediate intuition, a flash of illuminating
recognition where we “see the truth.”

We grasp the Idea of flower, tree, or human being. This Analogy of the Divided Line,
then, suggests an ascending order in the degrees of knowing both in terms of the
human faculty that is being used in knowing and the object which is being known or
perceived. At the conclusion of the analogy Plato even suggests a highest order of
knowing which relates to the analogy of the sun. This highest level of knowing is the
direct perception of the source of light itself, that is, the Good.

Allegory of the Cave

Whereas the Analogy of the Divided Line is often criticized as being too static in its
divisions of knowledge, the Analogy of the Cave captures in a more dynamic manner the
idea of knowing as a passing through various stages. As with the Divided Line there are
four distinct stages, which ultimately culminates in the mind’s beholding the Good, but
in this analogy there is a more narrative structure, which suggests the journey of the soul
in its ascent to the Good.

The first stage depicts prisoners inside a cave whose bodies and necks are chained so
that they so are forced to stare at the wall before them. Behind their backs is a great,
blazing fire which casts light and before the fire are artifacts, which have been made in
the form of real things like trees, animals, and human beings. Shadows of the artifacts
appear like puppets on the wall and so from the prisoners’ perspectives these shadows
appear to be real things, for they are the only reality they know.

Stage two commences when one of the prisoners is suddenly freed from his chains and
so is able to turn his head around. At first the strength of the light of the fire blurs his
vision. Over time his eyes adjust, and so he begins to see the artifacts and the fire behind
them. This, then, appears to be reality.

Stage three begins when this prisoner is dragged along the path that winds up and out
of the cave. Eventually the prisoner arrives above ground and out into the world above.
He now beholds the daylight and his eyes are even more bedazzled. Again, it takes time
to adjust but when he does he sees the reflections of things (such as trees, animals, and
human beings) as they appear in the water of ponds.

After that he enters stage four where he can look directly at the things themselves, the
real trees, animals, and people. Finally, at the highest degree he looks up into the light
itself and sees the sun. In this way, the former prisoner is finally free from the illusions
below and is able to see things as they really are. In fact, he pities the prisoners below
who are still in the dark and so only see images and imitations of real things but not the
things themselves.

Having arrived at this enlightened state (of philosophy) the man wishes he could remain
above ground in contemplation of the light of truth. Having pity on those below who are
still imprisoned, however, he descends back down into the cave. It is so dark, though, his
eyes again need time to adjust and everything looks disoriented and unclear. Although
the returned philosopher tries to help the others see, he is not welcomed but ridiculed.
In fact, when he persists in revealing to them their illusions, he ultimately is killed. For the
people prefer to live in the darkness than to make the difficult ascent into the light
above ground.

Throughout these stages, then, we see how Plato conceives the process
of education and learning as an intellectual ascent from darkness into light. This ascent
involves transitioning into higher degrees of knowledge that ultimately is aimed at
beholding the Good itself. Moreover, we can see how the stages in the Allegory of the
Cave correlate with the divisions in the Divided Line. The shadows on the cave wall are
analogous to the shadows of the deluded images created by our imagination. The
artifacts are like the physical objects that are illuminated by the fire of the physical sun.
Making the ascent out of the cave and into the sunlight above is like moving from the
sensible world into the intellectual world of the mind.

Initially in asking questions we begin to think for ourselves and form pseudo-ideas of
possible answers in the form of scientific hypotheses. Eventually, though, if persistent, we
come to grasp the “real things,” so like the freed prisoner we now see in the light of day
the Ideas themselves. Finally in the decent of the philosopher back into the cave we see
Plato’s obvious allusion to Socrates as the enlightened one who in trying to open the
eyes of his fellow citizens is greeted with death.
Political philosophy

Plato's philosophical views had many societal implications, especially on the idea of an
ideal state or government. There is some discrepancy between his early and later views.
Some of the most famous doctrines are contained in the Republic during his middle
period. However, because Plato wrote dialogues, it is assumed that Socrates is often
speaking for Plato. This assumption may not be true in all cases.

Plato, through the words of Socrates, asserts that the ideal society would have a
tripartite class structure corresponding to the appetite/spirit/reason structure of the
individual soul.

 Productive (Workers) — the laborers, carpenters, plumbers, masons, merchants,

farmers, ranchers, etc. These correspond to the "appetite" part of the soul.
 Protective (Warriors or Auxiliaries) — those who are adventurous, strong and
brave; in the armed forces. These correspond to the "spirit" part of the soul.

 Governing (Rulers or Guardians) — those who are intelligent, rational, self-

controlled, in love with wisdom, well suited to make decisions for the community.
These correspond to the "reason" part of the soul and are very few.

According to this model, the principles of Athenian democracy (as it existed in his day)
are rejected as only a few are fit to rule. Instead of rhetoric and persuasion, Plato held
that reason and wisdom should govern. This does not equate to tyranny, despotism,
or oligarchy, however. As Plato puts it:

Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men
genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy
entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively
are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils,... nor, I think, will
the human race. (Republic 473c-d)

Plato describes these "philosopher kings" as "those who love the sight of truth"
(Republic 475c) and supports the idea with the analogy of a captain and his ship or a
doctor and his medicine. Sailing and health are not things that everyone is qualified to
practice by nature. A large part of the Republic then addresses how the educational
system should be set up to produce these philosopher kings.

However, it must be taken into account that the ideal city outlined in the Republic is
qualified by Socrates as the ideal luxurious city, examined to determine how it is that
injustice and justice grow in a city (Republic 372e). In addition, the ideal city is used as an
image to illuminate the state of one's soul, and how the desires, emotions, and reason
are combined in the human soul. Socrates is attempting to make an image of a rightly
ordered human, and then later goes on to describe the different kinds of humans that
can be observed, from tyrants to lovers of money in various kinds of cities. The
ideal city is not promoted, but only used to magnify the different kinds of individual
humans and the state of their soul.

According to Socrates, then, a state that is made up of different kinds of souls will
eventually decline from an aristocracy to a timocracy to an oligarchy to a democracy and
finally to tyranny. It is often thought that Plato is trying to warn us of the various kinds of
immoderate souls that can rule over a state, and what kind of wise souls are best to
advise and give counsel to the rulers that are often lovers of power, money, fame, and
popularity. In contrast, though, the philosopher king image has been used by many
political thinkers after Plato to justify an aristocratic system of rule.

Aristotle
Aristotle (Greek: Ἀριστοτέλης Aristotélēs) (384 B.C.E. – March 7, 322 B.C.E.) was a
Greek philosopher, a student of Plato, and teacher of Alexander the Great. He wrote on
diverse subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry (including theater), logic,
rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology. Along with Socrates and
Plato, he was among the most influential of the ancient Greek philosophers, as they
transformed Presocratic Greek philosophy into the foundations of Western philosophy
as it is known today. Most researchers credit Plato and Aristotle with founding two of the
most important schools of ancient philosophy, along with Stoicism and Epicureanism.

Aristotle's philosophy made a dramatic impact on both Western and Islamic philosophy.
The beginning of "modern" philosophy in the Western world is typically located at the
transition from medieval, Aristotelian philosophy to mechanistic, Cartesian philosophy in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Yet, even the new philosophy continued to put
debates in largely Aristotelian terms, or to wrestle with Aristotelian views. Today, there
are avowed Aristotelians in many areas of contemporary philosophy, including ethics
and metaphysics.

Given the volume of Aristotle's work, it is not possible to adequately summarize his
views in anything less than a book. This article focuses on the aspects of his views that
have been most influential in the history of philosophy.
Life
Aristotle was born in Stageira, Chalcidice, in 384 B.C.E. His father was Nicomachus, who
became physician to King Amyntas of Macedon. At about the age of eighteen, he went
to Athens to continue his education at Plato's Academy. Aristotle remained at the
academy for nearly twenty years, not leaving until after Plato's death in 347 B.C.E. He then
traveled with Xenocrates to the court of Hermias of Atarneus in Asia Minor. While in
Asia, Aristotle traveled with Theophrastus to the island of Lesbos, where together they
researched the botany and zoology of the island. Aristotle married Hermias' daughter (or
niece) Pythias. She bore him a daughter, whom they named Pythias. Soon after Hermias'
death, Aristotle was invited by Philip of Macedon to become tutor to Alexander the
Great.

After spending several years tutoring the young Alexander, Aristotle returned to Athens.
By 334 B.C.E., he established his own school there, known as the Lyceum. Aristotle
conducted courses at the school for the next eleven years. While in Athens, his wife
Pythias died, and Aristotle became involved with Herpyllis of Stageira, who bore him a
son that he named after his father, Nicomachus.

It is during this period that Aristotle is believed to have composed many of his works.
Aristotle wrote many dialogues, only fragments of which survived. The works that have
survived are in treatise form and were not, for the most part, intended for widespread
publication, and are generally thought to be mere lecture aids for his students.

Aristotle not only studied almost every subject possible at the time, but made significant
contributions to most of them. In physical science, Aristotle studied anatomy, astronomy,
economics, embryology, geography, geology, meteorology, physics, and zoology. In
philosophy, he wrote on aesthetics, ethics, government, logic, metaphysics, politics,
psychology, rhetoric, and theology. He also studied education, foreign customs,
literature, and poetry. Because his discussions typically begin with a consideration of
existing views, his combined works constitute a virtual encyclopedia of Greek knowledge.

Upon Alexander's death in 323 B.C.E., anti-Macedonian sentiment in Athens once again
flared. Having never made a secret of his Macedonian roots, Aristotle fled the city to his
mother's family estate in Chalcis, explaining, "I will not allow the Athenians to sin twice
against philosophy."[1] However, he died there of natural causes within the year.

Methodology
Plato (left) and Aristotle (right), a detail of The School of Athens, a fresco by Raphael. Aristotle
gestures to the earth, representing his belief in knowledge through empirical observation and
experience, while holding a copy of his Nicomachean Ethics in his hand, whilst Plato gestures to the
heavens, representing his belief in The Forms.

Both Plato and Aristotle regard philosophy as concerning universal truths. Roughly
speaking, however, Aristotle found the universal truths by considering particular things,
which he called the essence of things, while Plato finds that the universal exists apart
from particular things, and is related to them as their prototype or exemplar. For
Aristotle, therefore, philosophic method implies the ascent from the study of particular
phenomena to the knowledge of essences, while for Plato philosophic method means
the descent from a knowledge of universal ideas to a contemplation of particular
imitations of those ideas (compare the metaphor of the line in the Republic).

It is, therefore, unsurprising that Aristotle saw philosophy as encompassing many

disciplines which today are considered part of natural science (such as biology and
astronomy). Yet, Aristotle would have resisted the over-simplifying description of natural
science as based entirely in observation. After all, all data requires some interpretation,
and much of Aristotle's work attempts to provide a framework for interpretation.

Logic
Aristotle is, without question, the most important logician in history. He deserves this
title for two main reasons: (1) He was the first to consider the systematization of
inferences as a discipline in itself (it would not be an exaggeration to say that he
invented logic), and (2) his logical system was the dominant one for approximately 2000
years. Kant famously claimed that nothing significant had been added to logic since
Aristotle, and concluded that it was one of the few disciplines that was finished. The
work of mathematicians such as Boole and Frege in the nineteenth century showed that
Kant was wrong in his estimation, but even contemporary logicians hold Aristotle in high
regard.

Central to Aristotle's theory was the claim that all arguments could be reduced to a
simple form, called a "syllogism." A syllogism was a set of three statements, the third of
which (the conclusion) was necessarily true if the first two (the premises) were. Aristotle
thought that the basic statements were of one of four forms:

1. All X's are Y's

2. No X's are Y's
 3. Some X's are Y's

4. Some X's are not Y's

Aristotle's main insight, the insight that more or less began logic as a proper discipline,
was that whether an inference was successful could depend on purely formal features of
the argument. For instance, consider the following two arguments:

1. All cats are animals

2. All animals are made of cells

3. Therefore, all cats are made of cells

and:

1. All ducks are birds

2. All birds have feathers

3. Therefore, all ducks have feathers

The particular substantive words differ in these two arguments. Nevertheless, they have
something in common: a certain structure. On reflection, it becomes clear
that any argument with this structure will be one where the truth of the conclusion is
guaranteed by that of the premises.

Metaphysics
As with logic, Aristotle is the first to have treated metaphysics as a distinct discipline
(though, more than in the case of logic, other philosophers has discussed the same
specific issues). Indeed, the very word "metaphysics" stems from the ordering of
Aristotle's writing (it was the book prior to his Physics).

Causality

Aristotle distinguishes four types of cause: Material, formal, efficient, and final. His notion
of efficient causation is closest to our contemporary notion of causation. To avoid
confusion, it is helpful to think of the division as one of different types of explanations of
a thing's being what it is.

The material cause is that from which a thing comes into existence as from its parts,
constituents, substratum or materials. This reduces the explanation of causes to the parts
(factors, elements, constituents, ingredients) forming the whole (system, structure,
compound, complex, composite, or combination), a relationship known as the part-
whole causation. An example of a material cause would be the marble in a carved statue,
or the organs of an animal.

The formal cause argues what a thing is, that any thing is determined by the definition,
form, pattern, essence, whole, synthesis, or archetype. It embraces the account of causes
in terms of fundamental principles or general laws, as the whole (that is, macrostructure)
is the cause of its parts, a relationship known as the whole-part causation. An example of
a formal cause might be the shape of the carved statue, a shape that other particular
statues could also take, or the arrangement of organs in an animal.

The efficient (or "moving") cause is what we might today most naturally describe as the
cause: the agent or force that brought about the thing, with its particular matter and
form. This cause might be either internal to the thing, or external to it. An example of an
efficient cause might be the artist who carved the statue, or the animal's own ability to
grow.

The final cause is that for the sake of which a thing exists or is done, including both
purposeful and instrumental actions and activities. The final cause, or telos, is the
purpose or end that something is supposed to serve, or it is that from which and that to
which the change is. This also covers modern ideas of mental causation involving such
psychological causes as volition, need, motivation, or motives, rational, irrational, ethical,
all that gives purpose to behavior. The best examples of final causes are the functions of
animals or organs: for instance, the final cause of an eye is sight (teleology).

Additionally, things can be causes of one another, causing each other reciprocally, as
hard work causes fitness and vice versa, although not in the same way or function, the
one is as the beginning of change, the other as the goal. (Thus, Aristotle first suggested
a reciprocal or circular causality as a relation of mutual dependence or influence of cause
upon effect.) Moreover, Aristotle indicated that the same thing can be the cause of
contrary effects; its presence and absence may result in different outcomes. For example,
a certain food may be the cause of health in one person, and sickness in another.

Substance, matter, and form

Aristotelian metaphysics discusses particular objects using two related distinctions. The
first distinction is that between substances and "accidents" (the latter being "what is said
of" a thing). For instance, a cat is a substance, and one can say of a cat that it is gray, or
small. But the greyness or smallness of the cat belong to a different category of being—
they are features of the cat. They are, in some sense, dependent for their existence on
the cat.

Aristotle also sees entities as constituted by a certain combination of matter and form.
This is a distinction which can be made at many levels. A cat, for instance, has a set of
organs (heart, skin, bones, and so on) as its matter, and these are arranged into a certain
form. Yet, each of these organs in turn has a certain matter and form, the matter being
the flesh or tissues, and the form being their arrangement. Such distinctions continue all
the way down to the most basic elements.

Aristotle sometimes speaks as though substance is to be identified with the matter of

particular objects, but more often describes substances as individuals composed of some
matter and form. He also appears to have thought that biological organisms were the
paradigm cases of substances.

Universals and particulars

Aristotle's predecessor, Plato, argued that all sensible objects are related to some
universal entity, or "form." For instance, when people recognize some particular book for
what it is, they consider it as an instance of a general type (books in general). This is a
fundamental feature of human experience, and Plato was deeply impressed by it. People
don't encounter general things in their normal experience, only particular things—so
how could people have experience of particulars as being of some universal type?

Plato's answer was that these forms are separate and more fundamental parts of reality,
existing "outside" the realm of sensible objects. He claimed (perhaps most famously in
the Phaedo) that people must have encountered these forms prior to their birth into the
sensible realm. The objects people normally experience are compared (in the Republic)
with shadows of the forms. Whatever else this means, it shows that Plato thought that
the forms were ontologically more basic than particular objects. Because of this, he
thought that forms could exist even if there were no particular objects that were related
to that form. Or, to put the point more technically, Plato believed that some universals
were "uninstantiated."

Aristotle disagreed with Plato on this point, arguing that all universals are instantiated. In
other words, there are no universals that are unattached to existing things. According to
Aristotle, if a universal exists, either as a particular or a relation, then there must have
been, must be currently, or must be in the future, something on which the universal can
be predicated.
In addition, Aristotle disagreed with Plato about the location of universals. As Plato
spoke of a separate world of the forms, a location where all universal forms subsist,
Aristotle maintained that universals exist within each thing on which each universal is
predicated. So, according to Aristotle, the form of apple exists within each apple, rather
than in the world of the forms. His view seems to have been that the most fundamental
level of reality is just what people naturally take it to be: The particular objects people
encounter in everyday experience. Moreover, the main way of becoming informed about
the nature of reality is through sensory experience.

The basic contrast described here is one that echoed throughout the history of Western
philosophy, often described as the contrast between rationalism and empiricism.

The five elements

Aristotle, developing one of the main topics of the Presocratics, believed that the world
was built up of five basic elements. The building up consisted in the combining of the
elements into various forms. The elements were:

 Fire, which is hot and dry

 Earth, which is cold and dry

 Air, which is hot and wet

 Water, which is cold and wet

 Aether, which is the divine substance that makes up the heavenly spheres and
heavenly bodies (stars and planets)

Each of the four earthly elements has its natural place; the earth at the center of the
universe, then water, then air, then fire. When they are out of their natural place they
have natural motion, requiring no external cause, which is towards that place; so bodies
sink in water, air bubbles up, rain falls, flame rises in air. The heavenly element has
perpetual circular motion.

This view was key to Aristotle's explanation of celestial motion and of gravity. It is often
given as a paradigm of teleological explanation, and became the dominant scientific
view in Europe at the end of the middle ages.

Philosophy of mind
Aristotle's major discussion of the nature of the mind appears in De Anima. His concern
is with the "principle of motion" of living entities. He distinguishes three types of soul:

1. Nutritive
2. Sensory

3. Thinking

All plants and animals are capable of absorbing nutrition, so Aristotle held that they all
have a nutritive soul. Yet, not all are capable of perceiving their surroundings. Aristotle
thought this was indicated by a lack of movement, holding that stationary animals
cannot perceive. He, therefore, concluded that the presence of this type of soul was what
distinguished plants from animals. Finally, Aristotle held that what was distinctive of
humans is their ability to think, and held that this requires yet another principle of
motion, the thinking soul.

Most of Aristotle's discussion of the soul is "naturalistic"—that is, it appears to only

describe entities whose existence is already countenanced in the natural sciences
(primarily, physics). This is especially brought out by his claim that the soul seems to be
the form of the organism. Because of this, some contemporary advocates of
functionalism in the philosophy of mind (just as Hilary Putnam) have cited Aristotle as a
predecessor.

In the De Anima discussion, however, there are places where Aristotle seems to suggest
that the rational soul requires something beyond the body. His remarks are very
condensed, and so incredibly difficult to interpret, but these few remarks were the focus
of Christian commentators who attempted to reconcile Aristotelian philosophy with
Christian doctrine.

Practical philosophy
Ethics

Aristotle's main treatise on ethics is the Nichomachean Ethics, in which he gives the first
systematic articulation of what is now called virtue ethics. Aristotle considered ethics to
be a practical science, that is, one mastered by doing rather than merely reasoning. This
stood in sharp contrast to the views of Plato. Plato held that knowledge of the good was
accomplished through contemplation, much in the way in which mathematical
understanding is achieved through pure thought.
By contrast, Aristotle noted that knowing what the virtuous thing to do was, in any
particular instance, was a matter of evaluating the many particular factors involved.
Because of this, he insisted, it is not possible to formulate some non-trivial rule that,
when followed, will always lead the virtuous activity. Instead, a truly virtuous person is
one who, through habituation, has developed a non-codifiable ability to judge the
situation and act accordingly.

This view ties in with what is perhaps Aristotle's best-known contribution to ethical
theory: The so-called "doctrine of the mean." He held that all the virtues were a matter of
a balance between two extremes. For instance, courage is a state of character in between
cowardice and brashness. Likewise, temperance is a state of character in between
dullness and hot-headedness. Exactly where in between the two extremes the virtuous
state lies is something that cannot be stated in any abstract formulation.

Also significant here is Aristotle's view (one also held by Plato) that the virtues are inter-
dependent. For instance, Aristotle held that it is not possible to be courageous if one is
completely unjust. Yet, such interrelations are also too complex to be meaningfully
captured in any simple rule.

Aristotle taught that virtue has to do with the proper function of a thing. An eye is only a
good eye in so much as it can see, because the proper function of an eye is sight.
Aristotle reasoned that humans must have a function that sets them apart from other
animals, and that this function must be an activity of the soul, in particular, its rational
part. This function essentially involves activity, and performing the function well is what
constitutes human happiness.

Politics

Did you know?

Aristotle believed that human nature is inherently political since individuals cannot
achieve happiness without forming states (political bodies) because the individual in
isolation is not self-sufficient

Aristotle is famous for his statement that "man is by nature a political animal." He held
that happiness involves self-sufficiency and that individual people are not self-sufficient,
so the desire for happiness necessarily leads people to form political bodies. This view
stands in contrast to views of politics that hold that the formation of the state or city-
state is somehow a deviation from more natural tendencies.

Like Plato, Aristotle believed that the ideal state would involve a ruling class. Whereas
Plato believed that the philosophers should rule, Aristotle held that the rulers should be
all those capable of virtue. Unfortunately, Aristotle believed that this was a fairly
restricted group, for he held that neither women, slaves, nor labor-class citizens were
capable of becoming virtuous.

For Aristotle, this ideal state would be one which would allow the greatest habituation of
virtue and the greatest amount of the activity of contemplation, for just these things
amount to human happiness (as he had argued in his ethical works).

The loss of his works

Though Aristotle wrote many elegant treatises and dialogues (Cicero described his
literary style as "a river of gold"), [2] the vast majority of his writings are now lost, while the
literary character of those that remain is disputed. Aristotle's works were lost and
rediscovered several times, and it is believed that only about one fifth of his original
works have survived through the time of the Roman Empire.

After the Roman period, what remained of Aristotle's works were by and large lost to the
West. They were preserved in the East by various Muslim scholars and philosophers,
many of whom wrote extensive commentaries on his works. Aristotle lay at the
foundation of the falsafa movement in Islamic philosophy, stimulating the thought of Al-
Farabi, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, and others.

As the influence of the falsafa grew in the West, in part due to Gerard of Cremona's
translations and the spread of Averroism, the demand for Aristotle's works grew. William
of Moerbeke translated a number of them into Latin. When Thomas Aquinas wrote his
theology, working from Moerbeke's translations, the demand for Aristotle's writings
grew and the Greek manuscripts returned to the West, stimulating a revival of
Aristotelianism in Europe.

Legacy
It is the opinion of many that Aristotle's system of thought remains the most marvelous
and influential one ever put together by any single mind. According to historian Will
Durant, no other philosopher has contributed so much to the enlightenment of the
world.[3] He single-handedly began the systematic treatment of Logic, Biology,
and Psychology.

Aristotle is referred to as "The Philosopher" by Scholastic thinkers like Thomas

Aquinas (for instance, Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 3). These thinkers
blended Aristotelian philosophy with Christianity, bringing the thought of Ancient
Greece into the Middle Ages.

Nearly all the major philosophers in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries
felt impelled to address Aristotle's works. The French philosopher Descartes cast his
philosophy (in the Meditations of 1641) in terms of moving away from the senses as a
basis for a scientific understanding of the world. The great Jewish
philosopher Spinoza argued in his Ethics directly against the Aristotlean method of
understanding the operations of nature in terms of final causes. Leibniz often described
his own philosophy as an attempt to bring together the insights of Plato and
Aristotle. Kant adopted Aristotle's use of the form/matter distinction in describing the
nature of representations—for instance, in describing space and time as "forms" of
intuition.

HELLENIC SCHOOLS

Cynics

The Cynics were an influential school of ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. They
adopted ideas of Socrates, contributed significantly to the Stoic system of ethics, and
established a tradition of challenging established beliefs in order to discover truth. They
rejected the social values of their time, often flouting conventions in shocking ways to
prove their point.

Cynics were known for their ascetic lifestyle, having no possessions except a cloak, staff
and wallet. They lived by the precept that virtue is the only good, and emphasized the
value of physical activity and hard work in attaining it. Important Cynics
include Antisthenes, Diogenes of Sinope, and Crates of Thebes.

History
The earliest Cynic, according to Diogenes Laertius, was Antisthenes (c. 444-365 B.C.E.),
who, he says, “was the original cause of the apathy of Diogenes, and the temperance
of Crates, and the patience of Zeno, having himself, as it were, laid the foundations of
the city which they afterwards built.” A pupil of Socrates, Antisthenes took the precept
that “virtue is the only good,” and the concept of indifference to pain or pleasure, and
set about to discover how virtue could be attained through exercise of reason and self-
discipline. Attaching more importance to the condition of the soul than that of the
physical body, he established an ascetic lifestyle, considering material possessions and
luxuries to be impediments to the freedom of human will.

The name “Cynic” is thought to be derived either from the gymnasium in Athens called
Cynosarges, used by non-Athenian citizens for the worship of Heracles, where
Antisthenes, and later Diogenes, gave lectures; or from the Greek word for a dog (kuon),
in contemptuous allusion to the uncouth and aggressive manners adopted by the
members of the school.

Diogenes of Sinope (404-323 B.C.E.), a follower of Antisthenes, was even more

unconventional, flouting social mores, and using abrasive repartee to challenge the self-
importance of other philosophers. He lived an extremely ascetic life, sleeping in a tub
and carrying only a wallet and staff. He ate and drank in markets and public places, and
developed the practice of shamelessness. His student, Crates (365-285 B.C.E.) was the
teacher of Zeno of Citium, who became founder of the Stoic school. Crates and his wife
Hipparchia, the first known female Cynic, set a public example by appearing everywhere
together and raising their family as ascetics.

Cynicism faded in popularity as Stoicism took hold, partly because of its impracticality
and because it did not offer solutions to many of the problems of philosophy. A
modified form of Cynicism experienced a resurgence in Rome during the first and
second centuries C.E. Roman Cynics included Oenomaus, and Demetrius and Demonax,
praised in the works of Seneca and Lucian. In addition, their extreme lifestyle and their
inclination to harshly question everything made Cynics the subject of humor in many
literary and dramatic works.

Thought and Works

None of the original works of the Cynics have survived, although Diogenes Laertes
makes reference to books and letters written by Antisthenes, Crates and Hipparchia. Our
understanding of Cynic thought and ethics comes from the quotes attributed to them
and anecdotes related by later writers, whose stories may have been colored by
exaggeration. An important source is Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers,
which includes biographies of all the early Cynics.

The Cynics drew many of their precepts from Socrates, but carried them to extreme
conclusions. The most important tenet, “Virtue is the only good, all else is vice,” was the
basis for all aspects of Cynic thought. Virtue was a life lived in accordance with natural
order, guided by reason and characterized by self-sufficiency and strength. Human will,
when exercised in freedom, sought only virtue. Material possessions, luxuries, fame and
power were regarded as impediments to freedom. A life of asceticism (askesis) and hard
work was necessary to train the body to follow reason. Self-sufficiency was achieved by
reducing the necessities of life to the bare minimum; Cynics were known for walking
about with only a worn cloak, a staff and a wallet.

Freedom was considered to have three aspects, personal freedom (eleutheria) (the
freedom to act in pursuit of virtue); self-sufficiency (autarkeia) (freedom from social and
financial obligations); and freedom of speech (parrhēsia)(freedom to speak frankly). A
person who was not dependent on society was free to speak out in criticism of it. They
coined the term kosmopolites, or citizen of the cosmos, to counter the great importance
attached at the time to Athenian citizenship and to emphasize that they were instead
citizens of the greater natural world.

Cynics ceaselessly questioned existing conventions and ideas in order to discover what
was really true. They held that moral law took precedence over civil law, and rejected any
law or custom that did not advance virtue. They practiced shamelessness, saying that
anything virtuous enough to do in private was virtuous enough to be done in public.
Rhetoric and dialogue were used to expose the weaknesses of philosophical
propositions, and coarse repartee to expose the personal weaknesses of their
acquaintances. The Cynic intention in tearing down old ideas was to allow better ones to
appear in their place.

The Cynics placed importance on actions rather than words. They rejected
the metaphysical and the theoretical, and focused on ethics and the practical application
of their ideas. They conceived a life of asceticism as the shortest path to virtue, but
understood that their way was difficult for most people to follow. Their methods resulted
in pronounced individualism and isolation from the mainstream of society.

Cynics were nominalists; they believed the only reality was that which could be
experienced by the senses. Ideas did not exist outside of the mind that thought them.
The modern term “cynic” denotes someone who has a consistent skeptical attitude
towards everything, and who criticizes without offering a better solution. This was untrue
of the original Cynics, who attacked the values of their Greek society and government in
order to establish values that were more in accordance with virtue.

The greatest Cynic legacy is the ethics that they bequeathed to Stoicism. The Cynics
firmly established the responsibility of each individual to live a moral life, and the
importance of self-discipline and indifference to pleasure or pain in the pursuit of virtue.
They also established a tradition of questioning the validity of every assumption until
proof can be found, a practice which has continued to advance modern philosophy and
science. Crates, the third major proponent of Cynicism, is credited with teaching Zeno of
Citium, who later founded the Stoic school.

The extreme ascetic lifestyle and abrasive manner of the early Cynics became material
for many anecdotes and humorous references in the literature and drama of the
succeeding centuries. There are numerous references to Cynicism in the writings of later
philosophers. Early Christians admired the mendicant lifestyle and self-discipline of the
Cynics, though not their freedom of expression.

Epicureanism
Jump to:navigation, search
Previous (Epictetus)
Next (Epicurus)

Epicureanism is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of Epicurus (c. 340–c.
270 B.C.E.), and was one of the most popular schools of Hellenistic philosophy (together
with Platonism and Stoicism). It was founded around 307 B.C.E., when Epicurus began to
teach. He proposed that the ultimate goal of human life was happiness, and that the
greatest good was to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquility
and freedom from fear through knowledge ("ataraxia") as well as absence
of pain ("aponia"). He also encouraged the study of science as a way to overcome fear
and ignorance and thus achieve mental calmness. Epicurus developed
a naturalist explanation of existence, combined with a system of ethics meant to guide
society towards peace and tranquility. He put forth
an atomist ontology, empiricist epistemology, and humanistic ethics.

Epicurus set up several communities that tried to lead a philosophical life according to
his ethics. Epicureans grasped that sensuous pleasure is an important constituent of
human happiness, but only when it is integrated with spiritual and ethical aspects, since
all human experiences are essentially holistic spiritual-physical experiences. Although the
modern terms “epicure” and “epicurean” imply self-indulgent hedonism, Epicurus
advocated moderation and pointed out that over-indulgence of any kind results in pain
and therefore should be avoided.
Epicureanism remained popular for several centuries but never entered the mainstream
of philosophical thought. One reason is that it was opposed by conservatives and later
was suppressed by the Christian faith. Much later, some of its teachings would play a
role in the Renaissance and influence modern thinkers, particularly in the areas of
civic justice and the study of physics.

Epicureanism has contributed to modern thought in several important ways. One of

these was the theory of “atomism” which was used by early physicists and chemists as
they began to work out modern atomic theory. Epicureanism played a role in
establishing the value of the individual when humanism arose as a backlash to religious
authoritarianism. Another contribution was the idea that it is inherent in human nature
to pursue happiness, and that an ethical society should allow every one of its members
that opportunity. This idea was expanded on during the French Revolution and by
thinkers like John Locke. The "pursuit of happiness" was incorporated into the United
States Declaration of Independence as an inalienable right.

Epicurean ethics continue to appeal. An ethical system based on maximizing "pleasure,"

similar to the tenet of utilitarianism, seems to transcend barriers of culture, faith and
language at a time when the world is becoming a global community.

The School
Epicurus set up his first Epicurean community in Mytilene, where he met Hermarchus, his
first disciple and later his successor as head of the Athenian school. Threatened with
imprisonment because of a dispute with a local official, he moved to Lampsacus, where
he met Metrodorus and Polyaenus, Metrodorus’ brother Timocrates, Leonteus and his
wife Themista, the satirist Colotes, and Metrodorus’ sister Batis and her husband
Idomeneus, and set up a second community. In the archonship of Anaxicrates (307 B.C.E. -
306 B.C.E.), he returned to Athens where he formed The Garden (Ho Kepus), a school
named for the house and garden he owned about halfway between the Stoa and the
Academy that served as the school's meeting place. An inscription on the gate to the
garden is recorded by Seneca in his Epistle XXI: “Stranger, here you will do well to tarry;
here our highest good is pleasure.” Unlike the other Athenian schools
of Plato and Aristotle, Epicurus’ school admitted women and slaves. These communities
set out to live the ideal Epicurean lifestyle, detaching themselves from political society,
and devoting themselves to philosophical discourse and the cultivation of friendship.
The letters, which members of these communities wrote to each other, were collected by
later Epicureans and studied as a model of the philosophical life.
The Tetrapharmacon, preserved by Philodemus, sums up the teachings of Epicurus: “The
gods are not to be feared. Death is not a thing one must fear. Good is easy to obtain.
Evil is easy to tolerate.”

In his will Epicurus left the house and garden and some funds to the trustees of the
school, and upon his death, Hemarchus became his successor. Polystratus, who was the
last surviving member of the school to have personally known Epicurus, followed him.
The Garden continued to exist in some form for several centuries, until all four Athenian
schools were closed by the Emperor Justinian in 529 C.E.

Writings
Epicurus’ writing was said to fill 300 rolls, and at least 42 of his works, including the 37
books of On Nature, were circulated at the time, as well as 12 books by Metrodorus and
four by Polyaenus. Only fragments of Epicurus’s prolific manuscripts remain, including
three epitomes (Letter to Herodotus on physics, Letter to Pythocles on astronomy, and
the Letter to Menoeceus on ethics); a group of forty maxims, mostly on ethics; and
papyrus fragments of his masterwork, On Nature. Many of the details of Epicurean
philosophy come to us from doxographers—secondary sources and the writings of later
followers. In Rome, Titus Lucretius Carus (99 or 94-55 B.C.E.) was the school's greatest
proponent, composing On the Nature of Things, an epic poem, in six books, designed to
recruit new members, which offers detailed instruction on several Epicurean theories,
including atomism, infinity, mortality, fear of death, fear of the gods, and sensation and
the torments of desire. Epicureanism came under attack from Cicero, whose critiques of
Epicurean arguments actually served to preserve them for posterity. An ancient source is
Diogenes of Oenoanda (c. 2 C.E.) who composed a large inscription in stone at Oenoanda
in Lycia.

A library, dubbed the Villa of the Papyri, in Herculaneum, owned by Julius Caesar's
father-in-law, Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, was preserved by the eruption of
Vesuvius in 79 C.E., and was found to contain a large number of works by Philodemus, a
late Hellenistic Epicurean, and Epicurus himself, attesting to the school's enduring
popularity more than 300 years after his death. The task of unrolling and deciphering the
charred papyrus scrolls, begun in the 1700s, continues today.

Epicureanism in Greek and Roman periods

Epicureanism grew in popularity and it became, along with Stoicism and Skepticism, one
of the three dominant schools of Hellenistic philosophy, maintaining a strong following
until the late Roman Empire. It never entered the mainstream of ancient political life,
partly because it was highly critical of everything that did not advance the “greater
good” according to Epicureanism. However it continued to be an important influence for
several centuries.

Epicureans of the second century B.C.E. include Demetrius of Lacon, and Apollodorus,
who wrote 400 books. His disciple, Zeno of Sidon, also wrote prolifically and was heard
by Cicero in Athens in 79 B.C.E. Phaedrus, another of Cicero’s teachers, was in Rome in
90 B.C.E., and Patro was head of the school until 51 B.C.E.

Surviving fragments of a first century B.C.E. treatise, On Signs, by Philodemus, show that
there were sophisticated debates on induction between Epicureans and Stoics. The first
person to write about Epicureanism in Latin was Amafinius. Titus Lucretius Carus
wrote On the Nature of Things during the first century B.C.E. Epicureanism and became
well established in Italy in the first century C.E., under the patronage of Roman aristocrats.
After the assassination of Julius Caesar, Epicureanism became unpopular among the
Roman governmental elite, but flourished in other parts of the Roman Empire, such
as Turkey, where in the second century C.E., Diogenes of Oenoanda carved Epicurean
texts on a stone wall. Fragments of a polemic against the Stoic Chrysippus by
Diogenianus, another Epicurean of the second century C.E., are found in The History of the
Church by Eusebius (263-339 C.E.).

Epicurus' theory that the gods were unconcerned with human affairs had always clashed
strongly with the Judeo-Christian concept of a monotheistic God, and the philosophies
were essentially irreconcilable. In Talmudic literature, the word for a heretic is
"Apikouros." Epicureanism was routinely attacked in Christian texts of the mid-second
century C.E. Lactantius criticizes Epicurus at several points throughout his Divine Institutes.
After the Emperor Constantine declared Christianity an official religion of the Roman
Empire in the third century C.E., Epicureanism was suppressed. For several centuries the
only fragments of Epicureanism to be remembered in Europe were those that the church
chose to preserve.

Epicureanism Since Modern Times

In the fifteenth century, intellectuals began to take an interest in the Greek and Roman
classics, and Italian humanists began circulating translations of classical works. In 1414,
Poggio Bracciolini rediscovered Lucretius’ epic, On the Nature of Things, in
a German monastery and sent a copy to Italy. It was published in 1473, after the
invention of the printing press.
Epicureanism was revived as a philosophical thought system in the seventeenth century
by Pierre Gassendi, who constructed a neo-Epicurean atomism to challenge Descartes’
theories. Gassendi’s works influenced several English intellectuals, including John
Locke, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle and Robert Hooke. Epicurean ideas helped lay the
foundations for the theory of modern physics, chemistry and astronomy, and
contributed to classical liberalism in political theory and atomistic empiricism in
philosophy. Newton included 90 lines from On the Nature of Things in his writings on the
concept of inertia. The transition, during the Period of Enlightenment, from superstition,
alchemy, and political and religious authoritarianism to modern science and
physics, religious freedom and democracy, owes a great deal to the teachings of
Epicurus.

Epicurus was one of the first thinkers to develop the notion of justice as a social contract.
He defined justice as an agreement "neither to harm nor be harmed." The point of living
in a society with laws and punishments is to be protected from harm so that one is free
to pursue happiness. Because of this, laws that do not help contribute to promoting
human happiness are not just. This was later picked up by the democratic thinkers of
the French Revolution, and others, like John Locke, who wrote that people had a right to
"life, liberty, and property." To Locke, one's own body was part of their property, and
thus one's right to property would theoretically guarantee safety for their persons, as
well as their possessions. This triad was carried forward into the American freedom
movement and Declaration of Independence by American founding father Thomas
Jefferson as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson was an avowed
Epicurean in his later years, and set out his views in his Letter to William Short.

Karl Marx's doctoral thesis was on "The Difference Between the Democritean and
Epicurean Philosophy of Nature." Epicurus was also a significant source of inspiration
and interest for Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche cites his affinities to Epicurus in a number
of his works, including The Gay Science, Beyond Good and Evil, and his private letters to
Peter Gast.

Epicurus' doctrines continue to have a general appeal to modern intellectuals, as

evidenced by a recent revival of Epicurean-oriented individualism in political and
philosophical thought, as well as in pop culture. Jeremy Bentham and others
developed utilitarianist ethical theory based upon the idea of maximizing pleasure. We
can see conceptual affinity between Epicureanism and utilitarianism, one of the most
popular ethics today.
Hedonism
Hedonism (Greek: hēdonē (ᾑδονή from Ancient Greek) "pleasure" +–ism) is a
philosophical position that takes the pursuit of pleasure as the primary motivating
element of life, based upon a view that "pleasure is good." The concept of pleasure is,
however, understood and approached in a variety of ways, and hedonism is classified
accordingly.

The three basic types of philosophical hedonism are psychological hedonism, which
holds that the tendency to seek pleasure and avoid pain is an essential attribute of
human nature; evaluative or ethical hedonism, which sets up certain ethical or moral
ends as desirable because attaining them will result in happiness; and reflective,
or normative hedonism, which seeks to define value in terms of pleasure. The ancient
Greek philosophers Democritus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus (341 – 270 B.C.E.) and
their followers developed ethical theories centered on the “good life” (the ideal life, the
life most worth living, eudaimonia, happiness) and the role of pleasure of achieving it.
During the Middle Ages, hedonism was rejected as incompatible with Christian ideals,
but Renaissance philosophers revived it on the grounds that God intended man to be
happy. Nineteenth-century British philosophers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy
Bentham established the ethical theory of Utilitarianism with a hedonistic orientation,
holding that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest amount of
happiness for the greatest number of people.

Concepts of Hedonism
There are many philosophical forms of hedonism, but they can be distinguished into
three basic types: psychological hedonism; evaluative, or ethical hedonism;
and reflective, or rationalizing hedonism. Psychological hedonism holds that it is an
essential aspect of human nature to seek pleasure and avoid pain; human beings cannot
act in any other way. A human being will always act in a way that, to his understanding,
will produce what he perceives as the greatest pleasure, or protect him from undesirable
pain. Psychological hedonism is either based on observation of human behavior, or
necessitated by a definition of “desire.” Psychological hedonism is often a form of
egoism, preoccupied with pleasure of the individual subject, but it can also be concerned
with the pleasure of society or humanity as a whole. Altruistic versions of psychological
hedonism involve deep-seated convictions, cultural or religious beliefs which motivate a
person to act for the benefit of family or society, or the expectation of an afterlife.
Problems of psychological hedonism include the definitions of desire and pleasure. Is
desire tied to the satisfaction of physical sensations or does it extend to mental and
rational conceptions of pleasure? Are all positive experiences, even minor and mundane
ones, psychological motivations?

Evaluative hedonism is an attempt to set up certain ends or goals as desirable, and to

persuade others that these goals ought to be pursued, and that achieving them will
result in pleasure. Evaluative hedonism is sometimes used to support or justify an
existing system of moral values. Many altruistic and utilitarian moral systems are of this
type, because they encourage the individual to sacrifice or restrict immediate sensual
gratification in favor of a more rational gratification, such as the satisfaction of serving
others, or the maintenance of an egalitarian society where every individual receives
certain benefits. Evaluative hedonism raises the problem of deciding exactly what ends
are desirable, and why.

Reflective, normative, or rationalizing hedonism, seeks to define value in terms of

pleasure. Even the most complex human pursuits are attributed to the desire to
maximize pleasure, and it is that desire which makes them rational. Objections to
determining value based on pleasure include the fact that there is no common state or
property found in all experiences of pleasure, which could be used to establish an
objective measurement. Not all experiences of pleasure could be considered valuable,
particularly if they arise from criminal activity or weakness of character, or cause harm to
others. Another objection is that there are many other types of valuable experiences
besides the immediate experience of pleasure, such as being a good parent, creating a
work of art or choosing to act with integrity, which, though they could be said to
produce some kind of altruistic pleasure, are very difficult to categorize and quantify.
Normative hedonism determines value solely according to the pleasure experienced,
without regard for the future pleasure or pain resulting from a particular action.

Ancient Hedonism
Among the ancient Greek philosophers, discussion of ethical theory often centered on
the “good life” (the ideal life, the life most worth living, eudaimonia, happiness) and the
role of pleasure of achieving it. Various expressions of the concept that “pleasure is the
good” were developed by philosophers such as Democritus,
Aristippus, Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus and their followers, and vigorously disagreed
with by their opponents. Aristippus (fifth century B.C.E.) and the Cyrenaic school
maintained that the greatest good was the pleasure of the moment and advocated a life
of sensual pleasure, on the grounds that all living creatures pursue pleasure and avoid
pain. This position reflected a skepticism that only the sensations of the moment could
be known, and that concern with the past or the future only caused uncertainty and
anxiety and should be avoided.

Ancient Greeks looked to the natural world and agreed that every organism was
motivated to act for its own good, but differed as to whether that “good” was pleasure.
Democritus (c. 460 – c. 370 B.C.E.) is reported to have held that the supreme good was a
pleasant state of tranquility of mind (euthumia), and that particular pleasures or pains
should be chosen according to how they contributed to that tranquility. In
the Protagoras, Socrates (470 -399 B.C.E.) presented a version of Democritean hedonism
which included a method for calculating relative pleasures and pains. Socrates argued
that an agent’s own good was not immediate pleasure, and that it was necessary to
differentiate between pleasures that promoted good, and harmful pleasures. In his later
dialogues, Plato (c. 428 -347 B.C.E.) agreed that while the good life was pleasant, the
goodness consisted in rationality and the pleasantness was an adjunct.

Aristotle challenged the definition of pleasure as a process of remedying a natural

deficiency in the organism (satisfying hunger, thirst, desire), declaring instead that
pleasure occurs when a natural potentiality for thought or perception is realized in
perfect conditions. Every kind of actualization has its own pleasure; the pleasure of
thought, the pleasure of art, the bodily pleasures. Eudaimonia (the ideal state of
existence) consists of the optimal realization of man’s capacity for thought and rational
choice; it would naturally be characterized by the greatest degree of pleasure.

Epicurus (341 – 270 B.C.E.) and his school distinguished two types of pleasure: the
pleasure that supplying the deficiency of an organism (such as hunger or desire) and the
pleasure experienced when the organism is in a stable state, free from all pain or
disturbance. He gave supremacy to the latter type, and emphasized the reduction of
desire over the immediate acquisition of pleasure. Epicurus claimed that the highest
pleasure consists of a simple, moderate life spent with friends and in philosophical
discussion, and discouraged overindulgence of any kind because it would ultimately lead
to some kind of pain or instability.

We recognize pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we begin every
act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the
standard by which we judge every good. (Epicurus, "Letter to Menoeceus")

Hedonism during the Middle Ages and Renaissance

Christian philosophers of the Middle Ages denounced Epicurean hedonism as
inconsistent with the Christian aims of avoiding sin, obeying the will of God, cultivating
virtues such as charity and faith, and seeking a reward in the afterlife for sacrifice and
suffering on earth. During the Renaissance, philosophers such as Erasmus (1465 – 1536)
revived hedonism on the grounds that it was God’s wish for human beings to be happy
and experience pleasure. In describing the ideal society of his Utopia (1516), Thomas
More said that "the chief part of a person's happiness consists of pleasure." More argued
that God created man to be happy, and uses the desire for pleasure to motivate moral
behavior. More made a distinction between pleasures of the body and pleasures of the
mind, and urged the pursuit of natural pleasures rather than those produced by artificial
luxuries.

During the eighteenth century, Francis Hutcheson (1694-1747) and David Hume (1711-
1776) systematically examined the role of pleasure and happiness in morality and
society; their theories were precursors to utilitarianism.

Utilitarian Hedonism
The nineteenth-century British philosophers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy
Bentham established fundamental principles of hedonism through their ethical theory
of Utilitarianism. Utilitarian value stands as a precursor to hedonistic values in that all
action should be directed toward achieving the greatest amount of happiness for the
greatest number of people. All actions are to be judged on the basis of how
much pleasure they produce in relation to the amount of pain that results from them.
Since utilitarianism was dealing with public policy, it was necessary to develop a
“hedonistic calculus” to assign a ratio of pleasure to pain for any given action or policy.
Though consistent in their pursuit of the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest
number of people, Bentham and Mill differed in the methods by which they measured
happiness.

Jeremy Bentham and his followers argued a quantitative approach. Bentham believed
that the value of a pleasure could be understood by multiplying its intensity by its
duration. Not only the number of pleasures, but their intensity and duration had to be
taken into account. Bentham’s quantitative theory identified six “dimensions” of value in
a pleasure or pain: intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or
remoteness, fecundity, and purity (Bentham 1789, ch. 4).

John Stuart Mill argued for a qualitative approach. Mill believed that there are different
levels of pleasure, and that pleasure of a higher quality has more value than pleasure of
a lower quality. Mill suggested that simpler beings (he often referenced pigs) have easier
access to the simpler pleasures; since they are not aware of other aspects of life, they can
simply indulge themselves without thinking. More elaborate beings think more about
other matters and hence lessen the time they spend on the enjoyment of simple
pleasures. Critics of the qualitative approach found several problems with it. They
pointed out that 'pleasures' do not necessarily share common traits, other than the fact
that they can be seen as "pleasurable." The definition of 'pleasant' is subjective and
differs among individuals, so the 'qualities' of pleasures are difficult to study objectively
and in terms of universal absolutes. Another objection is that “quality” is not an intrinsic
attribute of pleasure; the “quality” of pleasure is judged either its quantity and intensity
or by some non-hedonistic value (such as altruism or the capacity to elevate the mind).

“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain, and
pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine
what we shall do.” (Bentham 1789)

Christian Hedonism
Christian Hedonism is a term coined in 1986 for a theological movement originally
conceived by a pastor, Dr. John Piper, in his book, Desiring God: Meditations of a
Christian Hedonist. The tenets of this philosophy are that humans were created by (the
Christian) God with the priority purpose of lavishly enjoying God through knowing,
worshiping, and serving Him. This philosophy recommends pursuing one's own
happiness in God as the ultimate in human pleasure. Similar to the Epicurean view, the
highest pleasure is regarded as something long-term and found not in indulgence but in
a life devoted to God. Serious questions have been raised within the Christian
community as to whether Christian Hedonism displaces "love God" with "enjoy God" as
the greatest and foremost commandment.

A typical apologetic for Christian Hedonism is that if you are to love something truly,
then you must truly enjoy it. It could be summed up in this statement: "God is most
glorified in us, when we are most satisfied in Him."

More recently, the term Christian Hedonism has been used by the French philosopher
Michel Onfray to qualify the various heretic movements from Middle-Age to Montaigne.

Hedonism in Common Usage

In common usage, the word hedonism is often associated with self-indulgence and
having a very loose or liberal view of the morality of sex. Most forms of hedonism
actually concentrate on spiritual or intellectual goals, or the pursuit of general well-
being.
Eclecticism
Jump to:navigation, search
Previous (Echolocation)
Next (Eclipse)

Eclecticism (from Greek eklektikos, “selective,” or “choosing the best”), is a conceptual

approach that does not hold rigidly to a single paradigm or set of assumptions, but
instead draws upon multiple theories, styles, or ideas to gain complementary insights
into a subject, or applies different theories in particular cases. In philosophy and
theology, eclecticism is the practice of selecting and compiling doctrines from different
systems of thought, without adopting the entire parent system for each doctrine. It is
distinct from syncretism, the attempt to reconcile or combine systems, in that it does not
attempt to resolve the contradictions between them.

The term “eclectic” was first used in the first century B.C.E. to refer to a group of ancient
philosophers, including the Stoic Panaetius (150 B.C.E.), Posidonius (75 B.C.E.), and the New
Academics Carneades (155 B.C.E.) and Philo of Larissa (75 B.C.E.), who attached themselves
to no real system, but selected from existing philosophical beliefs those doctrines that
seemed most reasonable to them. Among the Romans, Cicero, Marcus Terentius Varro
and Seneca were eclectic. Many modern philosophers were eclectics. During the
nineteenth century, the term "eclectic" came to be applied particularly to a number of
French philosophers who differed considerably from one another. Their position was
typified by Victor Cousin (1792-1867), who identified four great systems which he
believed expressed and summarized the whole development of human speculation:
sensism, idealism, skepticism, and mysticism; and concluded that each contained a part
of the truth but none possessed the whole truth exclusively.

Ancient Eclecticism
In the second century B.C.E., a remarkable tendency toward eclecticism began to manifest
itself. The desire to arrive at the one explanation for all things, which had inspired the
older philosophers, became less important; philosophers began to doubt that any such
explanation was fully attainable. Instead, thinkers began to adopt, from all systems, the
doctrines which best pleased them. Stoicism and Epicureanism had given the attainment
of practical virtue and happiness priority over the search for pure truth, while
the Skeptics denied that it was possible to discover pure truth at all. Eclecticism sought
to approach absolute truth by selecting doctrines that had the highest possible degree
of probability.
The term "eclectics" comes from the Greek eklektikos: “choosing the best.” It was first
used in the first century B.C.E. to refer to a group of ancient philosophers who attached
themselves to no real system, but selected from existing philosophical beliefs those
doctrines that seemed most reasonable to them. Out of this collected material they
constructed their new system of philosophy. (see Diogenes Laertius, 21). One of the
earliest eclectics was the Stoic Panaetius (150 B.C.E.) followed by Posidonius (75 B.C.E.), and
the New Academics Carneades (155 B.C.E.) and Philo of Larissa (75 B.C.E.). Among the
Romans, Cicero was thoroughly eclectic, uniting the Peripatetic, Stoic, and New
Academic doctrines. Other Roman eclectics were Marcus Terentius Varro and Seneca.

In the late period of Greek philosophy there appeared an eclectic system consisting of a
compromise between the Neo-Pythagoreans and the various Platonic sects. Another
eclectic school was that of Philo Judaeus in Alexandria, in the first century C.E., who
interpreted the Old Testament allegorically, and tried to harmonize it with selected
doctrines of Greek philosophy. Neo-Platonism, the last product of Greek speculation,
sought to establish correct relationships between God and humans through a fusion of
Greek philosophy with eastern religion. Its chief representatives
were Plotinus (230 C.E.), Porphyrius (275 C.E.), Iamblichus (300 C.E.), and Proclus (450 C.E.).
Among the early Christians, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Synesius were eclectics in
philosophy.

Eclectics of Modern Philosophy

As the natural sciences became more complex, and modern philosophers began to
abandon the possibility of a single philosophical system that could explain the whole of
truth, eclecticism became the norm rather than the exception.

During the nineteenth century, the term "eclectic" came to be applied particularly to a
number of French philosophers who differed considerably from one another. The earliest
were Pierre Paul Royer-Collard, who was mainly a follower of Thomas Reid, and Maine
de Biran. The most distinguished members of this school were Victor Cousin, Theodore
Jouffroy, J. P. Damiron, Barthelemy St Hilaire, C. F. M. de Remusat, Adolphe Gamier and
Ravaisson-Mollien. Their position was typified by Victor Cousin (1792-1867) and his
school, which is sometimes called the Spiritualistic School. Beginning as a sensualist,
Cousin was drawn by the teaching of Royer Collard to seek a foundation for
metaphysical, moral, and religious truth in the Scottish school. When this failed him, he
began to examine current philosophical ideas, influenced by Maine de Biran whom he
called "the greatest metaphysician of our time," by the writings of Kant, and by personal
intercourse with Schelling and Hegel. Finally, he turned to the works of Plato, Plotinus,
and Proclus, then returned to Descartes and Leibniz. Finally, he arrived at the conclusion
that the successive philosophical systems elaborated through the ages of history
represented the full development of human thought, and that the complete truth could
be found in a system which used common sense to collate the fragmentary thoughts
expressed by the different thinkers and schools of all ages. He identified four great
systems which he believed expressed and summarized the whole development of human
speculation: sensism, idealism, skepticism, and mysticism. Each contained a part of the
truth but none possessed the whole truth exclusively. "Each system," he asserted, "is not
false, but incomplete, and in reuniting all incomplete systems, we should have a
complete philosophy, adequate to the totality of consciousness." Eclecticism gained
great popularity in France, and, partly owing to Cousin's position as minister of public
instruction, became the standard system in French schools, where it inspired the study of
the history of philosophy.

Many of the Italina philosophers were eclectics, and among the German eclectics were
Wolf and his followers, as well as Moses Mendelssohn, J. A. Eberhard, and Ernst Platner.

Criticism of Eclecticism
In the sphere of abstract thought, eclecticism is open to the objection that since each
philosophical system is supposed to be a whole, of which its various doctrines are
integral parts, the arbitrary combination of doctrines from different systems is likely to
result in a fundamental incoherence. In practical affairs, however, eclecticism is effective
because it makes use of whatever policy or doctrine brings about a desired result,
without probing for a deeper coherence.

Eclecticism is sometimes regarded with contempt as being illogical and arbitrary,

perhaps because many eclectics have been intellectual dilettantes or skeptics. However,
eclecticism is rooted in a refusal to blindly accept one set of ideas as true, combined with
a determination to recognize and select from all sources those elements which are most
likely to be true, or most effective in practical matters. It is therefore a sound
philosophical method.

Eclecticism can be inelegant, and eclectics are sometimes criticized for lack of
consistency in their thinking, but it is common in many fields of study. For example,
most psychologists accept parts of behaviorism, but do not attempt to use the theory to
explain all aspects of human behavior. A statistician may use frequentist techniques on
one occasion and Bayesian ones on another. An example of eclecticism in economics is
John Dunning's eclectic theory of international production.
In art, the term “eclecticism” is used to describe the combination in a single work of
elements from different historical styles, chiefly in architecture and, by implication, in the
fine and decorative arts. It was once applied to the painters of the Carracci family, who
incorporated elements from the Renaissance and classical traditions. Among the most
influential advocates of eclecticism were Sir Joshua Reynolds and John Ruskin. The term
is sometimes also loosely applied to the general stylistic variety of nineteenth-century
architecture after Neo-classicism (c. 1820), although the revivals of styles in that period
have, since the 1970s, generally been referred to as aspects of historicism.

Eclecticism plays an important role in critical discussions and evaluations, but is

somehow distant from the actual forms of the artifacts to which it is applied, and its
meaning is thus rather indistinct. The simplest definition of the term, that every work of
art represents the combination of a variety of influences, is so basic as to be of little use.
Eclecticism never amounted to a movement or constituted a specific style: it is
characterized precisely by the fact that it was not a particular style.

Psychology
Eclecticism is recognized in approaches to psychology that see many factors influencing
behavior and the psyche, and among those who consider all perspectives when
identifying, changing, explaining, and determining behavior.

Martial Arts
Some martial arts can be described as eclectic in the sense that they borrow techniques
from a wide variety of other arts. The Martial Arts system developed by Bruce Lee called
Jeet Kune Do is classified as an eclectic system. As with other disciplines that incorporate
eclecticism, Jeet Kune Do's philosophy does not hold rigidly to a single paradigm or set
of assumptions or conclusions but encourages a student to learn what is useful for
themselves.

Music
Eclecticism is also known as a new popular music stream in the house scene. Dutch DJs
like Don Diablo, Gregor Salto and Erick E are active in this music. Eclecticism is popular
among Experimental Music Artists like Alex Ross-Iver, Tom Waits and Les Claypool.

Robin Holloway cites the composers Benjamin Britten, Dmitri Shostakovich, Copland,
Poulenc and Tippett as eclectic composers, 'along the lines first boldly laid by Igor
Stravinsky; they make their idiom from very diverse sources, assimilating and
transforming them into themselves'.

Neoplatonism
Neoplatonism (also Neo-Platonism) is the modern term for a school
of philosophy took shape in the third century C.E. with the philosopher Plotinus, whose
student, Porphyry, assembled his teachings into the six Enneads. Neoplatonists
considered themselves simply "Platonists," and the modern distinction is due to the
perception that their philosophy contained enough unique interpretations of Plato to
make it substantively different from what Plato wrote and believed. Futhermore,
Neoplatonism had strong religious and mythical elements. Neoplatonism flourished until
529 C.E. when Emperor Justinius closed the Neoplatonic Academy in Athens.
Nevertheless, the Neoplatonic tradition has shaped centuries of philosophy and has
been adapted into a broad spectrum of religious thought.

Subsequent Neoplatonic philosophers include Hypatia of Alexandria, Iamblichus, Proclus,

Hierocles of Alexandria, Simplicius of Cilicia, and Damascius, who wrote On First
Principles. Born in Damascus, he was the last teacher of Neoplatonism at Athens.
Neoplatonism strongly influenced Christian thinkers (such
as Augustine, Boethius, Pseudo-Dionysius, Johannes Scottus Eriugena, and Bonaventura).
Neoplatonism was also present in medieval Islamic and Jewish thinkers such as al-Farabi
and Maimonides, and experienced a revival in the Renaissance with the acquisition and
translation of Greek and Arabic Neoplatonic texts.

Philosophy
Neoplatonism contains strong religious and mythical elements. Their doctrines of
“emanation,” return to the origin, and others should not be understood as natural
processes in the sense of mechanical changes. The entire context has religious and
mythical tones. Plato’s influence on medieval Christianity was mediated by
Neoplatonism. Neoplatonists adopted vocabularies and concepts of the schools of
thought in the Hellenistic era, including Neopythagoreanism, Stoicism, and Peripatetic,
however, excluding Epicureanism. Neoplatonists examined and integrated ideas of those
schools of thought within the framework of Plato’s philosophy. Through this dialogical
scrutiny, Neoplatonists developed their distinct thought which was not present in Plato.
Neoplatonism is a form of idealistic monism. It is largely derived from the interpretation
of Plato's philosophy by Plotinus. Plotinus taught the existence of an ineffable and
transcendent One, which exists in it of itself and transcends all categories of being, and
thus no attributes can be placed on the "One" (which is also the Good in itself). Plotinus
conceived the One by way of negation of multiplicity and diversity, which characterize
the phenomenal world we live in. Plotinus gave a limit on what we can know by
conceptual understanding, given that human discourse is essentially discursive, and the
limit of discursive thinking leads to the idea of mythical union and ascent as the access
to ultimate knowledge. There is also an ethical ontology in the philosophy of Plotinus, as
well as that of Plato’s, as Plotinus also conceived the One as the Good itself.

The process of creation is not so much as that the "One" creates, but rather out of the
"One" emanated its own essence as the rest of the universe as a sequence of lesser
beings. The sense of “emanation” is closer to that of an overflow that results from the
fullness of being in the One. Furthermore, the One is the ultimate source of the diversity
of the entire world. In other words, there is nothing in the world which did not originate
from the One. Plotinus’ ontology placed the ultimate center and origin of the world as
the One.

The first emanation being Nous, or intellect, relates to the Forms in Plato's philosophy.
Furthermore the successive emanation results in the emanation of the "soul," which has
the functions to contemplate the higher realm of emanation of "Nous" and also relates
to the lower realm of "nature." Later Neoplatonic philosophers, especially Iamblichus,
added hundreds of intermediate gods, angels and demons, and other beings as
emanations between the One and humanity. Plotinus' system was much simpler in
comparison.

Some Neoplatonists believed human perfection and happiness were attainable in this
world, without awaiting an afterlife, while others, like Bonaventura, held the concept that
perfect unity with the "One" was a promise to be fulfilled in the afterlife. Perfection and
happiness, seen as synonymous, could be achieved through philosophical
contemplation, the highest level and function of life.

They did not believe in an independent existence of evil. They compared it to darkness,
which does not exist in itself, but only as the absence of light. So too, evil is simply the
absence of good. Things are good insofar as they exist. They are evil only insofar as they
are imperfect, lacking some good that they should have. Where the individual descends
into the material realm, some, like Plotinus, held that the forgetfulness of the divine
origin in the "One" results in evil.
The ascent of the soul to the One becomes possible by cultivating the divine
potentialities that exist in the deepest center of the human soul. This concept is parallel
to later mystical concepts such as the “spark of the soul” (scintilla animae), “apex of the
soul” (acies, apex mentis), and “castle of the soul” (archa mentis) (Hirschberger Vol. I, Ch.
3, Sec. 5).

It is also a cornerstone of Neoplatonism to teach that all people return to the Source,
and for some, this descent into the material realm is a necessary process. The Source,
Absolute or One, is what all things spring from and as a superconsciousness is where all
things return. It can be said that all consciousness is wiped clean and returned to a blank
slate when returning to the source. Proclus, a later predecessor of Plotinus, Porphyry,
and Iamblichus, further expounded on the Neoplatonist philosophy with complex
analysis and tremendous rigor. He viewed this process of descent from the divine "One"
and return as the process of originating from an ambiguous unity, then entering a realm
of multiplicity, then completing a unity that is the substantial manifestation of the one.
Thus, the function of contemplation to be the process of uniting with the greater unity
and higher level of Nous and eventually with the "One."

Early Christian and Medieval Neoplatonism

Ideas of Neoplatonism such as evil as the privation of good influenced Christian
theologian Augustine of Hippo, upon learning about it, to
abandon dualistic Manichaeism and convert to Christianity. Three or four years after his
387 C.E. baptism, he wrote his treatise On True Religion and was still thinking of
Christianity in Neoplatonic terms. However, after he was ordained priest and bishop and
had acquired greater familiarity with Scripture, he noted contradictions between
Neoplatonism and Christianity.

Nevertheless, many Christians were influenced by Neoplatonism. They identified the

“One” as God. The most important and influential of them was the fifth-
century C.E. author known as Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. His works were
significant for both Eastern Orthodox and Western branches of Christianity. Johannes
Scotus Eriugena's ninth century Latin translation of the writing of pseudo-Dionysius was
widely studied during the Middle Ages. Another notable Christian theologian who was
influenced by Neoplatonism was Bonaventura, who had a deep understanding of his
faith tied with the philosophical rigor of the Neoplatonic tradition, relating ideas such as
concept of beings existing in the realm of the Forms within a Christian context of beings
existing likewise in a divine realm transcendent of material reality, and the ultimate goal
was this unity with the "One."
Neoplatonism also had links with the belief systems known as Gnosticism. Plotinus,
however, rebuked Gnosticism in the ninth tractate of the second Enneads: "Against
Those That Affirm The Creator of The Kosmos and The Kosmos Itself to Be Evil"
(generally quoted as "Against The Gnostics"). Being grounded in platonic thought, the
Neoplatonists would have rejected the gnostic vilification of Plato's demiurge, a deity
discussed in Timaeus.

In the Middle Ages, Neoplatonist ideas influenced the thinking of Jewish Kabbalists, such
as Isaac the Blind. However, the Kabbalists modified Neoplatonism according to their
own monotheistic belief. A famous Jewish Neoplatonic philosopher from the early
Middle Ages was Solomon ibn Gabirol. During this period, Neoplatonist ideas also
influenced Islamic and Sufi thinkers such as al Farabi and through him Avicenna.

Neoplatonism survived in the Eastern Christian Church as an independent tradition and

was reintroduced to the west by Plethon.

Renaissance Neoplatonism
In Western Europe, Neoplatonism was revived in the Italian Renaissance by figures such
as Marsilio Ficino, the Medici, and Sandro Botticelli. Thomas Taylor, "The English
Platonist," wrote extensively on Platonism and translated almost the entire Platonic
corpus into English.

Skepticism
In a general sense, skepticism or scepticism (Greek: skeptomai, to look about, to
consider) refers to any doctrine or way of thought denying the ability of our mind to
reach certainty.

Originating in the human tendency to question the reliability of any statement before
accepting it, skepticism has taken on a variety of forms throughout the ages. It can refer
both to an attitude in ordinary life and to philosophical positions. Skepticism is often
contrasted with dogmatism, the position that certain truth can be reached by the
application of an appropriate method. Epistemology, the inquiry into the conditions for
certainty in knowing, has led practically every thinker to adopt, at least temporarily,
some form of limited skepticism in one regard or another. And some of the greatest
philosophers, such as David Hume, have come to the conclusion that certain knowledge
is essentially unattainable. By its very nature, skepticism is unsatisfactory as an end result.
Whether it is ultimately embraced or rejected thus depends in great part on one’s
general outlook of life, pessimism being generally associated with the skeptical option.
In any case, however, skepticism has played an irreplaceable role as a catalyst in the
history of philosophy.

Meanings of skepticism
In ordinary usage, skepticism or scepticism refers to (1) an attitude of doubt or a
disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object, (2) the doctrine
that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain, or (3) the method of
suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics
(Merriam–Webster).

The word skepticism can characterize a position on a single claim, but in scholastic
circles more frequently describes a lasting mindset and an approach to accepting or
rejecting new information. Individuals who proclaim to have a skeptical outlook are
frequently called "skeptics," often without regard to whether it is philosophical
skepticism or empirical skepticism that they profess.

In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions.

These include propositions about (1) the limitations of knowledge, (2) a method of
obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing, (3) the
arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values, (4) a method of intellectual
caution and suspended judgment, (5) a lack of confidence in positive motives for human
conduct or positive outcomes for human enterprises, that
is, cynicism and pessimism (Keeton, 1962).

Nature and challenges of the skeptical position

One well-known drawback of the skeptical position is that it easily leads to statements of
the type “reaching truth is impossible,” which itself amounts to a claim to truthful
knowledge. Skeptic philosophers have attempted to avoid this trap, but they have
usually been less than fully successful due to the inevitably paradoxical nature of their
claim. On the other hand, the difficulties associated with the mediate nature of our
rational and experimental knowledge have represented a permanent invitation to try the
skeptical option. As a result, all forms of philosophy, ancient and modern, tend to
present at least some elements of skepticism and at the same time some elements of
dogmatism. A deliberately skeptical approach has also been employed as a tool to test
the certainty of fundamental statements about reality, as with the Cartesian doubt. In
such a case, the final aim is certainty and not skepticism, whether the solution is
satisfactory or not.
Associated notions
Pessimism is naturally associated with skepticism to the extent that our desire to know is
perceived to be irremediably frustrated. Additionally, epistemological skepticism
invariably leads to uncertainty on the level of ethical action, thus further leading to a
pessimistic outlook.

But the skeptical outlook is not necessarily linked to a pessimistic attitude. Ancient Greek
skeptics associated skepticism to the suspension of judgment (epoche), or the refusal to
make dogmatic claims. This, they felt, lead to Ataraxia Αταραξία), a Greek term used
by Pyrrho and Epicurus for tranquility, freedom from disturbance of judgment, the first
step to achieve Hêdonê, or pleasure.

Agnosticism is typical of mild forms of skepticism, such as that of Immanuel Kant’s

critical philosophy. To Kant, even the moderate skepticism of David Hume was
unacceptable, but the certainties of his own system never reached beyond the level of
phenomena and the belief of practical reason, hence it has been characterized as
epistemological agnosticism.

Empiricism is often linked to skepticism, because the direct testimony of experience,

though subjected to the uncertainties of evaluation and interpretation, still offers
tentative responses that are immediately available. Rational deduction, on the other
hand, implies a confidence in the mind’s ability to reach certainty. If that confidence is
lost, nothing remains. Thus, the skeptically oriented mind will tend to cautiously use
empirical data and refute all the claims of rationalism.

Pragmatism is another common feature of skeptical philosophy that is related to

empiricism. In the absence of theoretical certainties, action based on what brings
immediately verifiable satisfactory results may appear to be the best option. In the
absence of a clear and reliable framework of measurement, it is, however, always
possible that an apparently beneficial contribution may prove to be detrimental in the
end. In this, pragmatism meets its limit.

Relativism is not a necessary consequence of skepticism, but is has often been applied as
a response to the challenge raised by the skeptical position. If truth is a matter of
perspective, the need to justify absolute statements disappears.

The issue of intersubjectivity represents a major challenge related to skepticism. How is it

possible for me to ascertain that my perception of a red item corresponds in any way to
another person’s perception of that same item, though we may, for convenience, use the
same term ‘red’? In other words, how is it possible in any way to go beyond one’s own
immediate perceptions and establish universally valid criteria of measurement?

Philosophical skepticism
History of skepticism in western thought
In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the Skeptikoi, a
school of philosophers of whom it was said that they "asserted nothing but only opined"
(Liddell and Scott). In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or pyrrhonism, is the
philosophical position that one should avoid the postulation of final truths. The common
source of skepticism in the history of philosophy can be described as the mind’s
astonishment when confronted with several, apparently equally valid but contradictory
views. The inability to reconcile them satisfactorily leads to the adoption of a skeptical
position.

In religion, skepticism refers to "doubt concerning basic religious principles (as

immortality, providence, and revelation)" (Merriam–Webster).

Skepticism in Ancient Greece

Philosophical skepticism, at least in its western form, originated in ancient Greek
philosophy. For Heraclitus, all things were in a permanent state of flux (his dialectic),
hence the static notion of an absolute truth was illusory. His opponent, Parmenides, on
the other hand, claimed that change was illusory and unchanging being alone was real.
Hence, his position was skeptical in regard to the meaning of observable phenomena.
Along a similar line, the school of the Sophists emphasized the sort of
skeptical relativism that gave them a bad name, that of justifying anything with clever
arguments. The views of their main proponents, Gorgias and Protagoras were sharply
criticized by Socrates.

Pyrrho and pyrrhonism

However, ancient skepticism is primarily associated with the name of Pyrrho of Elis (c.
360-275 B.C.E.), who advocated the adoption of 'practical' skepticism. Pyrrho (c. 360-c.
270 B.C.E.) is usually credited as being the first skeptic philosopher and is the founder of
the school known as Pyrrhonism. Little is known of his actual thought and we only know
his biography through indirect sources. Much of it is of doubtful historical
authenticity. Diogenes Laertius, quoting from Apollodorus, says that he was at first a
painter, and that pictures by him were in existence in the gymnasium at Elis. Later he was
diverted to philosophy by the works of Democritus, and became acquainted with the
Megarian dialectic through Bryson, pupil of Stilpo.

Pyrrho, along with Anaxarchus, is said to have traveled with Alexander the Great on his
exploration of the east, and studied in India under the Gymnosophists and under
the Magi in Persia. From the Oriental philosophy he seems to have adopted a life of
solitude. Returning to Elis, he lived in poor circumstances, but was highly honored by the
Elians and also by the Athenians, who gave him the rights of citizenship. His doctrines
are known mainly through the satiric writings of his pupil Timon of Phlius (the
Sillographer).

The main principle of his thought is expressed in the word "acatalepsia," which implies
the impossibility of knowing things in their own nature. Against every statement the
contradictory may be advanced with equal reason. Secondly, it is necessary in view of
this fact to preserve an attitude of intellectual suspense, or, as Timon expressed it, no
assertion can be known to be better than another. Thirdly, these results are applied to
life in general. Pyrrho concludes that, since nothing can be known, the only proper
attitude is "ataraxia" ("freedom from worry").

The impossibility of knowledge, even in regard to our own ignorance or doubt, should
induce the wise man to withdraw into himself, avoiding the stress and emotion which
belong to the contest of vain imaginings. This drastic skepticism is the first and the most
thorough exposition of agnosticism in the history of thought. Its ethical results may be
compared with the ideal tranquility of the Stoics and the Epicureans.

The proper course of the sage, said Pyrrho, is to ask himself three questions. Firstly we
must ask what things are and how they are constituted. Secondly, we ask how we are
related to these things. Thirdly, we ask what ought to be our attitude towards them. As
to what things are, we can only answer that we know nothing. We only know how things
appear to us, but of their inner substance we are ignorant.

The same thing appears differently to different people, and therefore it is impossible to
know which opinion is right. The diversity of opinion among the wise, as well as among
the vulgar, proves this. To every assertion the contradictory assertion can be opposed
with equally good grounds, and whatever my opinion, the contrary opinion is believed
by somebody else who is quite as clever and competent to judge as I am. Opinion we
may have, but certainty and knowledge are impossible. Hence our attitude to things (the
third question) ought to be complete suspension of judgment. We can be certain of
nothing, not even of the most trivial assertions.
Academic skepticism

Plato’s philosophy, with its belief in absolute truth in the world of eternal ideas, seems to
be an unlikely source of skepticism. However, one should remember that Plato’s
master, Socrates, stated that he only knew that he knew nothing, and that this was his
sole claim to wisdom. Also, his method, the Socratic dialectic, consisted of showing his
interlocutors that what they held to be secure knowledge was a mixture of contradictory
ideas. A good example is the so-called Euthyphro dilemma (from a question asked by
Socrates in the dialogue Euthyphro): “Are morally good acts willed by the gods because
they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by the gods?”

The final aim of the Socratic Method and of the Platonic philosophy, however, is not to
promote doubt, as was the case for the Sophists whom Socrates opposed, but rather to
show the unreliable nature of mere opinion and sensual knowledge. In the case of the
Euthyphro dilemma, the obvious aim is to eliminate a prevalent, superficial and
contradictory view of the gods and their role in human affairs. In that sense, it is skeptic.
But the purpose of the doubt thus created in the mind is to redirect the attention to
one’s conscience. It is to reach higher truth in the realm of ideas, or rather to rediscover
one’s pre-existing knowledge of it.

Nevertheless, as this particular example shows, the Socratic discursive method can lead
to some permanently unsettled questions. It is thus not entirely surprising that some of
Plato’s disciples, by emphasizing this aspect, created what came to be known as
Academic Skepticism. In the “New Academy,” Plato’s successors Arcesilaos (c. 315-
241 B.C.E.) and Carneades (c. 213-129 B.C.E.) developed theoretical perspectives, by which
conceptions of absolute truth and falsity were refuted. Diogenes Laertius criticized
Aecesilaos for “meddling” with Plato’s thought, while Cicero, who remains one of the
main sources on this form of skepticism, praised him for “reviving” Plato’s thought. This
controversy can be said to prefigure, in some sense, Jacques Derrida’s twentieth
century deconstructionist reading of Plato (“Plato’s pharmacy”).

Carneades criticized the views of the Dogmatists, especially supporters of Stoicism,

asserting that absolute certainty of knowledge is impossible. Sextus Empiricus (c.
200 C.E.), the main authority for Greek skepticism, developed the position further,
incorporating aspects of empiricism into the basis for asserting knowledge. His views
would have a considerable influence on modern thinkers like Michel de
Montaigne and David Hume.

The critique of Stoic dogmatism

Greek skeptics were particularly critical of the Stoics for their metaphysical claims and for
their dogmatic assertions in fields like ethics and epistemology. For the skeptics,
the logical mode of argument was untenable, as it relied on propositions which could
not be said to be either true or false without relying on further propositions, leading to
infinite regress. In addition, the skeptics argued that two propositions could not rely on
each other, as this would create a circular argument (as p implies q and q implies p). For
the skeptics, such logic was thus an inadequate measure of truth that could create as
many problems as it claimed to have solved. Truth was not, however, necessarily
unobtainable, but rather an idea which did not yet exist in a pure form. Although
skepticism was accused of denying the possibility of truth, in actual fact it appears to
have mainly been a critical school that merely claimed that logicians had not discovered
truth.

Medieval skepticism and the 'via negativa'

The Middle Ages are a period known more for its assertion of faith than for its
skepticism. The “negative” approach to theology, generally linked to medieval mysticism,
consisted of describing God by what he is not rather than by what he is. The implication
of this position is that God, the infinite Being, is beyond any words that could be used to
describe him. In spite of its negative form, it thus affirms God unambiguously. But, by the
way it chooses, it also expresses considerable skepticism towards the capacity of human
reason to grasp what is essential. An example of this approach is Nicholas of Cusa’s De
Docta Ignorantia (“Of Learned Ignorance”). Similar tendencies can be found in Muslim
philosopher and Sufi mystic Al-Ghazali and Jewish philosophers Maimonides and Judah
ha-Levi among others.

The clash between dogmatism and skepticism in the Middle Ages thus mainly involved
the confrontation between the rational claims of Aristotelian philosophy and the
response of monotheistic fideism. This debate would give its shape to the great
theological systems to emerge during that period.

Modern skepticism
With the advent of modernity, the field became open once again for a much wider
application of the skeptical viewpoint, including the many instances when it was aimed
at religious knowledge. Some thinkers, however, would persist in a skeptical appraisal of
the power of reason in order to make place for faith. Elements of this approach can be
found in thinkers as diverse as Blaise Pascal and George Berkeley. Sometimes, this
approach would result in the opposite of what was intended, namely full skepticism (e.g.,
Berkeley’s influence on David Hume).
In the sixteenth century, French philosophical writer Michel de Montaigne expressed
general doubt about the power of our human faculties, which led him to an attitude of
common sense acceptance of life’s situations not altogether different from what would
be the skeptical pragmatism of Hume.

Generally speaking, epistemological skepticism in the seventeenth century was aimed at

the innate power of reason (empiricists) or at the reliability of our senses (rationalism).
Both sides, however, rejected full skepticism in their initial phase, merely rejecting the
opposite approach as a reliable source of certainty. Through his methodic doubt, René
Descartes attempted to reach sure knowledge by starting from inner certainty. On the
contrary, John Locke essentially believed that sense perception (experience), rather than
innate ideas, was a genuine source of knowledge. Common sense served as a bulwark
against skepticism. In a later stage, however, both schools had the consistency of their
approach challenged, which led to skeptical developments. Most famously, David
Hume challenged Locke, leading British Empiricism to full-fledged skepticism. Even
Hume, however, rejected the Pyrrhonian form of skepticism and kept his theoretical
considerations firmly anchored in common sense pragmatism.

On the continent, Pierre Bayle, published a Dictionnaire historique et critique (1697-1702)

in which contemporary systems were demolished and presented as illusory. Bayle was
followed by the eighteenth century Enlightenment, which further challenged continental
rationalism.

The French Enlightenment in many ways developed a view that was closer to the
pragmatism of Locke and Hume than to the rational dogmatism that had immediately
preceded them. With figures like Voltaire, this attitude of wholesale skepticism towards
absolute claims, be they religious or philosophical, involved a good dose of cynicism as
well. This form of skepticism implied a distrust of human sincerity and good will. It would
also be aimed at the value of existing social institutions, as with Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

The age of the Enlightenment came to an end with the philosophical synthesis
of Immanuel Kant, who believed he had overcome Hume’s skepticism while avoiding the
false claims of dogmatism. His own thought, however, can legitimately be called a form
of agnosticism, since he did not believe that knowledge of things in themselves was
possible. His critical philosophy would have far reaching consequences both in the
theory of knowledge and in ethics and the philosophy of religion. The limited certainty
available to us in the world of phenomena was further attacked as illusory by Kant’s
various successors, with the notable exception of the German Idealists at the beginning
of the nineteenth century. And Kant’s ethical and religious views set the tone for a denial
of the objective validity of particular religious claims in the following generations.
The question of values

Any positive assertion rests on the availability of firm criteria. It is thus not surprising that
moral values and, more generally, anything that cannot be reduced to empirical
verification, came to be looked upon with great skepticism by thinkers of the modern
area dominated by the scientific view of things. Certainty in the realm of ethics had
primarily relied on Aristotle’s philosophy and on Christian dogma – both of which
gradually lost their unchallenged authority. It increasingly became the trademark of
modern thought to consider the question of values a matter of opinion, in contrast to
scientific data that are seen as a matter of fact. In the multicultural contemporary world,
this dichotomy between religious and ethical views and scientific knowledge has never
found a satisfactory answer receiving a large degree of acceptance.

Contemporary forms of skepticism

In twentieth century philosophy, few if any systems appeared that claim to know
objective reality “as it is” in any traditional way. Though the thinkers who emerged
during that period do not generally label themselves primarily as skeptics, skepticism
remains a pervasive feature of their work. Marxism and its various offshoots has perhaps
been the only recent system of major importance to make unmitigated dogmatic claims
about its theoretical and practical ability to control reality.

Existentialism, based on the nineteenth-century philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard,

showed an overall skepticism not only towards the validity of rational inquiry, but also
towards its human meaningfulness, thus shifting its own focus away from
epistemology. Logical positivism, analytic philosophy and linguistic philosophy, the heirs
to British Empiricism, as well as the various schools of European continental philosophy,
culminating in deconstructivism, are all opposed to so-called foundationalism, i.e., the
view that it is possible to find a secure, ultimate foundation to our knowledge.

The view that the quest for “truth” is only legitimate when it limits itself to the analysis of
the content of logical or verbal propositions is found in the thought of thinkers such
as Bertrand Russell, A. J. Ayer and Rudolf Carnap. The philosophy of Ludwig
Wittgenstein (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) also bears some “family resemblance”
with this current of thought. Philosopher of science Karl Popper substituted the notion of
falsifiability to that of verifiability. It is never possible to verify the universal validity of a
statement through induction, since there is always the possibility that one example
contradicting that statement will come up at some point, thus falsifying it. The lesser
claim that a statement makes sense if it is falsifiable should thus be substituted.
Statements that are not potentially falsifiable are nonsensical. This again raises the
question of the range of statements that can be considered falsifiable by being the
objects of valid criteria. For instance, are statements of a spiritual nature falsifiable?

Finally, the view that “truth” can be the object of various interpretations of equal
legitimacy and that choices of interpretations are often made based on social and
political bias is typical of philosophers like Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault.

Philosophical skepticism in other cultures

Skepticism as it has developed in the western philosophical tradition has numerous
counterparts in other traditions. Often, these approaches are more experiential and less
strictly theoretical. The notion of the Veil of the Maya found
in Hinduism and Buddhism and reflected in the thought of Arthur Schopenhauer implies
that our natural approach to knowledge is illusory and leads us away from our actual
goal.

The belief that it is vein to search for answers in the straightforward way of the common
man and that true knowledge comes unexpectedly through enlightenment reaches its
apex in Zen Buddhism. This approach is not entirely unlike that of some of the Ancient
Greek skeptics, particularly Sextus Empiricus.

Other forms of skepticism

Empirical skepticism

An empirical skeptic is one who refuses to accept certain kinds of claims without
subjecting them to a systematic investigation. For many empirical skeptics, this process is
akin to the scientific method. This does not mean that the empirical skeptic is necessarily
a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the
skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on
testable hypotheses and critical thinking.

Most empirical skeptics do not profess philosophical skepticism. Whereas a

philosophical skeptic may deny the very existence of knowledge, an empirical skeptic
merely seeks likely proof before accepting that knowledge.

Scientific skepticism
Scientific skepticism is a branch of empirical skepticism that addresses scientific claims.
Common topics in scientifically skeptical literature include health claims surrounding
certain foods, procedures, and medicines, such as homeopathy, Reiki, Thought Field
Therapy (TFT), vertebral subluxations; the plausibility of supernatural entities (such as
ghosts, poltergeists, angels, and gods); as well as the existence of ESP/telekinesis,
psychic powers, and telepathy; topics in cryptozoology, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness
monster, UFOs, crop circles, astrology, repressed memories, creationism, dowsing,
conspiracy theories, and other claims the skeptic sees as unlikely to be true on scientific
grounds.

Religious skepticism

Religious skepticism is skepticism regarding faith-based claims. Religious skeptics may

focus on the core tenets of religions, such as the existence of divine beings, or reports of
earthly miracles. A religious skeptic is not necessarily an atheist or agnostic. In the
confrontation between Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation, Erasmus of
Rotterdam used skepticism about our ability to discover religious truth to argue for
fidelity to the established church. Historically, religious skepticism has had strong
connections to philosophical skepticism (see above).

The issue raised by religious skepticism is essential to our understanding of reality,

or ontology, as well as to what we deem to be reliable knowledge.
Since religious utterances are by nature, in most cases, about that which cannot be
known through our physical senses, the question that arises is about the criteria that
would allow us to make such statements in the first place. Theological statements will
generally be based on belief in the reliability of revelation as transmitted through holy
scriptures and originating with otherworldly experiences by holy men and women
(founders of religions). Tradition and institutions are also generally acknowledged
sources of religious certainty. None of these, however, involve the process of cognition
in the ordinary sense; hence they easily become the target of skeptical attacks. The
challenge can come from skeptically inclined individuals. It can also materialize in
thought movements and even in the atmosphere of entire periods in history, such as the
eighteenth-century Enlightenment, notably in France.

A further source of religious certainty is that which can broadly be defined as mysticism
and consists in a perceived direct contact with the otherworldly reality. Such claims are
experiential, rather than theoretical in nature. The skeptical position towards such claims
will generally be to acknowledge the reality of any particular mystical experience, but to
explain it away as mere self-deception or as a mental problem. A softer form of religious
skepticism would be to suspend judgment based on one’s inability to verify the validity
of religious beliefs and the significance of so-called spiritual phenomena.
Activist skepticism

Activist skeptics, self-described "debunkers" are a subset of empirical skeptics who aim
to expose in public what they see as the truth behind specific extraordinary claims.
Debunkers may publish books, air TV programs, create websites, or use other means to
advocate their message. In some cases they may challenge claimants outright or even
stage elaborate hoaxes to prove their point.

Because debunkers often attack popular ideas, many are not strangers to controversy.
Critics of debunkers sometimes accuse them of robbing others of hope. Debunkers
frequently reply that it is the claimant, whom they many times accuse of exploiting
public gullibility, who is guilty of abuse.

Habitual debunkers, especially those who intentionally rely on pseudoscience

masquerading as empirical skepticism, are sometimes called pseudoskeptics or
pathological skeptics.

Stoicism
Stoicism, one of the three major schools of Hellenistic philosphy, was founded
in Athens in 308 B.C.E. by Zeno of Citium (334-262 B.C.E.) and further developed by his two
successors, Cleanthes (331-232 B.C.E.) and Chrysippus (c. 280-206 B.C.E.). The school got its
name from the “stoa poikile,” a painted colonnade in the Agora of Athens where Zeno of
Citium gave his discourses. Stoicism grew out of the teachings of the Cynics, and taught
that true happiness is achieved through the use of reason to understand events taking
place around us and to separate from harmful and destructive emotions. A Stoic learned
to practice self-discipline in order to grow in wisdom and virtue. Stoics believed that the
universe was imbued with a divine will, or natural law, and that living in accordance with
it was eudaimonia (“flourishing,” an ideal life). Students were encouraged to distance
themselves from the concerns of ordinary society, while at the same time improving it
through their service and example.

The Stoic school flourished in Greece and Rome for almost five centuries, until its decline
in the second century C.E. A second phase of the school, Middle Stoicism, developed at
Rhodes under Panaetius (c. 185-110 B.C.E.) and Posidonius (c. 135-50 B.C.E.), who
broadened the strict doctrines of the earlier Stoics. A large number of works survive from
a third stage, Roman Stoicism, which focused largely on ethics. Its proponents include
the younger Seneca (c. 1-65 C.E.), Epictetus (c. 55-135 C.E.), and Marcus Aurelius (121-
180 C.E.).
The early Stoics provided a unified account of the world, consisting of formal logic,
corporealistic physics and naturalistic ethics. Later Stoics focused on ethics, and
progression towards living in harmony with the universe, over which one has no direct
control. This is evident in the works of Epitectus, Cicero (an eclectic who shared many of
the moral tenets of Stoicism), Seneca the Younger, Marcus Aurelius, Cato the Younger
and Dio Chrysostum. Stoic ideas had an influence on early Christianity, and on the
thought of many later Western philosophers, who were particularly interested by
Stoic theory of logic. Stoicism, which acknowledged the value of each individual, also
played a role in the development of democratic government.

History
The Stoic school was founded by Zeno of Citium (334-262 B.C.E.) in Athens, Greece,
around 308 B.C.E. After studying under Crates the Cynic and several other Athenian
philosophers, Zeno developed his own system of thought and began teaching in the
Agora of Athens at the stoa poikile (Painted Colonnade), from which the school takes its
name. Upon his death in 262 B.C.E., he was succeeded by his disciple Cleanthes (331-
232 B.C.E.), and then by Chrysippus (c. 280-c. 206 B.C.E.). Chrysippus was a prolific writer,
and is credited with organizing and developing the teachings of Stoicism into the form
in which it continued for the next four centuries. Except for a short “Hymn to Zeus” by
Cleanthes, only fragments of the written works of the early Stoics are preserved. In the
first century C.E., Flavius Arrian (c. 86–160 C.E.) composed two
books, Discourses and Handbook, based on the teachings of the Greek
Stoic Epictetus (55 -135 C.E.). These works clearly explain the Stoic system of ethics and
lay out a detailed course of exercises in self-examination and self-discipline to be
followed by anyone striving to become a Stoic. The power of Stoic thought is evident in
the writings of Cicero (106-43 B.C.E.) and of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180 B.C.E.),
who both applied Stoic theory to political life.

The Stoic school declined and disappeared with the fall of the Roman Empire and the
rise of Christianity. However, aspects of Stoicism have continued to be part of Western
thought to the present day, including ethics and theories of logic and epistemology.
Certain elements of Stoic cosmology and ethics are seen in Christian doctrine.

Physics, Ethics and Logic

Stoics divide philosophy into three interrelated areas, physics, logic and ethics, all of
which contribute to a person’s progress towards eudaimonia (a life of flourishing).

Physics

The physics of Stoicism is based on the proposition that everything, including god, the
mind, reason, and the soul, is matter, or that “nothing incorporeal exists.” This concept is
based on two arguments: that the universe is one and therefore we cannot make a
separation between the tangible and the intangible; and that since god and the world,
body and soul act on each other (the body initiates thoughts in the soul and the soul
initiates actions in the body), they must be of the same substance. At the most basic
level the universe is constituted of an active principle, god, and a passive principle,
matter. God, or logos, is the primordial fire that generates the four elements of air, fire,
earth and water. Air and fire form an active rational force called breath (Greek pneuma,
Latin spiritus), which acts on the more passive earth and water (physical matter). The two
aspects interpenetrate each other, meaning that they both occupy the same space at the
same time (crasis). The relationship between god and the world resembles the
relationship between soul and body, with the soul as a fire that permeates the whole
body. Since everything originates from god, or logos, the universe is imbued with divine
reason, and therefore we see harmony, beauty and order in the natural world.

The concept of pneuma was central to the Stoic theory of physics. The Stoics denied the
existence of void in the cosmos and instead regarded the cosmos as a single, pneuma-
charged organic entity. All natural substances were organized into a hierarchy of classes
based on the activity and degree of organization of the pneuma. At the most basic level
was hexis, the state of inanimate objects such as stone and metal, which are simply held
together by their pneuma. Organic things, such as plants, which grow and reproduce but
do not have cognitive power were said to have phusis as well as hexis. Animals, which
had instincts, perception, impulses and a certain amount of cognition, were said to
have psuche (soul) as well as phusis and hexis. The highest level of organization of
the pneuma was the possession of reason (logos), especially characterized by the use of
language. Only gods and humans possessed reason. Spiritual and intellectual qualities
such as justice, righteousness and virtue were considered to be portions of pneuma.

According to this view, all parts of the cosmos worked together for the benefit of the
whole. Stoics believed that the universe moved through a never-ending cycle of phases,
each developing according to a pre-ordained design and ending in a conflagration.

Logic and Epistemology

The basic unit of Stoic logic was the simple proposition (axioma), a primary statement of
truth or falsehood. Simple propositions could be combined into more complex
conditional, conjunctive and disjunctive propositions. According to Stoicism, individual
words had a corporeal existence, but propositions and concepts belonged to a class of
incorporeals called lekta. According to the Stoics the use of language was closely
connected with reason, and was one of the characteristics that set human beings apart
from animals. A spoken sentence had three components: the object spoken of, the
words of the sentence, and the meaning of those words (lekton).

Stoics believed that the mind is like a blank slate at birth, and that all our cognitive
experience comes through sensual experience. They developed an elaborate explanation
of the way in which the mind receives and interprets sensory impressions and stores
them as concepts or memories. A Stoic learned to examine sensory impressions and
evaluate their truth or falsehood before accepting (assent) and responding to them.

Ethics

While the Epicureans believed that the most basic human impulse was the pursuit of
pleasure, the Stoics identified the instinct for self-preservation and self-awareness as the
“primary impulse.” This impulse came from Nature and could be seen in every newborn
creature; it explained why animals instinctively knew how to behave. Human beings were
initially motivated by this same primary impulse, but as they as they grew to adulthood
they developed rationality and the notion of duty and virtue, which took precedence
over self-preservation. As a person progressed in reason and virtue, he began to
understand the value of other children, family, neighbors, members of the community
and finally, all mankind, and to alter his actions accordingly. This process was
called oikeiôsis, or the doctrine of appropriation. A wise person understood his role in
the family and community, and acted to fulfill those roles. The eventual goal was to “live
in accordance with nature,” or eudaimonia (a flourishing life).

Only virtue was good, only vice was evil. Everything else, health, wealth, honor, sickness,
poverty, death, was considered an “indifferent” (adiaphora). The possession of these
indifferents was irrelevant to happiness, though some, such as health, were “preferred”
and some, such as poverty, were “dispreferred.” These indifferents served as subject
matter for the choices each person made from birth, with every correct choice being a
step towards the goal of living in harmony with nature. There might be occasions when a
person, guided by reason, might choose to sacrifice health or wealth for the sake of his
role in the family or nation.

Suffering and unhappiness resulted from passions, which were seen as mistakes in
judgment and the erroneous assignment of value to something which was really an
“indifferent.” Epictetus is quoted as saying, "When I see a man in a state of anxiety, I say,
what can this man want? If he did not want something which is not in his power, how
could he still be anxious?" A wise man using reason did not desire anything that was not
in accord with Nature. The four types of passion were categorized as distress, fear,
pleasure and appetite.

The Stoics believed that the development of the universe was preordained by god, or
divine will, and that man was therefore unable to affect the course of history by his
actions. In his Discourses, Epitectus distinguished between “what is in our power” and
“what is not in our power.” It is not in our power to change events, but it is in our power
to change how we perceive and judge these events and their effect on our lives. True
happiness could be achieved by learning to judge events from the point of view of
Nature rather than an individual point of view.

Early Stoics said that a person was either all virtue or all vice. They categorized four main
types of virtue, wisdom (sophia), courage (andreia), justice (dikaiosyne), and temperance
(sophrosyne), a classification derived from the teachings of Plato. A man possessing one
of these virtues automatically possessed them all. True sages, or wise men, were very
rare, and almost everyone could be considered a fool. Later Stoics softened this stance
and placed greater emphasis on the process of becoming virtuous.

Practice and Self-Discipline

Philosophy for a Stoic was not just a set of beliefs or ethical claims; it was a way of life
involving constant practice and training (or askesis, from which the term ascetic derives).
Stoic philosophical and spiritual practices included logic, Socratic dialogue and self-
dialogue, contemplation of death, training attention to remain in the present moment
(similar to some forms of Eastern meditation), and daily reflection on everyday problems
and possible solutions. The Discourses and Handbook of Epitectus elaborated a system of
mental exercises intended to develop the understanding of someone wishing to become
a Stoic.

In Meditations, which he wrote as a personal reflection, Marcus Aurelius detailed how he

applied such practices in his daily life on the battlefield and in politics. For example, he
says in Book II, part 1:
 Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today ungrateful, violent,
treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All of these things have come upon them
through ignorance of real good and ill... I can neither be harmed by any of them, for
no man will involve me in wrong, nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him;
for we have come into the world to work together...

Techniques like these continue to have value today in teaching how to overcome difficult
circumstances and resolve conflicts.

Influence on Christianity
Although Stoicism was considered by many early Fathers of the Church to be a part of
the philosophical decline of the ancient world, many of its elements were held in high
esteem, in particular, the natural law, which is a major part of the Roman Catholic and
early American doctrines of secular public morality. The central Stoic concept of logos
became part of Christian thought (Christian Bible, John 1). The Stoic definition of virtue
as the conformance of the will to the rational order of the world has parallels with
traditional Christian morality. Long before Christianity, the Stoics taught that all human
beings, including women and slaves, were of equal value, and put forth the concept of a
worldwide brotherhood of mankind existing in harmony and peace. Stoic
cosmopolitanism influenced Augustine of Hippo's concept of the City of God. Stoicism
influenced the Christian Boethius in his Consolation of Philosophy, a book that promotes
Christian morality via secular philosophy; this book was highly influential in the Middle
Ages.

Quotations
Collection of various Stoic quotes:

Epictetus:

 "First, decide who you would be. Then, do what you must do."
 “Wherever I go, it will be well with me.”

 "When I see a man in a state of anxiety, I say, What can this man want? If he did
not want something which is not in his power, how could he still be anxious?"

 "Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of one's desires, but by the removal of
desire."
  "Nothing outside the will can hinder or harm the will; it can only harm itself. If
then we accept this, and, when things go amiss, are inclined to blame ourselves,
remembering that judgment alone can disturb our peace and constancy, I swear
to you by all the gods that we have made progress."

 "If you would not fail of what you seek, or incur what you shun, desire nothing
that belongs to others; shun nothing that lies beyond your own control; otherwise
you must necessarily be disappointed in what you seek, and incur what you shun."

 "In a word, neither death, nor exile, nor pain, nor anything of this kind, is the real
cause of our doing or not doing any action, but our opinions and the decisions of
our will."

 "Where is the good? In the will. Where is the evil? In the will. Where is neither of
them? In those things which are independent of the will."

 "Who then is the invincible? It is he whom none of the things disturb which are
independent of the will."

 "No man is free who is not master of himself."

 "Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not on account
of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away with me, for no one
can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone are my property, and cannot
be taken away, and to possess them suffices me wherever I am or whatever I do."

 "I am formed by nature for my own good: I am not formed for my own evil."

 "If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of
himself alone."

 "Every person must deal with each thing according to the opinion that he holds
about it."

 "Permit nothing to cleave to you that is not your own; nothing to grow to you
that may give you agony when it is torn away."

 "He is a wise man who does not grieve for the things which he has not, but
rejoices for those which he has."

Marcus Aurelius:

 "The universe is in change, life is an opinion."

 "Get rid of the judgement ... get rid of the 'I am hurt,' you are rid of the hurt
itself."
 "The mind in itself wants nothing, unless it creates a want for itself; therefore it is
both free from perturbation and unimpeded, if it does not perturb and impede
itself."

 "Everything is right for me, which is right for you, O Universe. Nothing for me is
too early or too late, which comes in due time for you. Everything is fruit to me
which your seasons bring, O Nature. From you are all things, in you are all things,
to you all things return."

 "Let there be freedom from perturbation with respect to the things which come
from external causes, and in actions whose cause lies in yourself, be just; that is,
let impulse and action terminate in social acts, for this is according to your
nature."

 "If you are distressed by any external thing, it is not this thing which disturbs you,
but your own judgment about it. And it is in your power to wipe out that
judgment now."

 "Nothing happens to any man which he is not framed by nature to bear."

 "It is in our power to refrain from any opinion about things and not to be
disturbed in our souls; for things in themselves have no natural power to force
our judgments."

 "If you work at that which is before you, following right reason seriously,
vigorously, calmly, without allowing anything else to distract you, but keeping
your divine part pure, as if you were bound to give it back immediately; if you
hold to this, expecting nothing, but satisfied to live now according to nature,
speaking heroic truth in every word which you utter, you will live happy. And
there is no man able to prevent this."

 "Everywhere and at all times it is in your power to accept reverently your present
condition, to behave justly to those about you, and to exert your skill to control
your thoughts, that nothing shall steal into them without being well examined."

 "How ridiculous and how strange to be surprised at anything which happens in

life!"

 "Outward things cannot touch the soul, not in the least degree; nor have they
admission to the soul, nor can they turn or move the soul; but the soul turns and
moves itself alone."
  “Even when the mind is feeling its way cautiously and working its way round a
problem from every angle, it is still moving directly onwards and making for its
goal.”

Seneca:

 "The point is, not how long you live, but how nobly you live."
 "That which Fortune has not given, she cannot take away."

 "Let Nature deal with matter, which is her own, as she pleases; let us be cheerful
and brave in the face of everything, reflecting that it is nothing of our own that
perishes."

 "The soul should know whither it is going and whence it came, what is good for it
and what is evil, what it seeks and what it avoids, and what is that Reason which
distinguishes between the desirable and the undesirable, and thereby tames the
madness of our desires and calms the violence of our fears."

 "Virtue is nothing else than right reason."

Sophists

The term sophists originally meant “wise men” in Ancient Greece. By the fifth
century B.C.E., the term designated a profession in or a group of teachers of rhetoric.
Rhetoricians do not necessary hold particular philosophical views and arts of rhetoric in
themselves do not have any associated philosophical positions. A number of
rhetoricians, however, appeared and promoted particular philosophical views mainly
in Athens, and it was their philosophical positions against which
both Socrates and Plato addressed severe criticisms. Socrates and Plato challenged
sophist ideas of replacing rhetorical skills to genuine knowledge, moral
relativism, epistemological skepticism, and their secularist concept of happiness. Both
Socrates and Plato saw endangerment of the moral foundation of society in their
philosophical views. Some of the Sophist's ideas have been compared to
Machiavellianism and Hobbesianism.

History
Origins

The meaning of the word sophist (greek sophistes meaning "wise-ist," or one who 'does'
wisdom, i.e. who makes a business out of wisdom; cf. sophós, "wise man", cf. also wizard)
has changed greatly over time. Initially, a sophist was someone who gave sophia to his
disciples, that is, wisdom made from knowledge. It was a highly complimentary term,
applied to early philosophers such as the Seven Wise Men of Greece.

The Fifth Century B.C.E.

In the second half of the fifth century B.C.E., and especially at Athens, "sophist" came to
be applied to an unorganized group of thinkers who employed debate and rhetoric to
teach and disseminate their ideas and offered to teach these skills to others. Due to the
importance of such skills in the litigious social life and the democratic political system
of Athens, practitioners of such skills often commanded high fees. The practice of taking
fees, coupled with the willingness of many practitioners to use their rhetorical skills to
pursue unjust lawsuits and political power eventually led to a decline in respect for
practitioners of this form of teaching and the ideas and writings associated with it.

Protagoras is generally regarded as the first sophist. Other leading sophists

included Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias, Thrasymachus, Lycophron, Callicles, Antiphon, and
Cratylus. Socrates was perhaps the first philosopher to significantly challenge the
Sophists, and Plato addressed his criticisms by depicting Socrates’ debates with them in
his works.

Socrates was also misconceived as a sophist. To avoid this misconception and clearly
distinguish Socrates from sophists, Plato described the difference of their philosophical
positions.

Some sophists held a relativistic view on ethics and knowledge. Their philosophy
contains criticism of religion, law and ethics. Though some sophists were as religious as
their contemporaries, some held atheistic or agnostic views. Both Socrates and Plato
challenged not sophistry as rhetorical technique but their philosophical foundations:
moral relativism, secular conception of happiness, and epistemological skepticism.

Unfortunately most of the original texts written by the sophists have been lost, and
modern understanding of the sophistic movement comes from analysis of Plato's
writings, which also became the source for the modern view of the "sophist" as someone
who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or
to support fallacious reasoning.
In the Roman Empire, sophists were just professors of rhetoric. For instance, Libanius,
Himerius, Aelius Aristides and Fronto were considered sophists in this sense.

Modern Usage
While a particular bad and insincere argument is likely to be labeled a
sophism the practice of using such arguments is known as sophistry. In its modern
meaning, "sophistry" is a derogatory term for rhetoric that is designed to appeal to the
listener on grounds other than the strict logical cogency of the statements being made.

In traditional logical argument, a set of premises are connected together according to

the rules of logic and lead therefore to some conclusion. When someone criticizes the
argument, they do so by pointing out either falsehoods among the premises or logical
fallacies, flaws in the logical scaffolding. These criticisms may be subject to counter-
criticisms, which in turn may be subject to counter-counter-criticisms, etc. Generally,
some judge or audience eventually either concurs with or rejects the position of one side
and thus a consensus opinion of the truth is arrived upon.

The essential claim of sophistry is that the actual logical validity of an argument is
irrelevant (if not non-existent); it is only the ruling of the audience that ultimately
determines whether a conclusion is considered "true" or not. By appealing to the
prejudices and emotions of the judges, one can garner favorable treatment for one's
side of the argument and cause a factually false position to be ruled true.

The philosophical Sophist goes one step beyond that and claims that since it was
traditionally accepted that the position ruled valid by the judges was literally true, any
position ruled true by the judges must be considered literally true, even if it was arrived
at by naked pandering to the judges' prejudices — or even by bribery.

Critics would argue that this claim relies on a straw man caricature of logical discourse
and is, in fact, a self-justifying act of sophistry.

Philosophy
Philosophical perspectives of sophists were critically exposed and analyzed by Plato.
Although all sophists may not have shared the same view, Plato depicted their general
perspective.

Skepticism and relativism

Sophists traveled and witnessed diverse views of god and customs, and developed
relativistic or antagonistic views for religious faith, morality, and values. They presented a
skeptical or critical or antagonistic view to the existence of an absolute, permanent, and
objective standard of truth. They viewed truth or a standard of good and evil as a matter
of interpretation. A major sophist, Protagoras’ phrase, “man is the measure of all things”
indicates this relativistic view of truth.

If there is no objective standard of truth we can appeal to or can determine the validity
of claims, arguments become like a game or a battle where winning or losing is at stake
and rhetorical skills become a definitive universal tool.

Might is right

In the absence of the objective standard of truth or right and wrong, the perspective of
“might is right” emerged. Thrasymachus, another prominent sophist, developed this
view. Citing historical cases, he challenged Socrates, and explained how winners in fact
defined and determined justice and judged losers according to the standard they set.
Thrasymachus held a view that power determines and defines good and evil. Even
deceptive measures were justified as far as they serve for winning over opponents. This
power based value perspective entails a nihilistic view of life. One may also find an
incipient idea of Machiavellianism.

In Plato’s Gorgias, Callicles explained that: the original state of society was a chaotic state
of “war by all against all” (see Thomas Hobbes); domination by power is a natural
(physis) state of human life; the masses and the weak invent laws "(nomos)" to protect
themselves; the powerful can break the laws and establish their rule.

The ancient notion of nomos as divine laws that dominated both gods and humans were
no longer present in Callicles’ thought. There was no permanent or absolute principle
such as divine justice that abided human society.

Reality and Appearance

If winning or losing is the essential matter, how one appears or looks to others becomes
far more important than how one in fact is. Due to the denial of the existence of
unchanging, permanent truth or reality, the world is dissolved and reduced to only
appearance or phenomena. In Plato’s terms, Sophists stressed the importance of
“appearance” over “reality,” “opinion” over “knowledge,” or eradicated their distinction
since the world is theoretically limited to appearance in sophist worldview.

Secular conception of happiness

Sophists often identified happiness with pleasure and promoted secular materialistic
social success. In their view, happiness can be achieved and joy can be experienced
without moral goodness. Plato challenged and argued that human beings cannot
experience genuine joy and happiness without being morally good. Kant also argued
that moral goodness was the condition for happiness.

While sophists defined joy as all forms of pleasure in general, Plato distinguished joy,
pleasure, and happiness in two modes: authentic and inauthentic, or genuine and false.
Sophists missed this distinction in their analyses of human nature and life.

HELLENIC PHILOSOPHERS

Pyrrho and pyrrhonism

Jump to:navigation, search
Previous (Pyroxene)
Next (Pyruvic acid)

Pyrrho (c. 360 B.C.E. - c. 275 B.C.E.), a Greek philosopher from Elis, was credited in antiquity
as being the first skeptic philosopher and the inspiration for the school known
as Pyrrhonism, founded by Aenesidemus in the first century B.C.E.

Pyrrhonism often stands for extreme skepticism—the position that one should suspend
one’s judgment even when it comes down to affirming a skeptic stance. In that, it is
opposed to dogmatic skepticism as it is to other forms of dogmatism. The ultimate
purpose of Pyrrho and his successors was to achieve ataraxia, or peace of mind, by
abandoning any attempt to find an ever-elusive absolute truth in a world where every
viewpoint and every statement could find its opposite. Finding one’s peace with the
relative nature of the world thus replaced the more common quest for final answers.

Pyrrho
Life

Diogenes Laertius, quoting from Apollodorus, says that he started out as a painter, and
that pictures by him were in existence in the gymnasium of Elis. Later, inspired by the
works of Democritus, he changed to philosophy and, according to Diogenes Laertius, he
became acquainted with the Megarian dialectic through Bryson, a pupil of Stilpo.
However, Diogenes' testimony is doubtful. [1]
Pyrrho apparently traveled with Alexander the Great on his exploration of the east, along
with Anaxarchus, and studied under the Gymnosophists in India and with the Magi in
Persia. He seems to have adopted a life of solitude from Oriental philosophy. Returning
to Elis, he lived there in poverty but was highly honored by the Eleans, as well as by the
Athenians, who gave him the rights of citizenship. His doctrines are known mainly
through the satiric writings of his pupil Timon of Phlius (the Sillographer).

Philosophy

The main principle of Pyrrho’s thought is expressed in the word acatalepsia, implying
that one cannot possibly know the true nature of things. For any given statement the
opposite may be advanced with equal reason. Secondly, it is necessary in view of this
fact to suspend one’s judgment (epoche). As Timon expresses it, no assertion can be
known to be better than another. Thirdly, these results are applied to life in general.
Since nothing can be known, the only proper attitude is ataraxia, or "freedom from
worry."

The proper course of the sage, said Pyrrho, is to ask himself three questions. Firstly one
must ask what things are and how they are constituted. Secondly, one must ask how he
is related to these things. Thirdly, one asks what ought to be her attitude towards them.
Pyrrho's answer was that things are indistinguishable, immeasurable, and undecidable
and no more this than that, or both this and that, and neither this nor that. Therefore, he
said, the senses neither tell truths nor do they lie. [2] Therefore one knows nothing. One
only knows how things appear to him, but of their inner substance people remain
ignorant.

The impossibility of knowing, even in regard to one's own ignorance or doubt, should
lead the wise one to withdraw into himself. He should avoid the stress and the emotions
that naturally accompany vain imagination. This theory of the impossibility of knowledge
is the first and the most thorough exposition of agnosticism in the history of thought. Its
ethical results may be compared with the ideal tranquility proposed by the Stoics and
the Epicureans.

An alternate interpretation is that Pyrrho was not strictly speaking a skeptic according to
the skeptic's own standards—even though he was considered to be a skeptic in antiquity
—but that he rather was a negative dogmatist. Having a view of how things are in the
world makes Pyrrho a dogmatist; denying the possibility of knowledge makes his dogma
negative.[3]

Pyrrho is said to have been so seriously bound to skepticism that it led to his own
unfortunate and sudden death around 275 B.C.E. According to the legend, he was
demonstrating skepticism while blindfolded when his disciples tried to warn him of a
dangerous cliff he was headed toward. He refused to believe them, and thus, his life
ended abruptly. The historical accuracy of this claim is, however, doubtful.

Pyrrhonism
Pyrrhonism, or Pyrrhonian skepticism, was a school of skepticism founded by
Aenesidemus in the first century B.C.E. and recorded by Sextus Empiricus in the late
second century or early third century C.E. It was named after Pyrrho, although the
relationship between the philosophy of the school and of the historical figure is murky.
Pyrrhonism became influential during the past few centuries when the modern scientific
worldview was born.

Whereas "academic" skepticism, with as its most famous adherent Carneades, claims that
"nothing can be known, not even this," Pyrrhonian skeptics withhold any assent with
regard to non-evident propositions and remain in a state of perpetual inquiry. According
to them, even the statement that nothing can be known is dogmatic. For example,
Pyrrhonians might assert that a lack of proof cannot constitute disproof, and that a lack
of belief is vastly different from a state of active disbelief. Rather than disbelieving
psychic powers, for instance, based on the lack of evidence of such things, Pyrrhonians
recognize that one cannot be certain that new evidence won't turn up in the future, and
so they intentionally remain tentative and continue their inquiry. Pyrrhonians also
question accepted knowledge, and view dogmatism as a disease of the mind.

The Pyrrhonian crisis

A brief period in western history, during the birth of modernity, is referred to by

philosophers as the "Pyrrhonic crisis." In Feudal society, absolute truth was provided by
divine authority. However, as this view lost its legitimacy, there was a brief lag (in the
seventeenth century) before the Enlightenment produced science and the nation-state
as the new sources of absolute truth. During this period, relativist views similar to those
held in Pyrrhonism were popular among thinkers of the time.

Pyrrhonian skepticism is similar to the form of skepticism called Zeteticism promoted by

contemporary thinker Marcello Truzzi.

The existential dimension

Pyrrho and Pyrrhonism belong to the post-Socratic tradition of Greek philosophy that
mainly focuses on questions related to the self and its moral dilemmas, rather than on
cosmological questions as was the case for the pre-Socratics. More
generally, philosophia stands for the love of wisdom. Hence, even the most theoretical
philosophical quest starts and ends with some moral or existential interest: Where do I
come from, who am I, where am I going? And all these questions lead back to “what can
I know?” to which Pyrrho answers, “nothing” and not even that is sure.

Suspending one’s judgment is thus not only the appropriate epistemological stance; it is
also the attitude that will lead one to peace of mind, ataraxia. For the Pyrrhonian skeptic,
trying to find a satisfactory explanation to things is by definition senseless. Through his
conviction that accurate knowledge is an illusion, he refuses to even go into that
direction and incites his followers to seek peace in acceptance of that reality. It is a
primarily existential stance.

Pyrrhonism and Zen

When stating that things are neither this nor that (neither hot nor cold, neither white nor
black, neither certain nor uncertain, etc.) and at the same time this and that (hot and
cold, white and black, certain and uncertain), the Pyrrhonist acknowledges the relative
nature of all knowledge and of all reality as perceived by reason. He acknowledges that,
in the end, nothing can be said about reality that cannot be refuted from another
perspective, and the existential jump he makes is that only by abandoning this entire
perspective and taking things as they are do we have a chance to reach peace of mind.

Though the cultural background may be vastly different, this philosophical stance is
immediately reminiscent of Zen Buddhism and its quest for Nirvana, the internal peace
and freedom reached through detachment. That freedom is not reached through any
particular philosophical insight about our reality. Rather, it is attained through the
existential insight that the world of everyday reality (described nearly in the same way as
the above Pyrrhonian description) leads to unsolvable contradiction, strife and
opposition on every level, due to its relative nature. The emptiness or nothingness
of Sunyata reached at the end of long spiritual training thus has a paradoxically positive
meaning, that of allowing us to take things as they are, in their “Suchness,” without any
relative perspective. There is thus a clear family resemblance between ataraxia and
nirvana. The historical Pyrrho’s reported visits to India would validate a link between the
two. Similarly, other ancient Greek thinkers, including Plato, are often said to have
borrowed some of their inspiration from the East through India.

Epicurus
Epicurus (Epikouros or Ἐπίκουρος in Greek) (341 B.C.E. – 270 B.C.E.) was an ancient Greek
philosopher, the founder of Epicureanism, one of the most popular schools of Hellenistic
Philosophy. He taught that happiness was the ultimate goal of life, and that it could be
achieved by seeking pleasure and minimizing pain, including the pain of a troubled
mind. He encouraged the study of science as a way to overcome fear and ignorance and
thus achieve mental calmness. He set up communities that tried to live by his
philosophy. The Epicurean school remained active for several centuries and some of its
teachings strongly influenced modern thinkers, particularly in the areas of civic justice
and the study of physics.

Biography
Epicurus was born into an Athenian émigré family; his parents, Neocles and Chaerestrate,
both Athenian citizens, were sent to an Athenian settlement on the Aegean island of
Samos. According to Apollodorus (reported by Diogenes Laertius at X.14-15), he was
born on the seventh day of the month Gamelion in the third year of the 109th Olympiad,
in the archonship of Sosigenes (about February 341 B.C.E.). He returned to Athens at the
age of 18 to serve in military training as a condition for Athenian citizenship. The
playwright Menander served in the same age-class of the ephebes as Epicurus.

Two years later, he joined his father in Colophon when Perdiccas expelled the Athenian
settlers at Samos after the death of Alexander the Great (c. 320 B.C.E.). He spent several
years in Colophon, and at the age of 32 began to teach. He set up Epicurean
communities in Mytilene, where he met Hermarchus, his first disciple and later his
successor as head of the Athenian school; and in Lampsacus, where he met Metrodorus
and Polyaenus, Metrodorus’ brother Timocrates, Leonteus and his wife Themista,
Colotes, and Metrodorus’ sister Batis and her husband Idomeneus. In the archonship of
Anaxicrates (307 B.C.E.-306 B.C.E.), he returned to Athens where he formed The Garden (Ho
Kepus), a school named for the house and garden he owned about halfway between the
Stoa and the Academy that served as the school's meeting place. These communities set
out to live the ideal Epicurean lifestyle, detaching themselves from political society, and
devoting themselves to philosophical discourse and the cultivation of friendship. The
members of Epicurus’ communities lived a simple life, eating barley bread and drinking
water, although a daily ration of half a pint of wine was allowed. The letters that
members of these communities wrote to each other were collected by later Epicureans
and studied as a model of the philosophical life.
Samos, Colophon, Mytilene and Lampsacus were all in Asia, and Epicurus actively
maintained his ties with Asia all his life, even traveling from Athens to Asia Minor several
times. This Asiatic influence is reflected in his writing style and in the broad ecumenical
scope of his ideas.

Epicurus and his three close colleagues, Metrodorus (c. 331-278 B.C.E.), Hemarchus (his
successor as head of the Athenian school) and Polyaenus (died 278 B.C.E.), known as “the
Men” by later Epicureans, became the co-founders of Epicureanism, one of the three
leading movements of Hellenistic thought.

Epicurus died in the second year of the 127th Olympiad, in the archonship of Pytharatus,
at the age of 72. He reportedly suffered from kidney stones, and despite the prolonged
pain involved, he is reported as saying in a letter to Idomeneus:

"We have written this letter to you on a happy day to us, which is also the last day of our
life. For strangury has attacked me, and also a dysentery, so violent that nothing can be
added to the violence of my sufferings. But the cheerfulness of my mind, which arises
from their collection of all my philosophical contemplation, counterbalances all these
afflictions. And I beg you to take care of the children of Metrodorus, in a manner worth
of the devotion shown by the youth to me, and to philosophy" (Diogenes Laertius, X.22,
trans. C. D. Yonge).

In his will Epicurus left the house and garden and some funds to the trustees of the
school. He set aside funds to commemorate his deceased family and to celebrate his
birthday annually and his memory monthly. He also freed his slaves and provided for the
marriage of Metrodorus’ daughter.

The School
Epicurus' school had a small but devoted following in his lifetime. The primary members
were Hermarchus, the financier Idomeneus, Leonteus and his wife Themista, the satirist
Colotes, the mathematician Polyaenus of Lampsacus, and Metrodorus, the most famous
popularizer of Epicureanism. This original school was based in Epicurus' home and
garden. An inscription on the gate to the garden is recorded by Seneca in his Epistle XXI,
“Stranger, here you will do well to tarry; here our highest good is pleasure.” Unlike the
other Athenian schools of Plato and Aristotle, Epicurus’ school admitted women and
slaves. Its members sought to avoid politics and public life, and lived simply, cultivating
friendship and philosophical discourse.
The school's popularity grew and it became, along with Stoicism and Skepticism, one of
the three dominant schools of Hellenistic philosophy, maintaining a strong following
until the late Roman Empire. Only fragments of Epicurus’s prolific manuscripts remain,
including three epitomes (Letter to Herodotus on physics, Letter to Pythocles on
astronomy, and the Letter to Menoeceus on ethics), a group of maxims,
and papyrus fragments of his masterwork, On Nature. Many of the details of Epicurean
philosophy come to us from doxographers, secondary sources, and the writings of later
followers. In Rome, Lucretius was the school's greatest proponent, composing On the
Nature of Things, an epic poem, in six books, designed to recruit new members. The
poem mainly deals with the Epicurean philosophy of nature. Another major source of
information is the Roman politician and amateur philosopher Cicero, although he was
highly critical of Epicureanism. An ancient source is Diogenes of Oenoanda (c. 2 C.E.) who
composed a large inscription in stone at Oenoanda in Lycia.

Philosophy
Atomism

Epicurus' teachings represented a departure from the other major Greek thinkers of his
period, and before, but was nevertheless founded on the atomism of Democritus.
Everything that exists is either "body" or "space." Space includes absolute void, without
which motion would not be possible. Body is made up of tiny indivisible particles, atoms,
which can be further analyzed as sets of absolute “minima.” Atoms have only the primary
properties of size, shape and weight, while combinations of atoms generate secondary
properties like color. Atoms are constantly moving at a rapid pace, but large groups of
atoms form stable compounds by falling into regular patterns of movement governed by
three principles: weight (natural movement of falling in a straight line), collision (forced
movement resulting from impact) and a “swerve,” or random free motion. This “swerve”
initiates new patterns of movement and prevents determinism. Our world, and any other
worlds that exist, is one of these complex groups of atoms, generated by chance.
Everything that occurs is the result of the atoms colliding, rebounding, and becoming
entangled with one another, with no purpose or plan behind their motions. Our world is
not the creation of a divine will, and the gods are seen as ideal beings and models of
ideal life, uninvolved with the affairs of man. Epicurus limited the number of sensible
qualities by making the number of forms of the atoms finite, and to prevent
combinations of atoms form resulting in infinite sensible qualities he developed a law of
universal equilibrium of all the forces, or “isonomy.”

Epistemology
The Epicurean Canon, or rule (from a work, On the Criterion, or Canon) held that all
sensations and representations (aesthêsis) are true and are one of three criteria of truth,
along with the basic feelings of pleasure and pain (pathê), and prolepsis (concepts, or “a
recollection of what has often been presented from without”). It is only when we begin
to apply judgment to these criteria that error can occur. Using these three criteria we can
infer the nature of a remote or microscopic object or phenomenon. If both prolepsis
(naturally acquired concepts) and a number of examples from experience provide the
same evidence that something is true, we are entitled to believe it true, on the grounds
of ouk antimarturesis (lack of counter-evidence).

Epicurus concluded that the soul must be a body, made up of four types of atoms and
consisting of two parts: one distributed through the physical body and able to
experience physical sensations; and a separate part, the psyche, located in the chest,
which is the seat of thought, emotion and will. Thin films continuously issue from all
bodies and reach the psyche through the pores. Thought occurs when the images
constituted by these films are perceived by the psyche. The psyche is free to continually
seize only the images it needs from these films.

Sensual perception also takes place when films of atoms issued from the perceived
object hit the sense organs.

Ethics

Epicurus’ philosophy is based on the principle that “all sensations are true.” Sensations
that cause pleasure are good and sensations that cause pain are bad. The object of
ethics is to determine the desired end, and the means necessary to achieve that end.
Epicurus examined the animal kingdom and concluded that the ultimate end is
“pleasure.” He defined two types of pleasure; a “kinetic” pleasure that actively satisfies
the receiving sense organ, and “static” pleasure which is the absence of pain. Epicurus
declared that “freedom from pain in the body and trouble in the mind” is the ultimate
goal in achieving a happy life.

The modern-day terms “epicure” and “epicurean” imply extreme self-indulgence, but
Epicurus was by no means a hedonist in the modern sense of the word. The highest
pleasure, for both soul and body, is a satisfied state, “katastematic pleasure.” Self-
indulgence and the enjoyment of luxuries may affect this state, but do not increase or
heighten it. Instead, the effects of over-indulgence and the effort to accumulate wealth
often lead to pain and vulnerability to fortune. Man’s primary goal should be to
minimize pain. This can be accomplished for the body through a simple way of life that
satisfies the basic physical needs, and this is relatively easy to obtain. Pain of the soul can
be minimized through the study of physics (science), which eliminates fear and
ignorance. Physical pain can be far outweighed by mental pleasure because it is
temporary, while the pleasure of the mind ranges across time and space.

The members of Epicurus’ communities lived a simple life, eating barley bread and
drinking water, although a daily ration of half a pint of wine was allowed. Epicurus taught
that the way to achieve tranquility was to understand the limits of desire, and devoted
considerable effort to the exploration of different types of desire.

Friendship

Another important component of happiness and satisfaction is friendship. The world of

Epicurus’ time was one of violence and war, and it was necessary to ensure security in
order to achieve pleasure. Epicurus advocated avoiding involvement with public life and
the competition of society, to “live hidden.” A system of civic justice is important as
a contract among human beings to refrain from harmful activity in order to maintain
society. This contract is not absolute and can be revised as changing circumstances
demanded it. In addition, it is necessary to enter into a private compact of friendship
with like-minded individuals. This friendship, though entered into for utility, becomes a
desirable source of pleasure in itself. Epicurus said, “for love of friendship one has even
to put in jeopardy love itself,” and that a wise man, “if his friend is put to torture, suffers
as if he himself were there.”

Death and Mortality

Epicurus recognized two great fears as causes of pain and mental anguish: fear of the
gods and fear of death. He advocated the study of science to overcome these fears: “If
we were not troubled by our suspicions of the phenomena of the sky and about death,
and also by our failure to grasp the limits of pain and desires, we should have no need
for natural science.” By using science to explain natural phenomena, it becomes clear
that celestial phenomena are acts of nature and not acts of vengeance by the gods, who
are unconcerned with human affairs. According to Epicurus, the soul and body both
dissolve after death. There is no need to fear death while we are alive (and not dead),
and once we die we cease to exist and can’t feel fear at all. If we understand that
pleasure is perfect at each instant in our lives, and cannot be accumulated, we can see
that “infinite time contains no greater pleasure than limited time,” and therefore it is vain
to desire immortality.

God and Religion

Epicurus was one of the first Greek philosophers to challenge the belief that the cosmos
was ruled by a pantheon of gods and goddesses who arbitrarily intervened in human
affairs. He acknowledged the existence of the gods, but portrayed them as blissfully
happy beings that would not disturb their tranquility by involving themselves in human
affairs. He taught the gods were not even aware of human existence, and that they
should be regarded only as examples of ideal existence. Epicurus saw “fear of the gods”
as one of the great causes of mental anguish, and set out to overcome it by the study of
science. His atomist theories held that the universe was a chance conglomeration of
atoms, without the direction of any divine will. The Greeks believed the gods to be the
cause of many “celestial phenomena,” such as storms, lightning strikes, floods and
volcanic eruptions. Epicurus pointed out that there were natural explanations for all of
these phenomena and that they should not be feared as the vengeance or punishment
of the gods. Epicurus was also one of the first philosophers to discuss the concept of
evil, saying that a benevolent will could not be watching over a universe filled with such
misery and contradiction.

Some early Greek critics accused Epicurus of acknowledging the existence of the gods
only to protect himself from persecution and a fate similar to that of Socrates. Because it
minimized the importance of the gods and denied the existence of an afterlife,
Epicureanism was viewed as anti-religious, first by the Greeks, then the Jews and
Romans, and finally by the Christian church.

Civic Justice

Epicurus developed a theory of justice as a contract among the members of a

community “neither to harm or be harmed.” Justice, like other virtues, has value only to
the extent that it is useful to the community. Laws that do not contribute to the well
being of the community cannot be considered just. Laws were needed to control the
behavior of fools who might otherwise harm other members of the community, and
were to be obeyed because disobedience would bring about punishment, or fear of
punishment, and therefore, mental and physical pain.

Free Will

Epicurus’ writings about free will have been lost and a precise explanation of his theories
is not available. He was very careful to avoid determinism in the construction of his
atomic theory. In addition to the natural downward movement of atoms (weight or
gravity) and the movement caused by collision, Epicurus introduced a third movement,
the “swerve,” a random sideways movement. This “swerve” was necessary in order to
explain why atoms began colliding in the first place, since without some kind of sideways
movement all atoms would have just continued to travel downwards in parallel straight
lines. It also avoided the possibility that all future events were pre-determined the
moment atoms began to move, preserving human freedom and liberating man
from fate.

The most well-known Epicurean verse, which epitomizes his philosophy, is lathe biōsas
λάθε βιώσας (Plutarchus De latenter vivendo 1128c; Flavius Philostratus Vita Apollonii
8.28.12), meaning "live secretly," (live without pursuing glory or wealth or power).

Zeno of Citium
Jump to:navigation, search
Previous (Zengzi)
Next (Zeno of Elea)

Zeno of Citium (The Stoic) (sometime called Zeno Apathea) (333 – 264 B.C.E.) is known
as the founder of the Stoic school of Hellenistic philosophy. Born the son of a merchant
in Citium, Cyprus, he came to Athens and began to study under Crates of Thebes, the
most famous Cynic living at that time in Greece. Zeno studied under several other
philosophers, and at the age of 42, began the Stoic school, named for the Stoa Poikile
(Painted Porch) where he used to teach. None of Zeno's written works have survived
except for fragments quoted in the works of later followers and critics. His teachings
were further developed by his second successor, Chrysippus, and the ideas of the Stoics
had a significant influence on the Greeks and Romans, early Christianity, and the revival
of humanism during the Renaissance.

Zeno taught that tranquility can best be reached through indifference to pleasure and
pain. He was also a utopian anarchist, arguing that a society of rational men and women
had no need of money, courts of law, or organized institutions. Zeno was described as
being thin, tall, and of a dark complexion, and lived a frugal, ascetic life. The citizens of
Athens showed their respect for him by honoring him with keys to the city, a golden
crown, and a statue erected in his honor. King Antigonus of Macedonia often attended
his lectures and eventually invited him to be his advisor, but Zeno sent two of his
followers in his place. A crater on the moon is named for Zeno.

Life
Zeno was born the son of a merchant in 333 B.C.E. in the town of Citium, a Greek colony
in Cyprus. Citium had a large Phoenician population and there is evidence that Zeno
himself was a Phoenician by birth. Most of the information about him comes
from Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Zeno became a merchant himself,
and apparently, at the age of thirty, he was shipwrecked while transporting purple dye
from Phoenicia to Peiraeus. In Athens, he was attracted to the works of some
philosophers in a bookshop and just as Crates, the leading Cynic philosopher of the
time, was walking by, Zeno asked the shopkeeper where men like these could be found
and received the reply, "Follow that man." Zeno became a student of Crates, and later
studied under several other philosophers including Stilpon of Megara. Other accounts
disregard the story of the shipwreck, and say that Zeno simply sold his cargo and
remained in Athens to study philosophy.

One of Diogenes’ anecdotes relates how Zeno’s sense of social propriety was challenged
by Crates, who asked him to carry a jar of lentil soup in public. When Crates saw Zeno
trying to hide the jar from view, he rapped it sharply with his cane and broke it, so that
the lentil soup ran down Zeno’s legs. As Zeno ran away in embarrassment, Crates called
after him, "Why run away, my little Phoenician? Nothing terrible has befallen you!"
Several other anecdotes illustrate that Zeno exhibited the sarcasm and the penchant for
shocking behavior common among the Cynics.

After a number of years of study under other philosophers, Zeno began to deliver his
own discourses walking up and down the Stoa Poikile (Painted Porch). Apparently he did
this to restore tranquility to the Stoa, where fourteen hundred people had been
murdered during an earlier period of political unrest. Followers began gathering here to
listen to his teachings, and were given the name “Stoics.” Zeno did not like crowds and
preferred to walk accompanied by just two or three friends. He avoided close contact
with his audiences. According to Diogenes, he charged admission to listen to his
discourses in order to reduce the number of people in his audience, and also surrounded
himself with beggars to discourage those who were not genuinely interested in what he
was teaching.

Zeno was known for his powers of abstinence and his austere lifestyle; he was very
frugal, ate food that did not require cooking, and wore thin clothing. He was very much
respected by the citizens of Athens for living according to his own teachings, and for
setting an example of temperance and virtue for the young men of the city. He enjoyed
drinking wine at dinner parties and when questioned about it, replied that it was better
to slip with the feet than with the tongue.

Diogenes reports that Zeno did not like to receive public attention and was of an even
temperament. King Antigonus of Macedonia, who used to listen to Zeno’s lectures,
enjoyed his company and often took him along to social engagements, from which he
would quietly slip away. When Zeno was already quite old, King Antigonus invited him to
come to Macedonia to advise him. Zeno demurred, saying that he was too feeble, and
sent two of his younger followers, Persaeus and Philonides, in his place.
Zeno died around 246 B.C.E.. There were varying reports about his age when he died;
some said he was ninety-eight but his disciple Persaeus said he was seventy-two.
Diogenes reports that he fell as he was leaving his school and broke one of his toes;
striking the ground with his hand, he repeated a line out of the Niobe, “I come, why call
me so?” and died.

Thought and Works

Zeno is best known as the originator of the Stoic school of Hellenistic philosophy, which
remained popular among the Greeks and Romans for almost four hundred years. He
formulated his ideas while studying under several Cynics, including Crates and Stilpon of
Megara. Like many other early Greek philosophers, his written works have been lost and
his system of thought must be pieced together using the fragments quoted in the
writings of later philosophers. His greatest work was the Republic, which described an
anarchist utopia that would be governed by reason alone and would have no need of
money, courts of law, or temples. Diogenes lists 22 other works by Zeno, on subjects
such as the nature of man, the passions, sight, ethics, duty, law, and the doctrines of
the Pythagoreans.

According to Diogenes, Zeno was the first to distinguish three aspects of

reason: logic, natural philosophy (physics), and ethics, with ethics being central.
Diogenes also says that Zeno was the first to use the word “duty.” Zeno taught
that happiness lay in conquering passions and emotions and conforming to divine will,
which governs the universe. In his utopia, men and women would live completely
according to reason and therefore would not need laws to govern them or religion to
direct their actions. Since the world is imperfect and people do not live according to
reason, he taught that it was the duty of a Stoic to live a public life, setting an example
and striving to influence others.

Zeno declared that men and women were equal, and even suggested that they should
dress alike. He received criticism for saying that modesty was unnecessary and that “no
part of the body should be completely covered.” He also declared that true friendship
could exist only among virtuous people. Virtue was good, everything else was vice and
therefore evil. A person could develop virtue by making wise choices based on reason.

Zeno was very interested in logic and in the way that an argument could be successfully
presented. He frequently spoke out against vanity and ostentatiousness, and valued
honesty and directness over carefully crafted speeches.
Archimedes

Archimedes (Greek: Ἀρχιμήδης) (c. 287 B.C.E. –212 B.C.E.) was an

ancient Greek mathematician, physicist, engineer, astronomer, and philosopher,
considered one of the greatest mathematicians in antiquity. Archimedes apparently
studied mathematics in Alexandria, but lived most of his life in Syracuse. He discovered
how to find the volume of a sphere and determined the value of Pi; developed a way of
counting using zeros to represent powers of ten; discovered a formula to find the area
under a curve and the amount of space enclosed by a curve; and may have been the first
to use integral calculus. Archimedes also invented the field of statics, enunciated the law
of the lever, the law of equilibrium of fluids, and the law of buoyancy. He was the first to
identify the concept of center of gravity, and he found the centers of gravity of various
geometric figures, including triangles, paraboloids, and hemispheres, assuming the
uniform density of their interiors. Using only ancient Greek geometry, he also gave the
equilibrium positions of floating sections of paraboloids as a function of their height, a
feat that would be challenging for a modern physicist using calculus.

Archimedes only became widely known as a mathematician after Eutocius brought out
editions of some of his works, with commentaries, in the sixth century C.E. Ancient writers
were more interested in his inventions and in the ingenious war machines which he
developed than in his achievements in mathematics. Plutarch recounts how Archimedes’
war machines defended Syracuse against Roman attackers during the Second Punic War.
Many of Archimedes’ works were lost when the Library of Alexandria was burnt (twice),
and survived only in Latin or Arabic translations.

Life
Archimedes was born in the seaport colony of Syracuse, Magna Graecia (now Sicily),
around 287 B.C.E. He studied in Alexandria and then returned to Syracuse, where he spent
the rest of his life. Much of what is known about Archimedes comes from the prefaces to
his works and from stories related by Plutarch, Livy and other ancient historiographers.
The preface to The Sand Reckoner tells us that Archimedes’ father, Phidias, was an
astronomer. In the preface to On Spirals, Archimedes relates that he often sent his
friends in Alexandria statements of his latest theorems, but without giving proofs. Some
of the mathematicians there had claimed his results as their own, so Archimedes says
that on the last occasion when he sent them theorems he included two which were false,
“… so that those who claim to discover everything, but produce no proofs of the same, may
be confuted as having pretended to discover the impossible.” He regarded Conon of
Samos, one of the mathematicians at Alexandria, as a close friend and admired him for
his abilities as a mathematician.

The dedication of The Sand Reckoner to Gelon, the son of King Hieron, is evidence that
Archimedes was close to the family of King Hieron II. Plutarch’s biography of a Roman
soldier, Marcellus, who captured Syracuse in 212 B.C.E., also tells us that Archimedes was
related to King Hieron II of Syracuse. The same biography contends that Archimedes,
possessing a lofty spirit and profound soul, refused to write any treatise on engineering
or mechanics but preferred to devote himself to the study of pure geometry and
pursued it without regard for food or personal hygiene.

And yet Archimedes possessed such a lofty spirit, so profound a soul, and such a wealth
of scientific theory, that although his inventions had won for him a name and fame for
superhuman sagacity, 4 he would not consent to leave behind him any treatise on this
subject, but regarding the work of an engineer and every art that ministers to the needs
of life as ignoble and vulgar, he devoted his earnest efforts only to those studies the
subtlety and charm of which are not affected by the claims of necessity. These studies,
he thought, are not to be compared with any others; in them the subject matter vies with
the demonstration, the former supplying grandeur and beauty, the latter precision and
surpassing power. 5 For it is not possible to find in geometry more profound and
difficult questions treated in simpler and purer terms. Some attribute this success to his
natural endowments; others think it due to excessive labour that everything he did
seemed to have been performed without labour and with ease. For no one could by his
own efforts discover the proof, and yet as soon as he learns it from him, he thinks he
might have discovered it himself; so smooth and rapid is the path by which he leads one
to the desired conclusion. 6 And therefore we may not disbelieve the stories told about
him, how, under the lasting charm of some familiar and domestic Siren, he forgot even
his food and neglected the care of his person; and how, when he was dragged by main
force, as he often was, to the place for bathing and anointing his body, he would trace
geometrical figures in the ashes, and draw lines with his finger in the oil with which his
body was anointed, being possessed by a great delight, and in very truth a captive of the
Muses. 7 And although he made many excellent discoveries, he is said to have asked his
kinsmen and friends to place over the grave where he should be buried a cylinder
enclosing a sphere, with an inscription giving the proportion by which the containing
solid exceeds the contained. (Plutarch, Marcellus, 17: 3-7 translated by John Dryden)

Plutarch also gives three accounts of the death of Archimedes at the hands of the
Roman soldiers. Although Marcellus ordered that Archimedes not be harmed, Roman
soldiers came upon him at work and brutally murdered him. These stories seem
designed to contrast the high-mindedness of the Greeks with the blunt insensitivity and
brutality of the Roman soldiers.
4 But what most of all afflicted Marcellus was the death of Archimedes. For it chanced
that he was by himself, working out some problem with the aid of a diagram, and having
fixed his thoughts and his eyes as well upon the matter of his study, he was not aware of
the incursion of the Romans or of the capture of the city. Suddenly a soldier came upon
him and ordered him to go with him to Marcellus. This Archimedes refused to do until
he had worked out his problem and established his demonstration, 5 whereupon the
soldier flew into a passion, drew his sword, and dispatched him. Others, however, say
that the Roman came upon him with drawn sword threatening to kill him at once, and
that Archimedes, when he saw him, earnestly besought him to wait a little while, that he
might not leave the result that he was seeking incomplete and without demonstration;
but the soldier paid no heed to him and made an end of him. 6 There is also a third
story, that as Archimedes was carrying to Marcellus some of his mathematical
instruments, such as sun-dials and spheres and quadrants, by means of which he made
the magnitude of the sun appreciable to the eye,b some soldiers fell in with him, and
thinking that he was carrying gold in the box, slew him. However, it is generally agreed
that Marcellus was afflicted at his death, and turned away from his slayer as from a
polluted person, and sought out the kindred of Archimedes and paid them honour.
(Plutarch, Marcellus, Chapter 19: 4-6, translated by John Dryden)

Thought and Works

Archimedes is considered by most historians of mathematics as one of the greatest
mathematicians of all time. In creativity and insight, Archimedes exceeded any other
European mathematician prior to the European Renaissance. Archimedes' works were
not generally recognized, even in classical antiquity, though individual works were often
quoted by three eminent mathematicians of Alexandria, Heron, Pappus and Theon, and
only became widely known after Eutocius brought out editions of some of them, with
commentaries, in the sixth century C.E. Many of Archimedes’ works were lost when the
library of Alexandria was burnt (twice), and survived only in Latin or Arabic translations.
The surviving works include On Plane Equilibriums (two books), Quadrature of the
Parabola, On the Sphere and Cylinder (two books), On Spirals, On Conoids and Spheroids,
On Floating Bodies (two books), Measurement of a Circle, and The Sand Reckoner. In the
summer of 1906, J. L. Heiberg, professor of classical philology at the University of
Copenhagen, discovered a tenth century manuscript which included Archimedes'
work The Method, which provides a remarkable insight into how Archimedes made many
of his discoveries.

Numerous references to Archimedes in the works of ancient writers are concerned more
with Archimedes’ inventions, particularly those machines which were used as engines of
war, than with his discoveries in mathematics.
Inventions

King Hiero II, who was rumored to be Archimedes' uncle, commissioned him to design
and fabricate a new class of ships for his navy. Hiero II had promised large caches of
grain to the Romans in the north in return for peace. Unable to deliver the promised
amount, Hiero II commissioned Archimedes to develop a large, luxurious supply and war
barge for his navy. The ship, coined Saracussia, after its nation, may be mythical. There is
no record on foundry art, nor any other period pieces depicting its creation. It is solely
substantiated by a description from Plato, who said "it was the grandest equation ever to
sail."

Archimedes screw

It is said that the Archimedes Screw, a device which draws water up, was developed as a
tool to remove bilge water from ships. Archimedes became well-known for his
involvement in the defense of Syracuse, Italy against the Roman attack during the
Second Punic War. In his biography of Marcellus, Plutarch describes how Archimedes
held the Romans at bay with war machines of his own design, and was able to move a
full-size ship complete with crew and cargo with a compound pulley by pulling a single
rope.[1]

7And yet even Archimedes, who was a kinsman and friend of King Hiero, wrote to him
that with any given force it was possible to move any given weight; and emboldened, as
we are told, by the strength of his demonstration, he declared that, if there were another
world, and he could go to it, he could move this. 8 Hiero was astonished, and begged
him to put his proposition into execution, and show him some great weight moved by a
slight force. Archimedes therefore fixed upon a three-masted merchantman of the royal
fleet, which had been dragged ashore by the great labours of many men, and after
putting on board many passengers and the customary freight, he seated himself at a
distance from her, and without any great effort, but quietly setting in motion with his
hand a system of compound pulleys, drew her towards him smoothly and evenly, as
though she were gliding through the water. 9 Amazed at this, then, and comprehending
the power of his art, the king persuaded Archimedes to prepare for him offensive and
defensive engines to be used in every kind of siege warfare. These he had never used
himself, because he spent the greater part of his life in freedom from war and amid the
festal rites of peace; but at the present time his apparatus stood the Syracusans in good
stead, and, with the apparatus, its fabricator. Plutarch, Chapter 14, Marcellus,7-9

Claw of Archimedes
One of his inventions used for military defense of Syracuse against the invading Romans
was the “claw of Archimedes.” Archimedes also has been credited with improving
accuracy, range and power of the catapult, and with the possible invention of the
odometer during the First Punic War.

15 When, therefore, the Romans assaulted them by sea and land, the Syracusans were
stricken dumb with terror; they thought that nothing could withstand so furious an onset
by such forces. But Archimedes began to ply his engines, and shot against the land
forces of the assailants all sorts of missiles and immense masses of stones, which came
down with incredible din and speed; nothing whatever could ward off their weight, but
they knocked down in heaps those who stood in their way, and threw their ranks into
confusion. 2 At the same time huge beams were suddenly projected over the ships from
the walls, which sank some of them with great weights plunging down from on high;
others were seized at the prow by iron claws, or beaks like the beaks of cranes, drawn
straight up into the air, and then plunged stern foremost into the depths, or were turned
round and round by means of enginery within the city, and dashed upon the steep cliffs
that jutted out beneath the wall of the city, with great destruction of the fighting men on
board, who perished in the wrecks. 3 Frequently, too, a ship would be lifted out of the
water into mid-air, whirled hither and thither as it hung there, a dreadful spectacle, until
its crew had been thrown out and hurled in all directions, when it would fall empty upon
the walls, or slip away from the clutch that had held it. As for the engine which Marcellus
was bringing up on the bridge of ships, and which was called "sambuca" from some
resemblance it had to the musical instrument of that name,25 4 while it was still some
distance off in its approach to the wall, a stone of ten talents' weight26 was discharged
at it, then a second and a third; some of these, falling upon it with great din and surge of
wave, crushed the foundation of the engine, shattered its frame-work, and dislodged it
from the platform, so that Marcellus, in perplexity, ordered his ships to sail back as fast
as they could, and his land forces to retire.

5Then, in a council of war, it was decided to come up under the walls while it was still
night, if they could; for the ropes which Archimedes used in his engines, since they
imparted great impetus to the missiles cast, would, they thought, send them flying over
their heads, but would be ineffective at close quarters, where there was no place for the
cast. Archimedes, however, as it seemed, had long before prepared for such an
emergency engines with a range adapted to any interval and missiles of short flight, and
through many small and contiguous openings in the wall short-range engines called
scorpions could be brought to bear on objects close at hand without being seen by the
enemy. When, therefore, the Romans came up under the walls, thinking themselves
unnoticed, once more they encountered a great storm of missiles; huge stones came
tumbling down upon them almost perpendicularly, and the wall shot out arrows at them
from every point; they therefore retired. 2 And here again, when they were some
distance off, missiles darted forth and fell upon them as they were going away, and there
was great slaughter among them; many of their ships, too, were dashed together, and
they could not retaliate in any way upon their foes. For Archimedes had built most of his
engines close p479behind the wall, and the Romans seemed to be fighting against the
gods, now that countless mischiefs were poured out upon them from an invisible source.

17 However, Marcellus made his escape, and jesting with his own artificers and
engineers, "Let us stop," said he, "fighting against this geometrical Briareus, who uses
our ships like cups to ladle water from the sea, and has whipped and driven off in
disgrace our sambuca, and with the many missiles which he shoots against us all at once,
outdoes the hundred-handed monsters of mythology." 2 For in reality all the rest of the
Syracusans were but a body for the designs of Archimedes, and his the one soul moving
and managing everything; for all other weapons lay idle, and his alone were then
employed by the city both in offence and defence. 3 At last the Romans became so
fearful that, whenever they saw a bit of rope or a stick of timber projecting a little over
the wall, "There it is," they cried, "Archimedes is training some engine upon us," and
turned their backs and fled. Seeing this, Marcellus desisted from all fighting and assault,
and thenceforth depended on a long siege. (Plutarch, Marcellus, Chapters 15 - 17

Death ray

A diagram showing how Archimedes may have enabled the defenders of Syracuse to aim their
mirrors at approaching ships

It is said that Archimedes prevented one Roman attack on Syracuse by using a large
array of mirrors (speculated to have been highly polished shields) to reflect concentrated
sunlight onto the attacking ships, causing them to catch fire. This popular legend,
dubbed the "Archimedes death ray," has been tested many times since
the Renaissance and often discredited. It seems the ships would have had to be virtually
motionless and very close to shore for them to ignite, an unlikely scenario during a
battle. A group at Massachusetts Institute of Technology have performed their own tests
and concluded that the mirror weapon was a possibility. [2], although later tests of their
system showed it to be ineffective in conditions that more closely matched the described
siege. The television show Mythbusters also took on the challenge of recreating the
weapon and concluded that while it was possible to light a ship on fire, it would have to
be stationary at a specified distance during the hottest part of a very bright, hot day, and
would require several hundred troops carefully aiming mirrors while under attack. These
unlikely conditions combined with the availability of other simpler methods, such as
ballistae with flaming bolts, led the team to believe that the heat ray was far too
impractical to be used, and probably just a myth. [3]

Archimedes' Principle

The story of Archimedes discovering buoyancy while sitting in his bathtub is described in
Book 9 of De architectura by Vitruvius. King Hiero had given a goldsmith the exact
amount of gold to make a sacred gold wreath. When Hiero received it, the wreath had
the correct weight but the monarch suspected that some silver had been used instead of
the gold. Since he could not prove it without destroying the wreath, he brought the
problem to Archimedes. One day while considering the question, "the wise one" entered
his bathtub and recognized that the amount of water that
overflowed the tub was proportional to the amount of his body
that was submerged. This observation is now known as
Archimedes' Principle and gave him the means to measure the
mass of the gold wreath. He was so excited that he ran naked
through the streets of Syracuse shouting "Eureka! eureka!" (I
have found it!). The dishonest goldsmith was brought to
justice.

The Law of Buoyancy:

The buoyant force is equal to the weight of the displaced

fluid.

The weight of the displaced fluid is directly proportional to the

volume of the displaced fluid (specifically if the surrounding fluid is of uniform density).
Thus, among objects with equal masses, the one with greater volume has greater
buoyancy.

Suppose a rock's weight is measured as 10 newtons when suspended by a string in a

vacuum. Suppose that when the rock is lowered by the string into water, it displaces
water of weight 3 newtons. The force it then exerts on the string from which it hangs will
be 10 newtons minus the 3 newtons of buoyant force: 10 − 3 = 7 newtons.

The density of the immersed object relative to the density of the fluid is easily calculated
without measuring any volumes:

Mathematics

In creativity and insight, Archimedes exceeded any other European mathematician prior
to the European Renaissance. In a civilization with an awkward numeral system and a
language in which "a myriad" (literally "ten thousand") meant "infinity," he invented a
positional numeral system and used it to write numbers up to 10 64. He devised a heuristic
method based on statistics to do private calculations that would be classified today as
integral calculus, but then presented rigorous geometric proofs for his results. To what
extent Archimedes’ version of integral calculus was correct is debatable. He proved that
the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is the same as the ratio of the circle's
area to the square of the radius. He did not call this ratio Pi (π) but he gave a procedure
to approximate it to arbitrary accuracy and gave an approximation of it as between 3 +
10/71 (approximately 3.1408) and 3 + 1/7 (approximately 3.1429). He was the first Greek
mathematician to introduce mechanical curves (those traced by a moving point) as
legitimate objects of study. He proved that the area enclosed by a parabola and a
straight line is 4/3 the area of a triangle with equal base and height. (See the illustration
below. The "base" is any secant line, not necessarily orthogonal to the parabola's axis;
"the same base" means the same "horizontal" component of the length of the base;
"horizontal" means orthogonal to the axis. "Height" means the length of the segment
parallel to the axis from the vertex to the base. The vertex must be so placed that the
two horizontal distances mentioned in the illustration are equal.)
In the process, he calculated the earliest known example of a geometric progression
summed to infinity with the ratio 1/4:

If the first term in this series is the area of the triangle in the illustration, then the second
is the sum of the areas of two triangles whose bases are the two smaller secant lines in
the illustration, and so on. Archimedes also gave a quite different proof of nearly the
same proposition by a method using infinitesimals (see "Archimedes' use of
infinitesimals").

He proved that the ratio of the area of a sphere to the area of a circumscribed straight
cylinder is the same as the ratio of the volume of the sphere to the volume of the
circumscribed straight cylinder, an accomplishment which he had inscribed as his
epitaph on his tombstone.[4]

Archimedes is probably also the first mathematical physicist on record, and the best
until Galileo and Newton. He invented the field of statics, enunciated the law of the lever,
the law of equilibrium of fluids, and the law of buoyancy. He was the first to identify the
concept of center of gravity, and he found the centers of gravity of various geometric
figures, including triangles, paraboloids, and hemispheres, assuming the uniform density
of their interiors. Using only ancient Greek geometry, he also gave the equilibrium
positions of floating sections of paraboloids as a function of their height, a feat that
would be challenging for a modern physicist using calculus.
Astronomy

Archimedes was also an astronomer. Cicero writes that the Roman consul Marcellus
brought two devices back to Rome from the ransacked city of Syracuse. One device
mapped the sky on a sphere and the other predicted the motions of the sun and
the moon and the planets (an orrery). He credits Thales and Eudoxus for constructing
these devices. For some time the truth of this legend was in doubt, but the retrieval from
an ancient shipwreck in 1902 of the Antikythera mechanism, a device dated to 150 – 100
b.c.e.. has confirmed the probability that Archimedes possessed and constructed such
devices. Pappus of Alexandria writes that Archimedes had written a practical book on the
construction of such spheres entitled On Sphere-Making.

Writings by Archimedes

 On the Equilibrium of Planes (2 volumes)

This scroll explains the law of the lever and uses it to calculate the areas and
centers of gravity of various geometric figures.

 On Spirals

In this scroll, Archimedes defines what is now called Archimedes' spiral, the first
mechanical curve (curve traced by a moving point) ever considered by a Greek
mathematician.

 On the Sphere and the Cylinder

In this scroll Archimedes proves that the relation of the area of a sphere to that of
a circumscribed straight cylinder is the same as that of the volume of the sphere
to the volume of the cylinder (exactly 2/3).

 On Conoids and Spheroids

In this scroll Archimedes calculates the areas and volumes of sections of cones,
spheres, and paraboloids.

 On Floating Bodies (2 volumes)

In the first part of this scroll, Archimedes spells out the law of equilibrium of
fluids, and proves that water will adopt a spherical form around a center of
gravity. This was probably an attempt at explaining the observation made by
 Greek astronomers that the Earth is round. His fluids were not self-gravitating: he
assumed the existence of a point towards which all things fall and derived the
spherical shape.
In the second part, he calculated the equilibrium positions of sections of
paraboloids. This was probably an idealization of the shapes of ships' hulls. Some
of his sections float with the base under water and the summit above water, which
is reminiscent of the way icebergs float.

 The Quadrature of the Parabola

In this scroll, Archimedes calculates the area of a segment of a parabola (the

figure delimited by a parabola and a secant line not necessarily perpendicular to
the axis). The final answer is obtained by triangulating the area and summing the
geometric series with ratio 1/4.

 Stomachion

This is a Greek puzzle similar to a Tangram, and may be the first reference to this
game. Archimedes calculates the areas of the various pieces. Recent discoveries
indicate that Archimedes was attempting to determine how many ways the strips
of paper could be assembled into the shape of a square. This is possibly the first
use of combinatorics to solve a problem.

 Archimedes' Cattle Problem

Archimedes wrote a letter to the scholars in the Library of Alexandria, who

apparently had downplayed the importance of Archimedes' works. In this letter,
he challenges them to count the numbers of cattle in the Herd of the Sun by
solving a number of simultaneous Diophantine equations, some of them
quadratic (in the more complicated version). This problem was recently solved
with the aid of a computer. The solution is a very large number, approximately
7.760271 × 10206544 (See the external links to the Cattle Problem.)

 The Sand Reckoner

In this scroll, Archimedes counts the number of grains of sand fitting inside the
universe. This book mentions Aristarchus of Samos' theory of the solar system,
concluding that it is impossible, and contemporary ideas about the size of the
Earth and the distance between various celestial bodies.

 The Method
 This work, which was unknown in the Middle Ages, but the importance of which
was realized after its discovery, pioneers the use of infinitesimals, showing how
breaking up a figure into an infinite number of infinitely small parts could be used
to determine its area or volume. Archimedes probably considered these methods
not mathematically precise, and he used these methods to find at least some of
the areas or volumes he sought, and then used the more traditional method of
exhaustion to prove them.

Chrysippus
Chrysippus of Soli (c. 280 B.C.E. - c. 207 B.C.E.) is considered to be a co-founder
of Stoicism, one of the most influential schools of Hellenistic philosophy. He
succeeded Zeno of Citium and Cleanthes as head of the original school in Athens. He is
said to have written over 700 works, none of which have survived except as fragments
embedded in the works of later writers. Chrysippus is credited with developing Stoicism
into a logical, systematic thought. He was one of the first to organize propositional
logic as an intellectual discipline.

Due to his theoretical contributions to the formation of Stoicism, it was said that, "If
there had been no Chrysippus, there would have been no Stoicism."

Life
Chrysippus was born in 280 B.C.E. in Soli, Cilicia, Asia Minor (now Soloi, Turkey). According
to Diogenes Laertes his father was named Apollonius. After losing a large inheritance
through a legal controversy, he became seriously interested in philosophy. He came to
Athens to study philosophy at the Academy with Arcesilaus and Lacydes, and there he
apparently learned the technique of arguing both sides of a question and first
considered concepts of magnitude and quantity. He then became a student of Cleanthes
of Assos at the school founded by Zeno of Citium at the Stoa Poikile (Painted Porch).
Upon Cleanthes’ death in 232 B.C.E., Chrysippus became the head of the school and
remained in that position until his death in 206 B.C.E. By then, all the major tenets of
Stoicism were in place, and Chrysippus is credited with developing, organizing and
strengthening the arguments originally proposed by Zeno.

Chrysippus wrote over 700 papyrus scrolls. As was apparently common with natives of
Soli (Soloi in Turkey), his style of writing in Greek was awkward. An old woman who lived
with Chrysippus reported that he wrote 500 lines every day. Apparently he sometimes
wrote several books on the same subject, putting down all of his thoughts on the matter,
correcting himself, quoting long passages from other philosophers and adding
numerous testimonies. Apollodorus of Athens criticized him in a work, Collection of
Dogmas, saying, "For if any one were to take away from the books of Chrysippus all the
passages which he quotes from other authors, his paper would be left empty." None of
his written works survive except for a few fragments embedded in the works of later
writers such as Cicero and Seneca.

He was skillful at debate and had a tendency to take both sides of an argument, a habit
that frustrated his students and disciples, especially when in the heat of an argument he
was led to make ridiculous assertions. Many of Chrysippus’ listeners said that if the gods
were philosophers, they would surely debate in the same manner as Chrysippus.

From the writings of Chrysippus it is evident that, after his inheritance was confiscated by
the government, he was not wealthy and that he relied on income from teaching and the
support of friends. Diogenes Laertius’s Lives of the Philosophers contains some
interesting anecdotes about the life of Chrysippus which may or may not be completely
accurate, but which present him as a strong and outspoken teacher. According to
Diogenes, Chrysippus had great natural ability and perspicacity and dissented from Zeno
and Cleanthes on numerous points. Before Cleanthes’s death he was already an eminent
philosopher in his own right. Apparently he frequently came into conflict with Cleanthes
and then repented, and is quoted as often saying: "In most respects I am a happy man;
excepting where Cleanthes is concerned; for in that matter I am far from fortunate."

Diogenes describes Chrysippus as being “slight in stature’” based on a statue of him in

the Ceramicus, and as being arrogant. Once, when he was reproached for not attending
the lectures of Ariston, a popular philosopher at the time, he replied, "If I had attended
to the multitude I should not have been a philosopher." And once, when he saw a
dialectician proposing sophistical fallacies to Cleanthes, he said, "Cease to drag that old
man from more important business, and propose these questions to us who are young."
Diogenes says that he had so high an opinion of himself, that when a man asked him to
recommend a teacher for his son, he said "To me, for if I thought that there was any one
better than myself, I would have gone to him to teach me philosophy."

He sent for his sisters’ sons, Aristocrea and Philocrates, and educated them; and he was
said to have been the first person who ventured to hold a school in the open air in
the Lyceum.

Diogenes gives two accounts of the death of Chrysippus at the age of 73. One states
that his death was caused by drinking over-proof wine at a sacrificial ceremony, to which
some students had invited him. Another account, which is probably more anecdote than
truth, is that Chrysippus, amused when he saw his donkey eating some figs, asked a
servant to give the donkey wine as well and died of laughter at the sight.

Thought and Works

Together with Zeno of Citium, Chrysippus is considered a founder of the Stoic school of
Hellenistic philosophy. Though only fragments of Chrysippus' original works survive in
the writings of later Stoics and their critics, he is considered to have developed and
organized the major principles of Stoicism, based on the propositions put forth by Zeno
of Citium.

Chrysippus was one of the first to organize propositional logic as an intellectual

discipline, allowing the Stoics to make major advances in mathematics and science. The
logical term "disjunction" is credited to the Stoics and it is thought to have originated
with Chrysippus. Diogenes Laertius lists 118 works on logic by Chrysippus, including
seven books concerning the Liar Paradox.

Chrysippus believed that the study of physics and logic was necessary in order to
formulate a correct system of ethics. Chrysippus taught that the world was imbued with
divine reason, or logos, which directed and shaped everything in the physical world. Each
corporeal thing had an invisible character that gave it a distinct form and existence.
Qualities of the soul, such as righteousness, were part of this invisible character.

Virtue was good; vice was evil. Our ultimate goal was to “live in accordance with nature.”
Chrysippus asserted that nobility was not a status assumed at birth due to parentage,
but could be achieved only through the demonstration of virtue, since all men come
from the same divine origin. Every individual should strive fervently to attain a level
of altruism and goodwill towards society, in order to maintain a good balance of the
social order. For Chrysippus, hero-worship and praise was not an attractive feature in an
individual; humanitas (sympathy, reason, and intelligence) were far more important
qualities.

He also taught that evil was interdependent with its counterpart, goodness: "There could
be no justice, unless there were also injustice; no courage, unless there were cowardice;
no truth, unless there were falsehood."

An old saying emphasizes Chrysippus’ importance to Stoicism: "... He (Chrysippus) alone

is the sage, the others only act as shadows."

Carneades
Jump to:navigation, search
Previous (Carnation)
Next (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)

Carneades (c. 214 - 129 B.C.E.) was one of the most prominent Academic skeptics. Head
of the Academy from 167 to 137 B.C.E., he not only argued against the dogmatic
positions of other philosophers; he developed arguments in favor of views that had
never been considered before, in order to demonstrate that no conclusion can be held
to be absolutely true. His interest was mainly in ethics and epistemology, and he excelled
in oratory and dialectic. He made several significant philosophical contributions,
including arguments against determinism, and discussions of the truth-value of
statements about the future and human freedom. His system for classifying the ethical
values of various thought processes became a standard philosophical framework. He
developed a skeptic criterion for judging the accuracy of a sense impression by
evaluating its relative plausibility (to pithanon). It is unclear whether Carneades himself
completely accepted this criterion as valid and useful.

Ancient writers referred to Carneades as the founder of the “third” or “New” Academy,
following the second or Middle Academy of Arcesilaus and the first or Old Academy
of Plato and his successors. Carneades modified skepticism to allow for the validity of
well-founded opinions, which opened skeptical debate to other topics besides
epistemology, such as theology, metaphysics, and natural philosophy. Later skeptics
devoted themselves to understanding and interpreting the thought of Carneades.

Life
Carneades was born in Cyrene (a Greek city in North Africa) c. 214 B.C.E. and came
to Athens, where he studied logic under the Stoic, Diogenes of Babylon, the fifth head of
the Stoa and a student of Chrysippus. Diogenes Laertius reports, in Lives of Eminent
Philosphers, that, "he read all the books of the Stoics with great care, and especially
those of Chrysippus; and then he wrote replies to them, but did it at the same time with
such modesty that he used to say, 'If Chrysippus had not lived, I should never have
existed.'"

In 137 B.C.E., Carneades became head of the Academy, succeeding Arcesilaus, Lacydes (c.
243 B.C.E.), Evander, and Hegesinus. He was a gifted orator. Diogenes Laertius describes
him as a “man of great industry,” and great voice, “a very vehement speaker, and one
difficult to contend with in the investigation of a point.” He also says that Carneades was
so devoted to philosophical discussion that he did not find time to cut his hair and nails,
and that he was such an eminent philosopher that other orators left their schools to
come and listen to his lectures.

Carneades was sent to Rome in 155 B.C.E., together with Diogenes and Critolaus, head of
the Perpipatos, to present an Athenian petition before the senate. According to Plutarch,
in Life of Cato the Elder, studious Roman youths came immediately to hear the
philosophers speak, and the gracefulness of Carneades’ oratory attracted a large
audience. On two successive days, Carneades argued for and against justice, outraging
the Roman elders. Cato, who did not like philosophy, was annoyed and concerned that
Roman young men would turn their attention from warfare to philosophy. He ordered
the senate to respond to the Athenian petition quickly, so that the philosophers would
go back to Greece.

Carneades was renowned for his skill in arguing against the positions of other
philosophers, particularly the Stoics. He followed the dialectical tradition of Socrates and
Arcesilaus, which was, according to Cicero, to conceal his private opinions, use a series of
questions to reveal the weaknesses of his opponents’ position, and in doing so, to search
for the most probable solution. Later writers consider Carneades the founder of the third
or New Academy, signaling a change in philosophical approach from the second or
Middle Academy of Arcesilaus, and the first or Old Academy of Plato. Carneades’
skepticism appeared to be less extreme than the position of his predecessors, admitting
the usefulness of well-founded opinions, and thus allowing him to diverge
from epistemology to other topics, such as ethics, natural philosophy, and theology.

Carneades died at the age of eighty-five in 129 B.C.E. Legend says that an eclipse of the
moon took place at the time of his death.

Thought
Carneades left no written works except for a few letters, which were lost. His thought was
transmitted to his students in his lectures and discussions, and was preserved by his
successor as head of the Academy, Clitomachus, whose works were interpreted in detail
by later writers, including Cicero and Sextus Empiricus.

Carneades devoted much of his effort to exposing the weaknesses of Stoic arguments,
but he went further, setting forth arguments of his own in favor of views that sometimes
had never been defended before, not in order to establish their truth, but simply to
demonstrate that no argument could be assumed to be true. He also challenged the
precepts of other schools of thought, including the Epicureans. Much of the work of the
later Skeptics involved interpretation and commentary on the ideas of Carneades.
The Stoics used cognitive impressions as the basis by which truth could be perceived.
Carneades argued that a cognitive impression could be in error because there were
instances where entirely different objects or circumstances, such as identical twins or a
mirror image, could produce identical cognitive impressions. In such cases, the only way
to avoid error would be to suspend judgment. The Stoic counter-argument was that,
without cognitive impressions, human beings would have no basis for making inquiries
or acting. Carneades replied that such a basis could be found in “probable impressions.”
Certain sense impressions would appear to be more convincing than others. If a sense
impression is sufficiently convincing, and if it correlates with other relevant impressions,
it can be used as a basis for action. There may be occasions when the sense impression
is not accurate, but these do not occur often in daily life. When an important decision is
to be made, particularly one relating to happiness, further inquiries can be made to
verify the validity of the sense impression. It is unclear whether Carneades himself
endorsed the criterion of “probability,” (to pithanon) or whether he was merely setting
forth a philosophical proposal for consideration. Clitomachus, his successor and closest
associate, did not know what Carneades thought, but he testified that Carneades worked
diligently to “cast assent …, like a wild and savage beast, that is mere opinion and
thoughtlessness" out of the minds of his listeners.

Ethics

Carneades set out to classify not only the existing ethical theories of his time, but any
others that might be possible. He argued that in order to conduct life successfully,
human beings must have an object, the greatest good, and the accomplishment of it
must be something towards which man had a natural impulse. He identified three
possible objects of goodness: Pleasure, freedom from pain, and natural advantages such
as health and strength. Virtue was action with the purpose of attaining one, or more of
these objects. He proposed six simple views of the goal of life, the achievement of each
of the three objects and the virtue of acting towards the attainment of each object; and
three views which combined striving to achieve the object with the accomplishment of
the object itself. This classification influenced the way in which later philosophers
examined ethical theories. The Stoic concept, that virtue is the only good, corresponded
with the sixth simple goal of always acting in order to achieve natural advantages.

Determinism and theology

Entering into the debate between the Stoics and the Epicureans
on determinism and Free Will, Carneades argued that the principle of bivalence (the
principle that for any statement P, either P is true or P is false) does not imply
deterministic consequences. A statement could be true today and false tomorrow, if a
different choice is made tomorrow. He also said that the Epicureans did not need the
concept of a “random atomic swerve” to liberate human lives from causal determinism.
The free movement of a person’s mind was cause enough for his actions, without any
other necessity.

Carneades also challenged the Epicurean and Stoic concepts of the gods, using a logical
argument that since they could not consistently define what was divine and what was
not, there was a possibility that everything could be divine.

Philo (20 B.C.E. – 50 C.E.), known also as Philo of Alexandria and as Philo Judaeus, was a
Hellenized Jewish philosopher who synthesized Stoic, Platonic and Jewish ideas and laid
a philosophical and theological foundation for the development of Christianity in the
West and the East and, indirectly, for rational theologians in the Jewish
and Islamic worlds. He developed concepts later used in the interpretations of Clement
of Alexandria, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Origen. It is thought
that he may have influenced Paul and the authors of the Gospel of John and the Epistle
to the Hebrews.

Philo wrote commentaries portraying the Hebrew Bible as an allegory for the rise and fall
of the human soul. He developed the concept of Logos to mean the Divine Mind,
the Platonic Form of Forms, the Idea of Ideas; the pattern according to which the
corporeal universe was fashioned. He believed that the highest perception of truth is
possible only after a study of the encyclopedic sciences, and that education is one of the
means of elevating the spirit of man.

Philo regarded Moses as a great philosopher and used philosophy to defend and justify
religious truths. He was ignored by the Jewish tradition, which emphasized theology over
philosophical speculations. His works were preserved by the Christian church, primarily
because some early Christians perceived him as a Christian. Eusebius speculated that
the Therapeutae, the Jewish group of ascetic hermits in the Egyptian desert that Philo
describes in De vita contemplativa ("Contemplative Life") was in fact a Christian group.

Life
Little information is available about the life of Philo, except for a few biographical details
in his own works, especially in Legatio ad Caium, ("Embassy to Caius"), and a brief
mention of him in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus.

He was born about 25 B.C.E. in Alexandria, which at that time was home to the largest
Jewish community outside of Palestine. He was part of a prominent family; his brother
Alexander Lysimachus was a wealthy official of the Roman government, who donated
money to plate the gates of the Temple of Jerusalem with gold and silver, and made a
loan to Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great. One of Alexander’s sons married
a daughter of Herod Agrippa I, and his other son abandoned the Jewish faith and
became procurator of Judea and prefect of Egypt. Philo mentions that he once
visited Jerusalem.

From Philo’s works it is clear that he had a thorough knowledge of Greek and of the
theories of the Stoics, Plato’s dialogues, and neo-Pythagorean writings. He believed that
the highest perception of truth is possible only after a study of the encyclopedic
sciences. It is apparent that he used a Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures rather
than Hebrew manuscripts. His Allegorical Commentary indicates that he was deeply
involved in the Jewish community. The most documented episode of his life is his
participation in a Jewish delegation which traveled to Rome in 39 C.E. to complain to the
emperor, Caligula, about the persecution of the Jews in Alexandria by the governor,
Flaccus.

Josephus gives the following account of this mission in Antiquities:

There was now a tumult arisen at Alexandria, between the Jewish inhabitants and the
Greeks; and three ambassadors were chosen out of each party that were at variance,
who came to Gaius. Now one of these ambassadors from the people of Alexandria was
Apion, (29) who uttered many blasphemies against the Jews; and, among other things
that he said, he charged them with neglecting the honors that belonged to Caesar; for
that while all who were subject to the Roman empire built altars and temples to Gaius,
and in other regards universally received him as they received the gods, these Jews alone
thought it a dishonorable thing for them to erect statues in honor of him, as well as to
swear by his name. Many of these severe things were said by Apion, by which he hoped
to provoke Gaius to anger at the Jews, as he was likely to be. But Philo, the principal of
the Jewish embassage, a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the
alabarch, (30) and one not unskillful in philosophy, was ready to betake himself to make
his defense against those accusations; but Gaius prohibited him, and bid him begone; he
was also in such a rage, that it openly appeared he was about to do them some very
great mischief. So Philo being thus affronted, went out, and said to those Jews who were
about him, that they should be of good courage, since Gaius's words indeed showed
anger at them, but in reality had already set God against himself. [1]

In his Embassy to Gaius, Philo says he was carrying a petition which described the
sufferings of the Alexandrian Jews, and which asked the emperor to secure their rights.
Philo says he was selected to represent his people because he had unusual prudence,
due to his age, education, and knowledge. Philo gives a detailed description of the
sufferings of the Jews at the hands of Flaccus, and protests that Gaius' plan to erect a
statue of himself in the temple of Jerusalem is be a provocation, saying,

Are you making war upon us, because you anticipate that we will not endure such
indignity, but that we will fight on behalf of our laws, and die in defense of our national
customs? For you cannot possibly have been ignorant of what was likely to result from
your attempt to introduce these innovations respecting our temple.

His presentation supports the Jewish commitment to rebel against the emperor rather
than allow such sacrilege to take place.[2]

Philo’s work Against Flaccus, gives a valuable account of the plight of the Jews
in Alexandria under Emperor Caligula and Flaccus, the Roman governor of Alexandria.
Philo relates that Flaccus permitted a Greek mob to erect statues of the emperor in
Jewish synagogues of Alexandria, an unprecedented provocation. This invasion of the
synagogues was perhaps resisted by force, since Philo then says that Flaccus "was
destroying the synagogues, and not leaving even their name." In response, Philo says
that Flaccus "issued a notice in which he called us all foreigners and aliens... allowing any
one who was inclined to proceed to exterminate the Jews as prisoners of war." The mobs
"drove the Jews entirely out of four quarters, and crammed them all into a very small
portion of one ... while the populace, overrunning their desolate houses, turned to
plunder, and divided the booty among themselves as if they had obtained it in war."
Philo says their enemies, "slew them and thousands of others with all kinds of agony and
tortures, and newly invented cruelties, for wherever they met with or caught sight of a
Jew, they stoned him, or beat him with sticks…the most merciless of all their persecutors
in some instances burnt whole families, husbands with their wives, and infant children
with their parents, in the middle of the city, sparing neither age nor youth, nor the
innocent helplessness of infants." Some men, he says, were dragged to death, while
"those who did these things, mimicked the sufferers, like people employed in the
representation of theatrical farces." Other Jews were crucified. Flaccus was eventually
removed from office and exiled, ultimately suffering the punishment of death. [3]

Works
Philo wrote mostly philosophical essays on the main themes of Biblical thought. He
regarded Moses as a great philosopher, and attempted to show how Platonic
or Stoic ideas resembled deductions made from the Biblical verses of Moses. He was not
the first to attempt to reconcile Greek thought with Hebrew tradition; philosophers such
as Aristobulus and Pseudo-Aristeas had preceded him. He was, however, the most
successful and the most influential to do so. His work was not widely accepted by his
contemporaries. "The sophists of literalness," as he calls them (De Somniis, i. 16-17),
"opened their eyes superciliously" when he explained to them the marvels of his
exegesis.

Philo's works can be classified into three groups:

 Paraphrases of the Biblical texts of Moses:

 On Abraham, On the Decalogue, On Joseph, The Life of Moses, On the

Creation of the World, On Rewards and Punishments, On the Special Laws,
On the Virtues.

 A series of works include allegorical explanations of Genesis 2-41: On

Husbandry, On the Cherubim, On the Confusion of Tongues, On the
Preliminary Studies, The Worse Attacks the Better, On Drunkenness, On
Flight and Finding, On the Giants, Allegorical Interpretation (Allegory of the
Law), On the Migration of Abraham, On the Change of Names, On Noah's
Work as a Planter, On the Posterity and Exile of Cain, Who is the Heir, On
the Unchangeableness of God, On the Sacrifices of Abel and Cain, On
Sobriety, On Dreams.

 Here belong also: Questions and Answers on Genesis and Questions and
Answers on Exodus.

 Philosophical treatises:

 Every Good Man is Free (a sequel of which had the theme that every bad
man is a slave, which did not survive); On the Eternity of the World; On
Providence: Alexander or On Whether Brute Animals Possess
Reason (preserved only in Armenian) and called in Latin De Animalibus (On
the Animals); a brief fragment De Deo (On God), preserved only in
Armenian, is an exegesis of Genesis 18, and belongs to the Allegory of the
Law.

 Historical writings:

 Hypothetica or Apologia Pro Judaeos, which survives only in two Greek

extracts quoted by Eusebius. Hypothetica is a rationalistic version
of Exodus contrasting the severity of the Mosaic law with the laxity of the
gentile laws. Apologia Pro Judaeos describes the Essenes. The other
apologetic essays include Against Flaccus, The Embassy to Gaius, and On
the Contemplative Life, which describes the life of the monastic ascetic
 group of Therapeutae and Therapeutrides. All of these works relate to
Philo's explanations of the texts of Moses.

Philo’s works are the most important surviving documents of Hellenistic Judaism. In
addition to being philosophical treatises, they furnish a great deal of historical
information about the Alexandrian Jewish community and the interactions between
the Jews and the Roman government.

Thought
Philo used philosophy to defend and justify Jewish religious truths. He regarded these
truths as fixed and determinate; philosophy was a means of arriving at truth and an aid
to understanding it. Philo rejected certain philosophical tenets of the Greeks which did
not harmonize with the Jewish religion, such as the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity
and indestructibility of the world. Philo regarded the Bible as not only as a religious
revelation, but as a source of philosophic truth; according to him, Greek philosophers
such as Heraclitus (Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit," §43, i. 503), Zeno (Quod Omnis Probus
Liber, §8, ii. 454), Lycurgus, and Hesiod had also borrowed from the Bible. Greek
philosophy seemed a natural development of the revelatory teachings of Moses.

Philo based his doctrines on the Hebrew Bible, which he considered the source and
standard not only of religious, but of all truth. He considered its pronouncements to be
divine pronouncements. They were the words uttered sometimes directly and sometimes
through the mouth of a prophet, especially through Moses. Philo viewed Moses the real
medium of revelation, while the other writers of the Hebrew Bible appeared as friends or
pupils of Moses. Although he distinguished between the words uttered by God, as the
Decalogue, and the edicts of Moses, as the special laws; he believed that everything in
the Torah was of divine origin, even the letters and accents.

The Hebrew Bible had not been canonized at the time of Philo, and the extent of his
knowledge of Biblical books cannot be exactly determined. Philo does not
quote Ezekiel, Daniel, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, or Esther.

Truth and Allegory

Philo, like other Jewish allegorists who preceded him, sought the hidden meaning of
traditional texts in the Hebrew Bible and used symbolism to uncover truths which he
related to later philosophical ideas. He used philosophy to interpret the Jewish scriptures
in the same way that Stoic allegorists found philosophical meaning in the works
of Homer. In some aspects of Jewish life, such as circumcision and observance of
the Sabbath, Philo defended a literal interpretation of the scriptures, though he
acknowledged the symbolic meaning of these rituals.

Philo based his hermeneutics on the assumption of a twofold meaning in the Bible, the
literal and the allegorical.

A special method was requisite for determining the real meaning of the words of
scripture; the correct application of this method determined the correct allegory, and
was therefore called "the wise architect" (De Somniis, ii. 2 [i. 660]). According to these
rules of interpretation the literal sense of certain passages of the Bible had to be
excluded altogether, such as the passages in which, according to a literal interpretation,
something unworthy is said of God; or in which statements are made that are unworthy
of the Bible, senseless, contradictory, or inadmissible; or in which allegorical expressions
are used for the avowed purpose of drawing the reader's attention to the fact that the
literal sense is to be disregarded.

Philo developed special guidelines to help the reader to recognize the passages which
demanded an allegorical interpretation, and to help the initiated find the correct and
intended meaning. Passages which contained the doubling of a phrase; an apparently
superfluous expression in the text; the repetition of statements previously made; or a
change of phraseology, indicated something special that the reader must consider. An
entirely different meaning might also be found by disregarding the ordinarily accepted
division of a sentence into phrases and clauses, and forming a different combination of
the words.

Synonyms required careful study; for example, why λαὸς was used in one passage and
γένος in another. A play upon words might be utilized to uncover a deeper meaning;
e.g., sheep (πρόβατον) stand for progress in knowledge, since they derive their name
from the fact of their progressing (προβαίνειν). A definite allegorical sense could be
gathered from certain particles, adverbs, and prepositions; and in certain cases it could
be gathered even from the parts of a word; such as from διά in διάλευκος. Every word
must be explained in all its meanings in order that different interpretations might be
found. A skillful interpreter might make slight changes in a word, following the rabbinical
rule, "Read not this way, but that way." Philo, therefore, changed accents, and breathings
in Greek words. Any peculiarity in a phrase justified the assumption that some special
meaning was intended: for example, where μία ("one") is used instead of πρώτη ("first").

Details regarding the forms of words were very important: number and gender; whether
the word showed any peculiarity in the singular or the plural: verb tense; or the presence
or omission of an article. Other clues to deeper meaning were the artificial interpretation
of a single expression; the position of the verses of a passage; peculiar verse-
combinations; noteworthy omissions; striking statements; and numeral symbolism.

Numerology

Philo analyzed the usage of numbers of the Bible, and believed that certain numbers
symbolized different ideas.

 Number one is God's number, and the basis for all numbers (De Allegoriis Legum,
ii. 12 [i. 66]).
 Number two is the number of schism, of that which has been created, of death
("De Opificio Mundi, § 9 [i. 7]; De Allegoriis Legum, i. 2 [i. 44]; De Somaniis, ii. 10 [i.
688]).

 Three is the number of the body (De Allegoriis Legum, i. 2 [i. 44]) or of the Divine
Being in connection with His fundamental powers (De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, §
15 [i. 173]).

 Four is potentially what the number ten actually is, the perfect number ( De
Opificio Mundi, §§ 15, 16 [i. 10, 11], etc.); but in an evil sense four is the number of
the passions, πάθη (De Congressu Quærendæ Eruditionis Gratia. § 17 [i. 532]).

 Five is the number of the senses and of sensibility (De Opificio Mundi, § 20 [i. 14],
etc.).

 Six, the product of the masculine and feminine numbers 3 × 2 and in its parts
equal to 3+3, is the symbol of the movement of organic beings (De Allegoriis
Legum, i. 2 [i. 44]).

 Seven has the most various and marvelous attributes (De Opiticio Mundi, §§ 30-43
[i. 21 et seq.]).

 Eight, the number of the cube, has many of the attributes determined by the
Pythagoreans (Quæstiones in Genesin, iii. 49 [i. 223, Aucher]).

 Nine is the number of strife, according to Genesis 14. (De Congressu Qu.
Eruditionis Gratia, § 17 [i. 532]).

 Ten is the number of perfection (De Plantatione Noë, § 29 [i. 347]).

Philo also attributed special significance to the numbers 50, 70, and 100, 12, and 120.

Logos
The term logos was widely used in the ancient Hellenistic world. The Stoics conceived
of logos as the bond between different parts of the world, and
the Heracliteans used logos to refer to the source of the cosmic oppositions. In Jewish
literature logos referred to the words of the prophets, or the utterances of God as
presented in the scriptures. Philo synthesized these concepts and used the term logos to
mean “the Divine Mind,” the “Platonic Form of Forms,” the “Idea of Ideas,” or the sum
total of “Forms or Ideas,” the pattern according to which the corporeal universe was
fashioned. By its inherent nature, preexistent, unformed matter could not come into
direct contact with the divine; logos was in an intermediary position between the very
essence of God and the substance of the corporeal world.

For it is out of that essence that God created everything, without indeed touching it
himself, for it was not lawful for the all-wise and all-blessed God to touch materials
which were all misshapen and confused, but he created them by the agency of his
incorporeal powers, of which the proper name is Ideas, which he so exerted that every
genus received its proper form. (LA 1.329)

In an interpretation of the symbolism of the garment of the high priest in Exodus 28:34
and 36, Philo states: "But the seal is an Idea of Ideas, according to which God fashioned
the world, being an incorporeal Idea, comprehensible only by the intellect" (Mig. 103).

"The incorporeal world then was already completed, having its seat in the Divine Logos
and the world, perceptible by the external senses, was made on the model of it" (Op. 36).
Describing Moses' account of the creation of man, Philo claims also that Moses calls the
invisible Divine Logos the Image of God (Op. 24; 31; LA 1.9).

Philo also referred to logos as the “first-born” of God, meaning that it was the first
thought proceeding from the mind of God.

Some scholars believe that the concept of the Logos referred to in the prologue to the
Gospel of John was influenced directly by Philonic teachings. Others believe that early
Christian writers confounded the logos of John with the logos of Philo, but that the two
concepts differ and were simply drawn from a common Jewish background.

Eternal Creation

Philo rejected the Aristotelian conclusion that the world existed from eternity without
any creative act: "For some men, admiring the world itself rather than the Creator of the
world, have represented it as existing without any maker, and eternal, and as impiously
and falsely have represented God as existing in a state of complete inactivity" (Op. 7).
Philo’s explanation of the Creation is based on the book of Genesis in the Bible. On the
grounds that no praise is given to matter in Genesis, Philo conceives of matter as evil
and therefore incapable of direct contact with the divine (Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres
Sit, §32 [i. 495]). As a result, he does not support Creation ex nihilo, but as a strict monist,
he also could not accept God’s formation of the world from pre-existent matter,
as Plato did. The instrument of creation is logos, which shapes formless matter into
intelligible beings. Philo compares God to an architect or gardener, who formed the
present world (the κόσμος ἀισϑητός) according to a pattern, the ideal world (κόσμος
νοητός).

Philo made a modification to the Platonic doctrine of forms and elaborated a theory of
“eternal creation,” that God did not begin to create the world at a specific moment in
time, but is "eternally applying Himself to its creation" (Prov. 1.7; Op. 7; Aet. 83-84). "For
God while he spake the word, did at the same moment create; nor did he allow anything
to come between the Logos and the deed; and if one may advance a doctrine which is
pretty nearly true, His Logos is his deed" (Sacr. 65; Mos.1.283). Thus God is eternally and
constantly creating the intelligible world of Ideas. Time is a creation of God and exists
only in the physical world (a Platonic concept). The creative activity as well as the act of
creation takes place outside of time. In that context, formless, shapeless matter never
exists because it is instantaneously modified by logos into organized and intelligible
being.

Morality and Ethics

Philo regards the physical nature of man as being defective and an obstacle to his
development, but as an indispensable aspect of the nature of his being. The body has
certain physical requirements which sometimes interfere with spiritual progress, yet it is
of advantage to the spirit, since the spirit arrives at its knowledge of the world by means
of the five senses. The spiritual nature of man, which has priority over the physical body,
has a twofold tendency: one toward the sensual and earthly, which Philo calls sensibility
(αἴσϑησις), and one toward the spiritual, which he calls reason (νοῦς).

Sensibility has its seat in the body, and lives in the senses. Sensibility, however, is in need
of being guided by reason. Reason is that part of the spirit which looks toward heavenly
things. It is the highest, the real divine gift that has been infused into man from without
(De Opiticio Mundi, i. 15; De Eo Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiatur, i. 206). The νοῦς is
originally at rest; when it begins to move it produces the several phenomena of mind
(ἔνϑυμήματα). The principal powers of the νοῦς are judgment, memory, and language.

The physical body is a source of danger, as it easily drags the spirit into the bonds of
sensibility. Sensibility is the source of the passions and desires; passions attack the
sensibility in order to destroy the whole soul. According to Philo, man passes through
several steps in his ethical development. At first the several elements of the human being
are in a state of latency, a kind of moral neutrality which Philo designates by the terms
"naked" or "medial." The soul has not decided either for sin or for virtue. In this period of
moral indecision God endeavors to present to it, in the "earthly wisdom and virtue," an
image of heavenly wisdom. Man quickly leaves this state of neutrality as soon as he
experiences desire, and passion ensnares him in the bonds of sensibility. Here the moral
duties of man arise and he must navigate between two opposite tendencies.

Philo interpreted the Jewish scriptures as an allegorical account of the rise and fall of the
human soul. The soul was first aroused by the stimuli of sensual pleasures, became
devoted to the body, and began to lead an intolerable life (βίος ἄβίωτος), inflamed and
excited by irrational impulses. Its condition was restless and painful; a continual inner
void produced a lasting desire which was never satisfied. All the higher aspirations
after God and virtue were stilled, the entire soul was corrupt and ignorant, and the
power of judgment was lost. Sensual things were valued above spiritual; and wealth was
regarded as the highest good. Man in his folly even opposed God, and thought to scale
heaven and subjugate the entire earth. The biblical patriarch Abraham was regarded by
Philo as the symbol of man leaving sensuality to turn to reason (De Migratione
Abrahami, § 4 [i. 439]).

Philo elaborated three methods by which one can rise toward the divine: through
education, through practice (ἄσκησις), and through natural goodness (ὁσιότης). Good
moral endowment took precedence over education and practice. Virtue was not the
result of hard labor, but was an excellent fruit maturing of itself. The Biblical
character Noah represented the preliminary stage. Noah was called by God, apparently
because of his good disposition, since no particularly good deeds were reported of him.
As Noah was praised only in comparison with his contemporaries, it followed that he was
not yet a perfect man.

Philo identified several characters in the Scriptures who represented the perfect man,
such as the Biblical patriarch Isaac. Perfection was a part of the nature (φύσις) of such
persons; their souls were in a state of rest and joy. Philo’s concept of virtue resembled
that of the Stoics, but he taught that man could not attain virtue through his own efforts,
but only through religion, with the assistance of God.

The Garden of Eden was a symbol for "the wisdom of God," the “Logos of God’” and
“virtue.” From it proceeded four rivers representing the cardinal virtues of prudence,
courage, self-control, and justice (φρόνησις, ἀνδρία, σωφροσύνη, δικαιοσύνη).
PHILOSOPHERS DURING THE ROMAN TIME
Cicero

Marcus Tullius Cicero (January 3, 106 B.C.E. – December 7, 43 B.C.E.) Cicero was
a Roman lawyer, statesman, philosopher and writer who lived during the most brilliant
era of Roman public life. An academic skeptic and a Stoic, he devoted himself to
applying philosophical theory to politics, with the aim of bringing about a better Roman
Republic. He translated Greek works into Latin, and wrote Latin summaries of the
teachings of the Greek philosophical schools, hoping to make them more accessible and
understandable for Roman leaders. Many of Cicero’s original works are still in existence.

For Cicero, politics took precedence over philosophy. Most of his philosophical works
were written at intervals when he was unable to participate in public life, and with the
intent of influencing the political leaders of the time. He was elected to each of the
principal Roman offices (quaestor, aedile, praetor, and consul) at the earliest legal age,
and thus became a member of the Senate. He became deeply involved in the political
conflicts of Rome, an involvement which led to his exile during 58-57 B.C.E. and finally to
his death. Cicero was murdered at Formia on December 7, 43 B.C.E., while fleeing from his
political enemies.

Life

Many details of Cicero’s life are set down in a biography written by Plutarch about one
hundred years after his death. Marcus Tullius Cicero was born in Arpinum in 106 B.C.E.,
the elder son of an aristocratic family. The name "Cicero" is derived from cicer, the Latin
word for "chickpea." Plutarch explains that the name was originally applied to one of
Cicero's ancestors who had a cleft in the tip of his nose, which resembled that of a
chickpea. In his youth, Cicero, who was very ambitious and wanted to enter politics,
moved to Rome to study law. He was a precocious student and attracted much
attention. Cicero also made an extensive study of Greek philosophy, and considered
himself both an academic skeptic and a Stoic. Cicero spent one year, 89-88 B.C.E., in the
military, serving on the staffs of Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo and Lucius Cornelius Sulla
during the Social War. In 75 B.C.E. Cicero served as quaestor in western Sicily where, he
wrote, he saw the tombstone of Archimedes. He became a successful advocate, and first
attained prominence for his successful prosecution in August of 70 B.C.E. of Gaius Verres,
the former governor of Sicily.

In 63 B.C.E., Cicero became the first consul of Rome in more than thirty years whose
family had not already served in the consulship. His only significant historical
accomplishment during his year in office was the suppression of the Catiline conspiracy,
a plot to overthrow the Roman Republic led by Lucius Sergius Catilina, a disaffected
patrician. According to Cicero’s own account, he procured a senatus consultum de re
publica defendenda (a declaration of martial law) and drove Catiline out of the city by
giving four vehement speeches in the Senate. Catiline fled to Etruria, but left behind
some “deputies” to start a revolution in Rome, while he attacked with any army raised
from among Sulla’s veterans. Cicero engineered a confession by these “deputies” before
the entire Senate.

The Senate then deliberated upon the punishment to be given to the conspirators. As it
was a legislative rather than a judicial body, its powers were limited; however, martial law
was in effect, and it was feared that simple house arrest or exile would not remove the
threat that the conspirators presented to the State. At first, most in the Senate spoke for
the 'extreme penalty'; many were then swayed by Julius Caesar who decried the
precedent it would set and argued in favor of the punishment being confined to a mode
of banishment. Cato then rose in defense of the death penalty and all the Senate finally
agreed on the matter. Cicero had the conspirators taken to the Tullianum, the notorious
Roman prison, where they were hanged. After the executions had been carried out,
Cicero announced the deaths by the formulaic expression "They have lived," meant to
ward off ill fortune by avoiding the direct mention of death. He received the
honorific Pater Patriae (“Father of the Nation”) for his actions in suppressing the
conspiracy, but thereafter lived in fear of trial or exile for having put Roman citizens to
death without trial. He was also accorded the first public thanksgiving, which had
previously been only a military honor, for a civic accomplishment.

In 60 B.C.E. Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus formed the First Triumvirate and took
control of Roman politics. They made several attempts to elicit the support of Cicero, but
he eventually refused, preferring to remain loyal to the Senate and the idea of the
Republic. This left him vulnerable to his enemies. In 58 B.C.E., the populist Publius Clodius
Pulcher proposed a law exiling any man who had put Roman citizens to death without
trial. Although Cicero maintained that the sweeping senatus consultum ultimum granted
him in 63 B.C.E. had indemnified him against legal penalty, he felt threatened by Clodius
and left Italy. The law passed, and all Cicero’s property was confiscated. Cicero spent
over a year in exile. During this time he devoted himself to philosophical studies and
writing down his speeches.
The political climate changed and Cicero returned to Rome, greeted by a cheering
crowd. Cicero supported the populist Milo against Clodius, and around 55 B.C.E., Clodius
was killed by Milo’s gladiators on the Via Appia. Cicero conducted Milo’s legal defense,
and his speech Pro Milone is considered by some as his ultimate masterpiece. The
defense failed, and Milo fled into exile. Between 55 and 51 B.C.E. Cicero, still unable to
participate actively in politics, wrote On the Orator, On the Republic, and On the Laws.
The Triumvirate collapsed with the death of Crassus and in 49 B.C.E., and Caesar crossed
the Rubicon River, entering Italy with his army and igniting a civil war between himself
and Pompey. Cicero favored Pompey but tried to avoid turning Caesar into a permanent
enemy. When Caesar invaded Italy in 49 B.C.E., Cicero fled Rome. Caesar attempted vainly
to convince him to return, and in June of that year Cicero slipped out of Italy and
traveled to Dyrrachium (Epidamnos). In 48 B.C.E., Cicero was with the Pompeians at the
camp of Pharsalus and quarreled with many of the Republican commanders, including a
son of Pompey. They in turn disgusted him by their bloody attitudes. He returned to
Rome, after Caesar's victory at Pharsalus. In a letter to Varro on April 20, 46 B.C.E., Cicero
indicated what he saw as his role under the dictatorship of Caesar: "I advise you to do
what I am advising myself – avoid being seen, even if we cannot avoid being talked
about... If our voices are no longer heard in the Senate and in the Forum, let us follow
the example of the ancient sages and serve our country through our writings,
concentrating on questions of ethics and constitutional law."

In February 45 B.C.E., Cicero's daughter Tullia died. He never entirely recovered from this
shock.

Cicero was taken completely by surprise when the Liberatores assassinated Caesar on
the Ides of March 44 B.C.E. In a letter to the conspirator Trebonius, Cicero expressed a
wish of having been "...invited to that superb banquet." Cicero saw the political instability
as an opportunity to restore the Republic and the power of the Senate. Cicero made it
clear that he felt Mark Antony, who was consul and executor of Caesar’s will, was taking
unfair liberties in interpreting Caesar's wishes and intentions.

When Octavian, Caesar's heir, arrived in Italy in April, Cicero formed a plan to set him
against Antony. In September he began attacking Antony in a series of speeches, which
he called the Philippics, before the Senate. Praising Octavian to the skies, he labeled him
a "God-Sent Child" and said he only desired honor and that he would not make the
same mistake as his Uncle. Cicero rallied the Senate in firm opposition to Antony. During
this time, Cicero became an unrivaled popular leader and, according to the historian
Appian, "had the power any popular leader could possibly have." Cicero supported
Marcus Junius Brutus as governor of Cisalpine Gaul (Gallia Cisalpina) and urged the
Senate to name Antony an enemy of the state. The speech of Lucius Piso, Caesar's
father-in-law, delayed proceedings against Antony, but he was later declared an enemy
of the state when he refused to lift the siege of Mutina, which was in the hands of one of
Caesar's assassins, Decimus Brutus.

Cicero’s plan to drive out Mark Antony and eventually Octavian failed when the two
reconciled and allied with Lepidus to form the Second Triumvirate. Immediately after
legislating their alliance into official existence for a five-year term with consular
imperium, the Triumviri began proscribing their enemies and potential rivals. Cicero and
his younger brother Quintus Tullius Cicero, formerly one of Caesar's legates, and all of
their contacts and supporters were numbered among the enemies of the state. Mark
Antony set about to assassinate all of his enemies. Cicero, his brother and nephew
decided belatedly to flee and were captured and killed on December 7, 43 B.C.E. Plutarch
describes the end of Cicero's life: "Cicero heard [his pursuers] coming and ordered his
servants to set the litter [in which he was being carried] down where they were. He…
looked steadfastly at his murderers. He was all covered in dust; his hair was long and
disordered, and his face was pinched and wasted with his anxieties - so that most of
those who stood by covered their faces while Herennius was killing him. His throat was
cut as he stretched his neck out from the litter….By Antony's orders Herennius cut off his
head and his hands." Cicero’s last words were said to have been "there is nothing proper
about what you are doing, soldier, but do try to kill me properly." His head and hands
were displayed on the Rostra in the Forum Romanum; he was the only victim of the
Triumvirate's proscriptions to have been so displayed after death. According to Cassius
Dio (often mistakenly attributed to Plutarch), Antony's wife Fulvia took Cicero's head,
pulled out his tongue, and jabbed the tongue repeatedly with her hairpin, taking a final
revenge against Cicero's power of speech.

Cicero's son, also named Marcus, who was in Greece at this time, was not executed. He
became consul in 30 B.C.E. under Octavian, who had defeated Antony after the Second
Triumvirate collapsed.

Cicero's memory survived long after his death and the death of the Roman republic. The
early Catholic Church declared him a "Righteous Pagan," and therefore many of his
works were deemed worthy of preservation. Saint Augustine and others quoted liberally
from his works The Republic and The Laws, and it is from these fragments that much of
these works has been recreated.

Another story of his fame also shows may suffice as well: Caesar's heir Octavian
became Augustus, Rome's first emperor, and it is said that in his later life he came upon
one of his grandsons reading a book by Cicero. The boy, fearing his grandfather's
reaction, tried to hide the book in the folds of his tunic. Augustus saw this, however, and
took the book from him, standing as he read the greater part of it. He then handed the
volume back to his grandson with the words "he was a learned man, dear child, a learned
man who loved his country."

Thought and Works

Cicero made several significant contributions to the development of modern Western
thought. He not only wrote about Stoic ethics, but also made a sincere effort to apply
them in the political life of Rome. Cicero loved Greece, and even stated in his will that he
wanted to be buried there. His works ensured that the thought of the Greek
philosophers was known not only to Roman academics, but also to all literate Romans.
When translating the concepts of Greek philosophers into Latin, he invented new Latin
words which became the roots for English words, including “morals,” “property,”
“individual,” “science,” “image,” and “appetite.” He summarized in Latin the beliefs of
each of the primary Greek schools of philosophy, including the Academic Skeptics,
Stoics, Peripatetics, and Epicureans, preserving details of their thought systems for future
scholars. Most of the works of the early Greek philosophers were lost, perhaps even
deliberately destroyed by the early Christians, but Cicero’s writings remained as a
valuable source for Medieval and Renaissance scholars. His works were an essential part
of the education of the eighteenth century Americans who participated in the creation of
the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

Of Cicero’s works, more than 50 speeches, 12 works on philosophical topics, several

works on rhetorical theory, and over 900 letters written or received by him are still in
existence.

Skepticism and Stoicism

Cicero studied with both the Old and the New Academies of the Skeptics, both of which
claimed to be descended from the First Academy established by Plato. The Skeptics
believed that human beings could never be certain in their knowledge of the world, and
therefore no philosophy could be said to be true. Any belief was subject to change if a
better argument presented itself. Cicero frequently used dialogue in his works, enabling
him to voice several arguments at once by putting them in the mouths of different
speakers, thus allowing the reader to judge the accuracy of each viewpoint.

For ethics and morals, Cicero turned to Stoicism, saying, in the Laws, that it was
dangerous for people not to believe completely in the sanctity of laws and of justice. He
offered Stoic doctrines as the best available code of ethics, to be adhered to because
doing so would make everyone’s lives better. His greatest interest was in the application
of Stoic ethics to justice, and in the concept of duty, as required by a person’s public
office and social standing. Cicero felt that the political aristocracy of his time had
become corrupt and no longer possessed the virtuous character of earlier Roman
leaders, and that this had caused the Roman republic to fall into difficulties. He hoped
that philosophical guidance would motivate the Roman elite to value individual virtue
and social stability above fame, wealth and power, and that they would then enact
legislation to impose the same standards on the Romans in general. In this way, he felt
that the Roman republic could be restored to its previous glory. Cicero favored Rome as
the imperial power that could bring political stability to surrounding states.

Epicureanism

Cicero’s disdain for Epicureanism led him to severe criticism and even misrepresentation
of Epicurean doctrines. Nevertheless, his writings contain numerous quotes and
references to Epicurus’ works, which made it possible for scholars to piece together
details of Epicurean doctrine when the original written works of Epicurus were lost.
Cicero’s good friend Atticus, to whom many of his letters were written, was an Epicurean.
Cicero criticized the Epicurean tendency to withdraw from politics and public life. During
his forced exile from politics, however, Cicero wrote in some of his letters that he had
become an Epicurean, since all that was left to him was to cultivate private life and its
pleasures.

Written Works

Cicero’s written works can be divided into three types: his philosophic works, speeches,
and about nine hundred letters.

Many of his philosophical writings were patterned after Plato's or Aristotle's dialogues.
They include, in chronological order, On Invention, On the Orator, On the Republic, On
the Laws, Brutus, Stoic Paradoxes, The Orator, Consolation, Hortensius, Academics, On
Ends, Tusculan Disputations, On the Nature of the Gods, On Divination, On Fate, On Old
Age, On Friendship, Topics, On Glory, and On Duties. Several of these have been almost
entirely lost (Hortensius; On the Value of Philosophy; the Consolation, which Cicero wrote
to himself on the death of his beloved daughter Tullia in order to overcome his grief;
and On Glory). Only fragments exist of several of the others (notably the Laws, which
Cicero may never have finished, and the Republic, fragments of which were only
discovered in 1820 in the Vatican). Most of these works were written with a political aim
in mind and not solely as philosophical discourses.
About 60 of the speeches made by Cicero as a lawyer and as a Senator remain. They
provide insights into Roman cultural, political, social, and intellectual life; glimpses of
Cicero's philosophy, and descriptions of the corruption and immorality of the Roman
elite. Some of the speeches were never delivered in public, and many were written down
and polished during the periods when Cicero was not active in politics.

More than nine hundred letters written by Cicero, or to him, have been preserved. Most
of them were addressed to his close friend Atticus or his brother Quintius, but some are
correspondence with other Romans, including Caesar. The letters contain references to
the mundane calculations, compromises, flatteries, and manipulations of contemporary
Roman politics.

On the Orator

On the Orator is dialogue on the ideal orator which contains useful discussions of the
nature of law, philosophy and rhetoric, and the relationships among them. Cicero gives
rhetoric more importance than law and philosophy, arguing that the ideal orator would
have mastered both and would add eloquence besides. He regrets that philosophy and
rhetoric are no longer taught together, as they were in the old days. He suggests that
the best orator is also be the best human being, understanding the correct way to live,
acting upon it by taking an active role in politics, and instructing others through
speeches, through his example, and through making good laws.

On the Republic

Only fragments remain of this dialogue, which describes the ideal commonwealth. Set in
129 B.C.E., a few years before Cicero’s birth, it suggests that Roman history has resulted in
the increasing perfection of the Roman republic, which is now superior to any other
government because it balances elements of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. The
dialogue suggests that this government is now being undermined by the moral decay of
the aristocracy and is in danger of destroying itself. Cicero emphasizes the importance of
a life of virtue, and explains the role of a statesman, the concept of natural law and the
foundations of community. This work includes the famous Dream of Scipio.

On the Laws

This dialogue is fragmentary, and may never have been finished. Cicero proposes laws
for an ideal commonwealth. In order to discover true law and justice, he says that we
must examine "…what nature has given to humans; what a quantity of wonderful things
the human mind embraces; for the sake of performing and fulfilling what function we are
born and brought into the world; what serves to unite people; and what natural bond
there is between them." Philosophy and reason must be used to discover the principles
of justice, and to create laws. Any valid law must come from natural law. Both the gods
and humans are endowed with reason; therefore they are part of the same universal
community. The gods dispense their own justice, caring for us, and punishing and
rewarding us as appropriate.

Brutus

This work contains a history of oratory in Greece and Rome, listing hundreds of orators
and their distinguishing characteristics, weaknesses as well as strengths. Cicero discusses
the role of an orator and the characteristics of a good orator. An orator must be learned
in philosophy, history, and must "instruct his listener, give him pleasure, [and] stir his
emotions." A good orator is by nature qualified to lead in government. Cicero says that
orators must be allowed to "distort history in order to give more point to their narrative."

Stoic Paradoxes

Cicero discusses six Stoic paradoxes: moral worth is the only good; virtue is sufficient for
happiness; all sins and virtues are equal; every fool is insane; only the wise man is really
free; only the wise man is really rich. Although he claims that he is simply translating
Stoic principles into plain speech for his own amusement, Stoic Paradoxes illustrates
Cicero’s rhetorical skills and is a thinly veiled attack on his enemies.

The Orator

This is a letter written in defense of Cicero’s own style of oratory. It describes the
qualities of a good orator, who must be able to persuade his audience, entertain them
and arouse their emotions. It includes a famous quote "To be ignorant of what occurred
before you were born is to remain always a child."

Hortensius

Much of this text has been lost, but St. Augustine credits it with turning him to a life of
introspection and philosophy. It is a treatise praising philosophy, and explaining how
true happiness can only be attained by using it to develop reason and overcome
passion.

Academics

This dialogue explains and challenges the epistemology of each of the philosophical
schools, and questions whether truth can actually be known. Cicero leaves the reader to
decide which argument is most correct. The dialogue includes a detailed history of the
development of the schools of philosophy after the death of Socrates. The explanations
included in this work have been invaluable to scholars of early Greek philosophers,
whose original writings were lost.

On Ends

This dialogue sets out the beliefs of several schools of philosophy on the question of the
end, or purpose of human life. "What is the end, the final and ultimate aim, which gives
the standard for all principles of right living and of good conduct?" The work was
intended to educate Romans about Greek philosophy.

Tusculan Disputations

The first two books present and then refute the ideas that death and pain are evils. The
third book demonstrates that a wise man will not suffer from anxiety and fear, the fourth
book that a wise man does not suffer from excessive joy or lust. The fifth and final book
suggests that virtue is sufficient for a happy life. This work was intended to educate the
Romans and to show that the Roman people and the Roman language were capable of
arriving at the highest levels of philosophy.

On the Nature of the Gods, On Divination, On Fate

These three dialogues were intended to be a trilogy on religious questions. On the

Nature of Gods gives descriptions of dozens of varieties of religion. The Epicurean view
that the gods exist but are indifferent about human beings; and the Stoic view that the
gods love human beings, govern the world and dispense justice after death, are both
stated and refuted. The dialogue does not reach a conclusion. On Divination presents
both sides of the idea that the future can be predicted through divination (astrology,
reading animal entrails, etc.). Unwise political decision was prevented by the
announcement that the omens were unfavorable. On Fate discusses free will and
causation, and deals with the meaning of truth and falsehood.

On Old Age

This dialogue discusses our attitude towards infirmity and the approach of death. Cicero
explains that old age and death are a natural part of life and should be accepted calmly.
As he ages, a man of good character will enjoy pleasant memories of a good life,
prestige and intellectual pleasures. A man of bad character will only become more
miserable as he ages.
On Friendship

This is a dialogue examining the nature of true friendship, which is based on virtue and
does not seek material advantage. It arrives at the conclusion that the entire cosmos,
including gods and men, is bonded in a community based on reason. Cicero speaks of
the difficulties of maintaining friendships in the real world, where there is adversity and
political pressure. He also expresses the idea that deeds are better than words.

On Duties

A letter addressed to his son Marcus, then in his late teens and studying philosophy in
Athens, this work contains the essence of Cicero’s philosophical thought. It explains how
the end, or ultimate purpose of life, defines our duties and the ways in which we should
perform them. The letter discusses how to choose between the honorable and the
expedient, and explains that the two are never in conflict if we have a true understanding
of duty.

Speeches

Of his speeches, 88 were recorded, but only 58 survive (some of the items below are
more than one speech).

Italic text Judicial speeches

 (81 B.C.E.) Pro Quinctio (On behalf of Publius Quinctius)

 (80 B.C.E.) Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino (On behalf of Sextus Roscius of Ameria)

 (77 B.C.E.) Pro Q. Roscio Comoedo (On behalf of Quintus Roscius the Actor)

 (70 B.C.E.) Divinatio in Caecilium (Spoken against Caecilius at the inquiry concerning
the prosecution of Verres)

 (70 B.C.E.) In Verrem (Against Gaius Verres, or The Verrines)

 (69 B.C.E.) Pro Tullio (On behalf of Tullius)

 (69 B.C.E.) Pro Fonteio (On behalf of Marcus Fonteius)

 (69 B.C.E.) Pro Caecina (On behalf of Aulus Caecina)

 (66 B.C.E.) Pro Cluentio (On behalf of Aulus Cluentius)

 (63 B.C.E.) Pro Rabirio Perduellionis Reo (On behalf of Rabirius on a Charge of
Treason)
  (63 B.C.E.) Pro Murena (On behalf of Lucius Murena)

 (62 B.C.E.) Pro Sulla (On behalf of Sulla)

 (62 B.C.E.) Pro Archia Poeta (On behalf of the poet Archias)

 (59 B.C.E.) Pro Flacco (On behalf of Flaccus)

 (56 B.C.E.) Pro Sestio (On behalf of Sestius)

 (56 B.C.E.) In Vatinium (Against Vatinius at the trial of Sestius)

 (56 B.C.E.) Pro Caelio (On behalf of Marcus Caelius Rufus)

 (56 B.C.E.) Pro Balbo (On behalf of Cornelius Balbus)

 (54 B.C.E.) Pro Plancio (On behalf of Plancius)

 (54 B.C.E.) Pro Rabirio Postumo (On behalf of Rabirius Postumus)

Political speeches

Early career (before exile)

 (66 B.C.E.) Pro Lege Manilia or De Imperio Cn. Pompei (in favor of the Manilian Law
on the command of Pompey )
 (63 B.C.E.) De Lege Agraria contra Rullum (Opposing the Agrarian Law proposed by
Rullus )

 (63 B.C.E.) In Catilinam I-IV ( Catiline Orations or Against Catiline )

 ( 59 B.C.E. ) Pro Flacco (In Defense of Flaccus)

Mid career (after exile)

 (57 B.C.E.) Post Reditum in Quirites (To the Citizens after his recall from exile)
 (57 B.C.E.) Post Reditum in Senatu (To the Roman Senate|Senate after his recall from
exile)

 (57 B.C.E.) De Domo Sua (On his House)

 (57 B.C.E.) De Haruspicum Responsis (On the Responses of the Haruspices )

 (56 B.C.E.) De Provinciis Consularibus (On the Consular Provinces)

 (55 B.C.E.) In Pisonem (Against Piso )

Late career

 ( 52 B.C.E. ) Pro Milone (On behalf of Titus Annius Milo )

 ( 46 B.C.E. ) Pro Marcello (On behalf of Marcus Claudius Marcellus|Marcellus )

 (46 B.C.E.) Pro Ligario (On behalf of Ligarius before Caesar)

 (46 B.C.E.) Pro Rege Deiotaro (On behalf of King Deiotarus before Caesar)

 ( 44 B.C.E. ) Philippicae (consisting of the 14 philippic s Philippica I-XIV against Marc

Antony|Marcus Antonius )

(The Pro Marcello, Pro Ligario, and Pro Rege Deiotaro are collectively known as "The
Caesarian speeches").

Philosophy

Rhetoric

 ( 84 B.C.E. ) De Inventione (About the composition of arguments)

 ( 55 B.C.E. ) De Oratore (About oratory)

 ( 54 B.C.E. ) De Partitionibus Oratoriae (About the subdivisions of oratory)

 ( 52 B.C.E. ) De Optimo Genere Oratorum (About the Best Kind of Orators)

 (46 B.C.E.) Brutus (Cicero)|Brutus (For Brutus, a short history of Roman oratory
dedicated to Marcus Junius Brutus)

 (46 B.C.E.) Orator ad M. Brutum (About the Orator, also dedicated to Brutus)

 (44 B.C.E.) Topica (Topics of argumentation)

 (?? B.C.E.) Rhetorica ad Herennium (traditionally attributed to Cicero, but currently

disputed)

Other philosophical works

 ( 51 B.C.E. ) De Republica (On the Republic)

 ( 45 B.C.E. ) Hortensius (Hortensius)

 (45 B.C.E.) Lucullus or Academica Priora (The Prior Academics)

 (45 B.C.E.) Academica Posteriora (The Later Academics)

  (45 B.C.E.) De Finibus, Bonorum et Malorum (About the Ends of Goods and Evils).
Source of Lorem ipsum

 (45 B.C.E.) Tusculanae Quaestiones (Questions debated at Tusculum)

 (45 B.C.E.) De Natura Deorum (The Nature of the Gods)

 (45 B.C.E.) De Divinatione (Divination)

 (45 B.C.E.) De Fato (The Fate)

 (44 B.C.E.) Cato Maior de Senectute (Cato the Elder On Old Age )

 (44 B.C.E.) Laelius de Amicitia (Laelius On Friendship )

 (44 B.C.E.) De Officiis (Duties)

 (?? B.C.E.) Paradoxa Stoicorum (Stoic Paradoxes)

 (?? B.C.E.) De Legibus (The Laws)

 (?? B.C.E.) De Consulatu Suo (His Consulship)

 (?? B.C.E.) De temporibus suis (His Life and Times)

 (?? B.C.E.) Commentariolum Petitionis (Handbook of Candidacy) (attributed to

Cicero, but probably written by his brother Quintus)

Letters

More than 800 letters by Cicero to others exist, and over 100 letters from others to him.

 ( 68 B.C.E. - 43 B.C.E. ) Epistulae ad Atticum (Letters to Atticus)

 ( 59 B.C.E. - 54 B.C.E. ) Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem (Letters to his brother Quintus)

 ( 43 B.C.E. ) Epistulae ad Brutum (Letters to Brutus)

 (43 B.C.E.) Epistulae ad Familiares (Letters to his friends

Titus Lucretius Carus (c. 99 B.C.E. - 55 B.C.E.) was a Roman poet

and Epicurean philosopher. During the first century B.C.E. he wrote De Rerum Natura (“On
the Nature of Things”), a masterpiece of Latin verse which sets out in careful detail
the Epicurean worldview. Beginning with a tribute to Epicurus, the six books of De Rerum
Natura provide a full explanation of the physical origin, structure and destiny of the
universe. The work includes theories of atomic structure and of the evolution of life
forms. The work is intended to free the reader from the two types of mental anguish that
Epicurus identified as obstacles to human happiness: fear of the gods and fear of death.
Lucretius does this by expounding the philosophical system of Epicurus, clothed, as he
says, in sweet verse to make it more palatable.

De Rerum Natura was an important influence on Virgil and later Roman poets. The early
Christians frowned on De Rerum Natura because it denied both the afterlife and divine
intervention in human affairs, but during the Renaissance the work emerged as a source
of inspiration for numerous scholars, scientists and philosophers. It is also a valuable
source for understanding the details of the Epicurean philosophical system, since many
of the written works of the early Epicureans no longer exist except as fragments.

Life
Very little is known about Lucretius' life; the information we have comes from occasional
references to him in the works of later writers, and from what can be understood from
his writings about his character, attitude and experiences. Jerome, in the Chronica
Eusebia, mentions Lucretius and says that he died at the age of 44. Aelius Donatus, in
his Life of Virgil, while stating that Virgil assumed the toga virilis on October 15, 55 B.C.E.,
adds, "…it happened on that very day Lucretius the poet died." If these two sources are
accurate, Lucretius would have been born in 99 B.C.E. Cicero (106-43 B.C.E.) implies in one
of his letters to his brother that they had once read Lucretius' poem.

From his name, Lucretius, it is generally assumed that the poet was associated with the
aristocratic clan of the Lucretii, either a family member or a freedman or slave attached
to that family. As a poet and an educated intellectual it is clear that Lucretius came from
a privileged background. The only certain facts of Lucretius' life are that he was either a
friend or a client of Gaius Memmius, to whom he dedicated De Rerum Natura, and that
he died before the poem was finished (Gaius Memmius was a Roman patrician who was
at one time married to Sulla's daughter, Fausta. He was involved in a political scandal in
54 B.C.E. and exiled to Athens in 52 B.C.E.). According to literary tradition, Lucretius had a
wife, Lucilla, but there is no evidence, except for a brief mention in his poem of marital
discord and a reference to "our Roman wives" (4.1277), that he was ever married.

It is clear from his poem, De Rerum Natura, that Lucretius was a serious student of
science and philosophy and a keen observer of natural phenomena. The poem is full of
images and descriptions of plants, animals and landscapes that reveal a sensitivity to the
beauty of nature and the change of the seasons. Like Epicurus himself, Lucretius
obviously preferred to distance himself from political strife and live surrounded by
nature.
A fourth century chronicle history by Jerome contains the following item regarding the
death of Lucretius: 94 [sic] B.C.E. "The poet Titus Lucretius is born. He was later driven
mad by a love philtre and, having composed between bouts of insanity several books
(which Cicero afterward corrected), committed suicide at the age of 44."

Scholars discredit this story for several reasons. De Rerum Natura contains a two-
hundred-line denunciation of sexual love; it seems improbable that a person so aligned
with Epicurean principles of moderation and self-control would have fallen victim to a
love potion. It is also unlikely that someone suffering from mental illness would have
been able to produce such a lucid and sophisticated work of poetry. Finally, Jerome and
the early Christians were motivated to discredit Epicureans as being atheists; it is
thought that their works may even have been deliberately destroyed by the early
Christian church.

Political Background
The first century B.C.E. was a time of political turmoil and violence which threatened the
stability of the Roman Empire. The Social War (91-88 B.C.E.) between Rome and its Italian
allies was followed by a Civil War instigated by Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Sulla became
dictator in 82 B.C.E. and executed more than four thousand Roman citizens. In 71 B.C.E. the
slave revolt led by Spartacus resulted in the crucifixion of six thousand rebels. Catiline
was defeated and killed in 62 B.C.E. Roman intellectuals were stimulated to seek solutions
to the disparity between ideal concepts of government and the reality of corruption,
violence and injustice. This brought about a resurgence of interest in Epicureanism and
in stoicism.

De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things)

The two most authoritative manuscripts of De Rerum Natura are the O and Q codices in
Leiden, both dating from the ninth century. Scholars have recently deciphered a
manuscript on papyrus scrolls, possibly dating to the first century C.E., which was
recovered from a library in Herculaneum that had been buried by a volcanic eruption. All
other existing manuscripts date from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and are based
on a manuscript (now lost) discovered in a monastery in 1417 by Poggio Bracciolini, an
Italian humanist.

De Rerum Natura has been a continuing influence on the work of a number of epic
poets, including Virgil, John Milton, Walt Whitman and William Wordsworth. The
sustained energy of Lucretius' writing is unparalleled in Latin literature, with the possible
exception of parts of Tacitus's Annals, or perhaps Books II and IV of the Aeneid. His use
of the hexameter is very individualistic and ruggedly distinct from the smooth urbanity
of Virgil or Ovid. His use of heterodynes, assonance, and oddly syncopated Latin forms
create a harsh acoustic. Lucretius laments several times that Latin is not as well suited as
Greek for the expression of philosophical ideas.

De Rerum Natura is organized into six books, designed to sketch out a complex
philosophical argument in such a way as to make it understandable and logically
compelling. Lucretius compares his work as a poet to that of a doctor. Just as a doctor
may put honey on the rim of a cup containing bitter but healing medicine, Lucretius
cloaks hard philosophical truths in sweet verse to make them go down more easily. At
the same time, he is careful not to let his literary devices overshadow the philosophical
truths he is seeking to convey.

 Book 1 begins with an invocation to Venus. Lucretius identifies Venus with love,
the unifying force of Empedocles, and also as the patron and mother of the
Roman people. He then sets forth the major principles of Epicurean cosmology
and physics: atomism, infinity of the universe, and the division of existence into
matter and void.
 Book 2 celebrates philosophy as a sanctuary from the turmoil of the world,
contains an explanation of atomic motion and shapes, and explains that atoms do
not have secondary attributes such as color and smell.

 Book 3 opens with a tribute to Epicurus and goes on to alleviate fear of death by
proving that the mind and soul are both material and mortal. “Nil igitur mors est
ad nos. . ." ("Therefore death is nothing to us.”)

 Book 4 contains verses on the art of didactic poetry and an explanation of

Epicurus' theory of vision and sensation. The conclusion is one of Lucretius'
greatest passages of verse, analyzing the biology and psychology of sexual love.

 Book 5 is devoted to Epicurean cosmology and sociology. Lucretius talks about

the stages of life on earth, and the origin and development of civilization. This
book includes a famous evolutionary theory on the development and extinction
of life forms.

 Book 6 contains some of Lucretius' greatest poetry. Lucretius explains

meteorological and geologic phenomena and includes vivid descriptions of
thunderstorms, lightning, and volcanic eruptions. The poem ends with the story of
the great plague of Athens (430 B.C.E.), and is obviously unfinished.

Influence on Philosophy and Science

Lucretius makes it clear that he intends his work to be an exposition of the philosophy of
Epicurus. He is credited with clarifying and giving substance and depth to the original
worldview suggested by Epicurus. Most of the original works of the early Epicureans
were lost, and with them, many details of their cosmology. The remaining fragments of
their work only offer clues to their thought, but De Rerum Natura lays out a profound
explanation of the ideas of Epicurus and offers proofs and examples from the natural
world. Lucretius is responsible for preserving and transmitting Epicureanism as a viable
system of thought. The ideas on evolution advanced in the last book were a unique
contribution of his own.

In his poem, Lucretius avoids supernatural explanations of natural phenomena and seeks
instead to discover scientific laws and processes. In some instances, his adherence to
certain Epicurean principles, such as the validity of our sensory perceptions, leads him to
some unrealistic conclusions, such as that the moon is actually a small disk exactly the
size that it appears to be to the naked eye.

By the end of the first century C.E., De Rerum Natura was rarely read and Lucretius was
almost unknown. The recovery of his lost manuscript during the fifteenth century
provided a stimulus to the Renaissance scientists and philosophers of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries. The Greek concept of atomism and the idea of the universe as an
integrated whole contributed to the development of modern scientific theory. Lucretius’
influence on early modern philosophy can be seen in the work of Pierre Gassendi (1592-
1655).

Pleasant it is, when over the great sea the winds shake the waters,
To gaze down from shore on the trials of others;
Not because seeing other people struggle is sweet to us,
But because the fact that we ourselves are free from such ills strikes us as pleasant.
Pleasant it is also to behold great armies battling on a plain,
When we ourselves have no part in their peril.
But nothing is sweeter than to occupy a lofty sanctuary of the mind,
Well fortified with the teachings of the wise,
Where we may look down on others as they stumble along,
Vainly searching for the true path of life. . . . (2. 1-10)

Seneca
Jump to:navigation, search
Previous (Sen no Rikyu)
Next (Seneca Falls Convention)
This article is about the Roman philosopher. For the Native American tribe, see the article
entitled Seneca nation.

Lucius Annaeus Seneca (often known simply as Seneca, or Seneca the Younger) (c.
4 B.C.E.– 65 C.E.) was a Roman philosopher, statesman, dramatist, and writer of the Silver
Age of Latin literature. During the times when he was not involved in Roman politics, he
wrote nine tragedies, a satire, philosophical essays, a treatise on meteorology, and 124
letters dealing with moral issues. He was the earliest Stoic writer whose original works
survived intact, instead of as fragments imbedded in the works of later writers. A Middle
Stoic and eclectic, Seneca did not contribute many new ideas or concepts but wrote
clearly and brilliantly about ethics, moral education, psychology and natural philosophy.
For eight years he served as an advisor to the Emperor Nero, and attempted to guide his
government according to Stoic ideals.

The early Christian church believed that he had known Saint Paul and therefore granted
his works legitimacy and preserved them. Seneca’s works were read by Medieval scholars
and his tragedies—with their gloominess, ghosts, and witches—had a powerful influence
on Elizabethan drama.

Life
Born in Córdoba, Spain in 4 B.C.E., Seneca was the second of three sons of Helvia and
Marcus (Lucius) Annaeus Seneca, a wealthy rhetorician known as Seneca the Elder.
Seneca's older brother, Gallio, became proconsul at Achaea (where he encountered the
apostle Paul about 52 C.E.), and Seneca was uncle to the poet Lucan, by his younger
brother, Annaeus Mela.

Tradition relates that he was a sickly child, and that he was taken to Rome by his aunt,
who was married to the prefect Gaius Galerius, to be educated in the school of the Sextii.
He was trained in rhetoric, and was introduced to Stoic philosophy by Attalos and
Sotion. Later he also studied neo-Pythagoreanism. In 25 C.E. Seneca followed his aunt
to Egypt for treatment for an illness.

In 31 C.E. he returned to Rome and became a successful advocate. He came into conflict
with the Emperor Caligula who nearly had him executed around 37 B.C.E.; he was only
spared because Caligula did not believe Seneca’s poor health would allow him to live for
long. In 41 C.E. Messalina, the wife of the Emperor Claudius, persuaded Claudius to exile
Seneca to Corsica, accusing him of adultery with Julia Livilla, the daughter of Claudius'
brother Germanicus. In Corsica Seneca devoted time to the study of philosophy and
natural science, and wrote the three Consolationes.

In 49 C.E., Claudius’s new wife, Agrippina the Younger, had Seneca recalled to Rome to
tutor her son, L. Domitius, who was to become the Emperor Nero. In 50 C.E. Seneca
married a wealthy and influential woman, Pompeia Paulina, and became praetor. When
Claudius died in 54 C.E., Agrippina secured the recognition of Nero as emperor over
Claudius' son, Britannicus. Seneca became Nero’s closest advisor, along with his friend
and the praetorian prefect, Sextus Afranius Burrus. Nero’s first speech was drafted by
Seneca and promised liberty to the Senate. For the first five years, the quinquennium
Neronis, Nero ruled wisely under the influence of Seneca and Burrus. They instituted
financial and judicial reforms, and advocated more humane treatment of slaves. Their
protégé Corbulo defeated the Parthians, and a new administration followed the
suppression of Boudicca’s rebellion in Britain. Nero became more and more tyrannical,
and as his wife Poppaea gained more influence, Seneca's enemies gradually turned Nero
against him. After Burrus died in 62 C.E., Seneca asked to retire from public life, and
devoted more time to study and writing.

In 65 C.E., Seneca was accused of being involved in a plot to murder Nero, the Pisonian
conspiracy. Without a trial, Seneca was ordered by Nero to commit suicide. Tacitus gives
an account of the suicide of Seneca, portraying him as meeting death with calm and
fortitude. His wife, Pompeia Paulina, who intended to commit suicide after Seneca's
death, was sentenced to live by Nero.

Works
The works attributed to Seneca include a satire, an essay on meteorology, philosophical
essays, 124 letters dealing with moral issues, and nine tragedies. One of the tragedies
attributed to him, Octavia, is now known not to be of his authorship, and
another, Hercules on Oeta, is under question.

The Apocolocyntosis divi Claudii is a political satire on the deification of Claudius.

Philosophical Works

The seven books of Naturales Quaestiones deal with natural science and reflect the
works of Posidonius. The rest of Seneca’s philosophical works are concerned mostly
with ethics and morality. The three Consolationes, written during his exile in Corsica, Ad
Marciam, Ad Helviam matrem, and Ad Polybium, discuss the meaning of life and the
proper attitude towards death and loss. They were intended to console two parents for
the deaths of their sons, and his own mother for his absence in exile. During the same
period he wrote De Ira, a treatise on the consequences of anger and how it can be
controlled. In the year that he was recalled to Rome, he wrote De brevitate vitae,
explaining that even a short lifetime is long enough if the time is used correctly. In
56 C.E., he addressed De clementia to Nero, pointing out that mercy is a supreme virtue
in an emperor. The Epistula morales, 124 essays dedicated to Lucilus Junior, discuss a
number of moral issues and are said to be among his best philosophical writing. De
tranquillitate animi, De constantia sapientis, De vita beata, and De otio discuss the Stoic
way of life and the attributes of a wise man. The seven books of De beneficiis examine
the benefits of both giving and receiving. The ideas expressed by Seneca reflected the
standard teachings of Middle Stoicism, but were articulated in such a way as to make
them appealing and easily understandable.

Tragedies

Seneca is best known for his tragedies, which are the only surviving examples of Latin
tragic drama. There is no evidence that the plays were ever performed on stage; they
were written while Seneca was in exile and are very different from the type of drama that
was popular at the time. They were widely read in medieval universities and had a
powerful influence on European drama of the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries. A translation of the tragedies was published in England in 1581. Elements of
Seneca’s dramatic style can be found in the plays of that time period, including the
atmosphere of gloom and horror, long soliloquies, rhetorical choruses, stoicism, the
theme of revenge, the inclusion of the supernatural, and characters like cruel tyrants,
witches, madmen and innocents. Seneca’s tragedies have been successfully staged
during modern times.

Seneca and St. Paul

Seneca’s older brother Gallio was said to have met the disciple Paul in Achaea in 52 C.E.,
and a series of letters, Cujus etiam ad Paulum apostolum leguntur epistolae, were said to
be correspondence between Seneca and Saint Paul. (These letters were revered by early
Christian authorities but most scholars do not believe they are authentic.) Some
medieval writers believed that Seneca had been converted to Christianity by Paul.
Seneca’s works were preserved by the early Christians, and studied by Augustine of
Hippo, Jerome and Boethius. His works were included in medieval anthologies,
and Dante, Petrarch and Geoffrey Chaucer all make references to them. In
1614 Erasmus edited the first English translation of Seneca’s essays on morality. Seneca’s
writings influenced Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Calvin, and Michel de Montaigne.

Dialogues
Note: dates are approximate.

 (40 C.E.) Ad Marciam, De consolatione (“To Marcia, On consolation”)

 (41 C.E.) De Ira (“On anger”)

 (42 C.E.) Ad Helviam matrem, De consolatione (“To Helvia, On consolation”)

 (44 C.E.) De Consolatione ad Polybium (“To Polybius, On consolation”)

 (49 C.E.) De Brevitate Vitae (“On the shortness of life”)

 (62 C.E.) De Otio (“On leisure”)

 (63 C.E.) De Tranquillitate Animi (“On tranquillity of mind”)

 (64 C.E.) De Providentia (“On providence”)

 (??) De Constantia Sapientiis (“On the Firmness of the Wise Person”)

 (??) De Vita Beata (“On the happy life”)

Tragedies

 Hercules Furens (“The Madness of Hercules”)

 Troades (“The Trojan Women”)

 Medea

 Phoenissae (“The Phoenician Women”)

 Phaedra

 Agamemnon

 Thyestes

 Oedipus

 Hercules Oetaeus (“Hercules on Oeta”): Problematic authorship

 Octavia : Problematic authorship

Other

 (54 C.E. ) Apocolocyntosis divi Claudii] (“The Pumpkinification of the Divine

Claudius”)
  (56 C.E. ) De Clementia (“On Clemency”)

 (63 C.E.) De Beneficiis (“On Benefits”) [seven books]

 (63 C.E.) Naturales quaestiones [seven books]

 (64 C.E.) Epistulae morales ad Lucilium

Quotations

 A gem cannot be polished without friction, nor a man perfected without trials.
 A man who suffers before it is necessary, suffers more than is necessary.

 A physician is not angry at the intemperance of a mad patient, nor does he take it
ill to be railed at by a man in fever. Just so should a wise man treat all mankind, as
a physician does his patient, and look upon them only as sick and extravagant.

 A quarrel is quickly settled when deserted by one party; there is no battle unless
there be two.

 A well governed appetite is the greater part of liberty.

 All art is but imitation of nature.

 All cruelty springs from weakness.

 Anger is like those ruins which smash themselves on what they fall.

 Anger, if not restrained, is frequently more hurtful to us than the injury that
provokes it.

 Anger: an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to
anything on which it is poured.

 The deferring of anger is the best antidote to anger.

 Consider, when you are enraged at any one, what you would probably think if he
should die during the dispute.

 As is a tale, so is life: not how long it is, but how good it is, is what matters.

 As long as you live, keep learning how to live.

 Be wary of the man who urges an action in which he himself incurs no risk.
 Behold a worthy sight, to which the God, turning his attention to his own work,
may direct his gaze. Behold an equal thing, worthy of a God, a brave man
matched in conflict with evil fortune.

 Brave men rejoice in adversity, just as brave soldiers triumph in war.

 Consult your friend on all things, especially on those which respect yourself. His
counsel may then be useful where your own self-love might impair your
judgment.

 Conversation has a kind of charm about it, an insinuating and insidious something
that elicits secrets from us just like love or liquor.

 Crime when it succeeds is called virtue.

 Death is the wish of some, the relief of many, and the end of all.

 Difficulties strengthen the mind, as labor does the body.

 Do not ask for what you will wish you had not got.

 Every reign must submit to a greater reign.

 Every sin is the result of a collaboration.

 Expecting is the greatest impediment to living. In anticipation of tomorrow, it

loses today.

 God is the universal substance in existing things. He comprises all things. He is the
fountain of all being. In Him exists everything that is.

 He has committed the crime who profits by it.

 He who does not prevent a crime when he can, encourages it.

 He that does good to another does good also to himself.

 He who dreads hostility too much is unfit to rule.

 He who has great power should use it lightly.

 I don't trust liberals, I trust conservatives.

 I will govern my life and thoughts as if the whole world were to see the one and
read the other, for what does it signify to make anything a secret to my neighbor,
when to God, who is the searcher of our hearts, all our privacies are open?
 If a man knows not what harbor he seeks, any wind is the right wind. If one does
not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favorable.

 If you wished to be loved, love.

 Ignorant people see life as either existence or non-existence, but wise men see it
beyond both existence and non-existence to something that transcends them
both; this is an observation of the Middle Way.

 It is a rough road that leads to the heights of greatness.

 It is another's fault if he be ungrateful, but it is mine if I do not give. To find one

thankful man, I will oblige a great many that are not so.

 It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not
dare that they are difficult.

 It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, that is poor.

 It is quality rather than quantity that matters.

 It is the sign of a great mind to dislike greatness, and to prefer things in measure
to things in excess.

 Light troubles speak; the weighty are struck dumb.

 Modesty forbids what the law does not.

 Most powerful is he who has himself in his own power.

 No one can be happy who has been thrust outside the pale of truth. And there
are two ways that one can be removed from this realm: by lying, or by being lied
to.

 No one is laughable who laughs at himself.

 One crime has to be concealed by another.

 Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by
the rulers as useful.

 Shall I tell you what the real evil is? To cringe to the things that are called evils, to
surrender to them our freedom, in defiance of which we ought to face any
suffering.

 So live with men as if God saw you and speak to God, as if men heard you.
 Success is not greedy, as people think, but insignificant. That is why it satisfies
nobody.

 That grief is light which can take counsel.

 The bad fortune of the good turns their faces up to heaven; the good fortune of
the bad bows their heads down to the earth.

 The good things of prosperity are to be wished; but the good things that belong
to adversity are to be admired.

 The pressure of adversity does not affect the mind of the brave man... It is more
powerful than external circumstances.

 The things hardest to bear are sweetest to remember.

 There is as much greatness of mind in acknowledging a good turn, as in doing it.

 There is no delight in owning anything unshared.

 There is no person so severely punished, as those who subject themselves to the

whip of their own remorse.

 There is none made so great, but he may both need the help and service, and
stand in fear of the power and unkindness, even of the meanest of mortals.

 Those who boast of their descent, brag on what they owe to others.

 True happiness is... to enjoy the present, without anxious dependence upon the
future.

 We are more often frightened than hurt; and we suffer more from imagination
than from reality.

 We become wiser by adversity; prosperity destroys our appreciation of the right.

 We can be thankful to a friend for a few acres, or a little money; and yet for the
freedom and command of the whole earth, and for the great benefits of our
being, our life, health, and reason, we look upon ourselves as under no obligation.

 We should every night call ourselves to an account: what infirmity have I mastered
to-day? what passions opposed? what temptation resisted? what virtue acquired?
Our vices will abate of themselves if they be brought every day to the shrift.

 What difference does it make how much you have? What you do not have
amounts to much more.
  Whatever one of us blames in another, each one will find in his own heart.

 When I think over what I have said, I envy dumb people.

 Wherever there is a human being, there is an opportunity for a kindness

 Wisdom does not show itself so much in precept as in life - in firmness of mind
and a mastery of appetite. It teaches us to do as well as to talk; and to make our
words and actions all of a color.

Plutarch
Mestrius Plutarchus (c. 46 - 127), known in English as Plutarch, (in Greek Πλούταρχος)
was a Greek philosopher, biographer, and essayist. He was a Middle Platonist and was
known to have written a number of philosophical treatises. While a large number of
semi-philosophical writings survive under the title of Memoria, his more technical
philosophical treatises were all lost. Consequently, Plutarch is far better remembered for
his biographical works than philosophical contributions.

Among his approximately 227 works, the most important are the Bioi paralleloi (Parallel
Lives), which describes the characters and recounts the noble deeds of Greek and Roman
soldiers, legislators, orators, and statesmen. The biographies, which paired Greek and
Roman subjects in comparisons which were sometimes rather forced, are an important
source of historical information. Plutarch’s Lives provided the material for many stories
and poems during the Middle Ages, and influenced English and French literature from
the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries. Shakespeare and other Elizabethan
dramatists used a translation by Thomas North as a source for many of their historical
plays. The Moralia, or Ethica, is a series of more than 60 essays on philosophical,
religious, ethical, political, physical, and literary topics.

Life
Plutarch was probably born in 46 C.E. in the small town of Chaeronea, in the Greek region
known as Boeotia, probably during the reign of the Roman Emperor Claudius. His
parents were wealthy people, and after 67 C.E., Plutarch traveled widely in the
Mediterranean world, including two journeys to Rome. Plutarch studied philosophy,
rhetoric, and mathematics at the Academy of Athens. He never became a staunch
Platonist, but remained open to the ideas of other philosophical schools such as
the Stoa and the school of Aristotle. It is thought that Plutarch was present when the
emperor Nero, who visited Greece at this time, declared the Greek towns to be free and
autonomous.

A wealthy aristocrat, Plutarch became a leading citizen of Chaeronea and is known to

have represented his town on several occasions, including a visit to the governor of
Achaea, and journeys to Alexandria and Rome. He had a number of influential friends,
including Soscius Senecio and Fundanus, both important Roman senators, to whom
some of his later writings were dedicated; and Lucius Mestrius Florus, a Roman consul
during the reign of Vespasian, and Plutarch's guide during his visit to Cremona. Lucius
Mestrius Florus sponsored Plutarch as a Roman citizen and, according to the tenth
century historian George Syncellus, late in life, the Emperor Hadrian appointed him
procurator of Achaea, a position that entitled him to wear the vestments of a consul, a
golden ring and white toga with a purple border. (The Suda, a medieval Greek
encyclopedia, states that Hadrian's predecessor Trajan made Plutarch procurator of
Illyria, but most historians consider that unlikely, since Illyria was not a procuratorial
province, and Plutarch probably did not speak Illyrian.)

In the 90s, Plutarch, returned to his home town. Once, when asked why he had returned
to the province, he explained that Chaeronea was in decline and that it would be even
smaller if he did not settle there. For some time, he was mayor of Chaeronea. He was
initiated into the mysteries of the Greek god Apollo, and served as the senior of the two
priests of Apollo at the Oracle of Delphi (where he was responsible for interpreting the
auguries of the Pythia). He led an active social and civic life and produced an extensive
body of writing, much of which is still extant.

Plutarch’s books brought him international fame, and his home became a private school
for young philosophers. He was often visited by eminent Greeks and Romans. Plutarch
died after his procuratorship, which was in 119, and before 125. The Delphians and
Chaeroneans ordered statues to be erected in honor of their famous citizen.

In the Consolation to his Wife, Plutarch mentions four sons and at least two survived
childhood. Plutarch’s writings are evidence that he was devoted to his parents,
grandfather, brothers, his wife Timoxena, and to their children.

Works
An incomplete third century catalog indicates that, in the two first decades of the second
century, Plutarch wrote between 200 and 300 books and essays.

Parallel Lives
Parallel Lives was written in Attic Greek, which was well-known to the educated class in
the Roman Empire. The ponderous work (the extant portion of it contains approximately
800,000 words, or about 1300 pages of fine print) was sent in installments to Sosius
Senecio, consul of Rome during the years 99, 102, and 107; through him the work
reached Emperor Trajan, who had the means to have many copies made.

Plutarch's announced intention was not to write a chronicle of great historical events, but
to examine the character of great men as a lesson for the living. He paired a
philosophical biography of each famous Roman with the biography of a Greek who was
comparable in some way, usually followed by a short essay of comparison. The Life of
Theseus/Life of Romulus describes the lives of the founders of Athens and Rome; the
comparison of Themistocles and Camillus, describes an Athenian and a Roman who were
both sent into exile. Throughout the Lives, Plutarch pauses to deliver penetrating
observations on human nature as illustrated by his subjects.

Plutarch's Greek heroes had been dead for at least 300 years by the time he wrote their
lives (circa 100 C.E.), making it necessary to rely on old manuscripts, many of which are no
longer available.

Plutarch’s readers produced enough copies of the Lives over the next centuries that most
of the work survived the neglect of the Dark Ages. However, many lives which appear in
a list of his writings, such as those of Hercules, Scipio Africanus, and Epaminondas, have
not been found. Some of the more interesting Lives, such as those of Heracles and Philip
II of Macedon no longer exist, and many of the remaining Lives are truncated, contain
obvious lacunae, or have been tampered with by later writers.

Plutarch's biographies were moral treatises to which the reader could refer for his own
moral improvement. He related, in a more or less chronological sequence, anecdotes
which illustrated the virtues and vices of his subjects, rather than giving historical detail.
His emphasis on moral rather than historical lessons led him to make odd judgments,
such as praising Pompey for his trustworthiness and tactfulness.

In the first paragraph of his Life of Alexander, Plutarch explained that he was not
concerned with writing histories, as such, but in exploring the influence of moral
character, good or bad, on the lives and destinies of famous men.

It is not histories I am writing, but lives; and in the most glorious deeds there is not
always an indication of virtue of vice, indeed a small thing like a phrase or a jest often
makes a greater revelation of a character than battles where thousands die (tr. E.L.
Bowie).
The Life of Alexander/Life of Julius Caesar is a good example of Plutarch’s method. He
presents the Life of Alexander as a collection of short stories, illustrating virtues and
vices, rather than a comparative analysis of the causes of the fall of the Achaemenid
empire and the Roman Republic. The most important historical theme is
that Alexander brought civilization to the barbarians and made them human. This theme
is continued in greater detail in The Fortune and Virtue of Alexander. Most authors of
books on the Macedonian king took their material from either the "vulgate" tradition
(which follows a biographer called Cleitarchus) or from the "good" tradition (which
follows the account of Ptolemy, one of Alexander's generals). Plutarch takes elements
from both sources and tells his own moral story. Life of Alexander is one of the five
surviving tertiary sources about the Macedonian conqueror, including anecdotes and
descriptions of incidents that appear in no other source. Plutarch’s portrait of Numa
Pompilius, an early Roman king, also contains unique information about the early Roman
calendar.

Plutarch’s sincere interest in his subjects as human beings and his insights into human
character made the Lives very appealing to its readers. A twelfth century official of the
Byzantine church, John Mauropos, prayed that on the Day of Judgment, when all non-
Christians would be sent to hell, God would save the soul of the Sage of Chaeronea.

The Moralia

The remainder of Plutarch's surviving work is collected under the title of

the Moralia (loosely translated as Customs and Mores), an eclectic collection of seventy-
eight essays and transcribed speeches. It includes On Fraternal Affection—a discourse on
honor and affection of siblings toward each other; On the Fortune or the Virtue of
Alexander the Great—an important adjunct to his Life of the great king; On the Worship
of Isis and Osiris—a crucial source of information on Egyptian religious rites; and On the
Malice of Herodotus—which may, like the orations on Alexander's accomplishments, have
been a rhetorical exercise, in which Plutarch criticizes what he sees as systematic bias in
the work of Herodotus. There are also more philosophical treatises, such as On the
Decline of the Oracles, On the Delays of the Divine Vengeance, On Peace of Mind; and
lighter fare, such as Odysseus and Gryllus, a humorous dialogue between Homer's
Ulysses and one of Circe's enchanted pigs. The Moralia was composed earlier than the
Lives, which occupied much of the last two decades of Plutarch's life.

Some editions of the Moralia include several works now known to

be pseudepigrapha (wrongly attributed to the author): Among these are the Lives of the
Ten Orators (biographies of the Ten Orators of ancient Athens, based on Caecilius of
Calacte), The Doctrines of the Philosophers, and On Music. One unknown "pseudo-
Plutarch" is considered responsible for all of these works. Though the thoughts and
opinions recorded are not Plutarch's and come from a slightly later era, they are all
classical in origin and have value to the historian.

The Moralia includes a letter of consolation to Plutarch’s wife, after the death of their
two-year-old daughter, which gives a glimpse of his ideas on reincarnation:

The soul, being eternal, after death is like a caged bird that has been released. If it has
been a long time in the body, and has become tame by many affairs and long habit, the
soul will immediately take another body and once again become involved in the troubles
of the world. The worst thing about old age is that the soul's memory of the other world
grows dim, while at the same time its attachment to things of this world becomes so
strong that the soul tends to retain the form that it had in the body. But that soul which
remains only a short time within a body, until liberated by the higher powers, quickly
recovers its fire and goes on to higher things.

It is clear that Plutarch’s aim was the moral education of his readers. Moralia includes
essays with titles such as Checking Anger, The Art of Listening, How to Know Whether One
Progresses to Virtue, and Advice to Bride and Groom. Plutarch's central theme seems to
have been the concept of a dualistic opposition between good and evil principles in the
world. Later philosophers of the neoplatonistic school disagreed with this idea, and this
may explain why several of Plutarch's more serious philosophical publications are now
lost, leaving only some lighter works, together with his attacks on
the Stoa and Epicureanism.

Influence
Ralph Waldo Emerson and the Transcendentalists were greatly influenced by
the Moralia (Emerson wrote a glowing introduction to the five volume nineteenth
century edition of his Moralia). Boswell quoted Plutarch's line about writing lives, rather
than biographies in the introduction to his own Life of Samuel Johnson. Other admirers
include Ben Jonson, John Dryden, Alexander Hamilton, John Milton, and Sir Francis
Bacon, as well as such disparate figures as Cotton Mather, Robert Browning,
and Montaigne (whose own Essays draw deeply on Plutarch's Moralia for their
inspiration and ideas).

The rediscovery of Plutarch's Lives stimulated popular interest in the classics at the
beginning of the Italian Renaissance. Epitomes, written in Tuscan and other local dialects,
and including highlights of the best stories from Lives, circulated as popular literature.
The middle class all over Europe read the popularized Plutarch for its practical wisdom.
"We dunces would have been lost if this book had not raised us out of the dirt," said
Montaigne of the first French edition (1559). C. S. Lewis concluded that,
"Plutarch's Lives built the heroic ideal of the Elizabethan age." Sir Thomas North
prepared the first English edition (from Amyot's French edition) of Plutarch's Lives in
1579, and Shakespeare borrowed heavily from it. In 1683, a team of translators headed
by John Dryden authored a complete translation from the original Greek.

Beethoven, growing deaf, wrote in 1801: "I have often cursed my Creator and my
existence. Plutarch has shown me the path of resignation. If it is at all possible, I will bid
defiance to my fate, though I feel that as long as I live there will be moments when I shall
be God's most unhappy creature … Resignation, what a wretched resource! Yet it is all
that is left to me." Facing death in Khartoum, General Gordon took time to note:
"Certainly I would make Plutarch's Lives a handbook for our young officers. It is worth
any number of Arts of War or Minor Tactics." Ralph Waldo Emerson called the Lives a
"bible for heroes."

Quotations
 "Wickedness frames the engines of her own torment. She is a wonderful artisan of
a miserable life."
 "It is a desirable thing to be well descended, but the glory belongs to our
ancestors."

 "The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."—On Listening to

Lectures

 "But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh, we deprive a soul of the sun and
light and of that proportion of life and time it had been born into the world to
enjoy."—On the Eating of Flesh

 "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them
bounties, donations and benefits (largess)."

Epictetus
Jump to:navigation, search
Previous (Epic of King Gesar)
Next (Epicureanism)

Epictetus (c. 55 C.E. – c. 135 C.E.) was a Greek Stoic philosopher who lived and taught in
the Greek city of Nicopolis almost four hundred years after Zeno of Citium established
the first Stoic school in Athens. His thought paralleled the teachings of the early Stoics,
but he developed a new system for teaching his students to practice Stoicism in their
daily lives. Stoicism deals with three major areas; logic, natural philosophy (physics),
and ethics. Epictetus focused his teachings mostly on ethics. Epictetus himself apparently
did not write, but one of his students, the historian Arrian, wrote two works, Enchiridion
(Handbook) and the Discourses, based on notes that he made from his teacher’s lectures
and interactions with students. Although four of the eight sections of Discourses seem to
have been lost, these works lay out Epictetus’ teachings in careful detail. He believed the
role of a Stoic teacher was to show his students how to strive for moral excellence and
thus achieve eudaimonia (‘happiness’ or ‘flourishing’). This could be accomplished by
taking responsibility for one’s actions and thoughts, and learning to accept fate with the
right attitude. Epictetus also emphasized the role of destiny and divine providence in the
lives of men.

Epictetus differed from the early Stoics in that he emphasized that happiness could be
found in maintaining one's moral character rather than in striving towards moral
excellence. Discourses and the Handbook provide us with a detailed and complete
explanation of Stoic ethics, which is not available in the preserved fragments of earlier
Stoic works.

The lessons set forth by Epictetus deal very profoundly with the human situation and
with the difficulties encountered in everyday life. They continue to be relevant in today’s
world.

Life
Epictetus was born in about 55 C.E. in Hierapolis in Phrygia (modern-day Pamukkale, in
south-western Turkey). The name given by his parents, if one was given, is not known—
the word epiktetos in Greek simply means "acquired." In his boyhood he came to Rome
as a slave of Epaphroditus, a rich and powerful freedman who had been a slave himself
and administrative secretary of the Emperor Nero. Epictetus was lame, and some
accounts say that it was because of mistreatment by his master. While still a slave,
Epictetus studied with the Stoic teacher Musonius Rufus. In about 89 C.E. the Emperor
Domitian banished all philosophers from Rome. Epictetus went to Nicopolis in Epirus
and opened a school there, which became well known and attracted many upper class
Romans. Among his students was Flavius Arrian (c. 86-160) who composed
the Discourses and the Handbook, and who later served in public office under
the Emperor Hadrian. Arrian once remarked that Epictetus had been more popular in his
day than had Plato in his.

Epictetus lived a simple, frugal life devoted to teaching and philosophical pursuits. It is
believed that he did not marry or have any children, although one story says that he
married late in life in order to raise a child who otherwise would have been left to die.
The Cynic philosopher Demonax, who was a pupil of Epictetus, once heard him exhort
his students to marry and have children (for it was a philosopher's duty to provide a
substitute ready for the time when they would die), and he sarcastically asked Epictetus
whether he could marry one of his daughters.

Thought and Works

The Discourses and the Handbook

Epictetus’ main work is the Discourses, originally eight books, of which four remain in
their entirety. A popular digest, entitled the Enchiridion—or "Handbook"—also survives.
It is believed that these works were not written by Epictetus himself, but by his pupil
Arrian. In a preface to the Discourses, addressed to Lucius Gellius, Arrian states that
"whatever I heard him say I used to write down, word for word, as best I could,
endeavoring to preserve it as a memorial, for my own future use, of his way of thinking
and the frankness of his speech."

The Three Topics

Epictetus concentrated on teaching his students how to lead an ideal Stoic life. His
teachings on logic, natural philosophy and ethics did not vary greatly from the original
ideas set out almost four hundred years earlier by Zeno of Citium and Chrysippus, the
founders of the Stoic school, but Epictetus developed a new system for teaching the
practice of Stoicism. Like all the Hellenistic philosophers, he regarded moral philosophy
as a means of teaching people to lead better lives and achieve eudaimonia ('happiness'
or 'a flourishing life'). For the Stoics this meant a life motivated by virtue.

To this end, Epictetus identified three topoi (topics) on which a Stoic should focus in
order to achieve happiness. The first, Discipline of Desire, was an examination of desire,
and the realization that a truly rational being only desires goodness, virtue, and actions
motivated by virtue. A person who limits his desire to virtue can never be thwarted,
disappointed or discouraged.

The second topic, Discipline of Action, involved performing the actions appropriate to
one’s position in the family, society and world, in order to fulfill the role of a rational,
sociable being. Our actions, said Epictetus, should be motivated by the specific
obligations that we have in virtue of who we are, our natural relations to others, and
what roles we have adopted in our dealings with the wider community. We should not
perform actions that are destructive or damaging to these roles; in other words we
should not act carelessly or give way to impulses of violence, anger or jealousy.

The third topic, Discipline of Assent, involved learning to evaluate a situation before
reacting to it, and choosing an appropriate response. The Stoics taught that in every
situation we receive an initial “impression” of what is happening around us, and that we
must then apply judgment and interpretation to truly understand its meaning. Epictetus
emphasized that we must first understand a circumstance before we can judge whether
it is desirable or not and decide on an appropriate action.

What Is In Our Power

Epictetus emphasized that there are two types of circumstances; those that we have the
power to change and those that are not in our power to change. We have the power to
change our attitude and our actions in response to a situation, but we may not have the
power to change the events themselves. Epictetus taught that a person should only be
concerned with the things that he had the power to change. In order to achieve
eudaimonia, or happiness, a person must learn to accept fate.

God and Divine Will

Epictetus held the orthodox Stoic view that everything in the universe is directed by
divine will, and made frequent references to the gods and Zeus in his discourses. He
frequently exhorted his students to “live according to nature” meaning that they should
strive to live according to divine will, and accept fate as having been ordained by god.

While the early Stoics spoke a great deal about striving for excellence, Epictetus
emphasized self-knowledge and keeping one’s moral character in order as the way to
achieve a happy life. He instructed his students to expect persecution, because their
actions and their attitudes would be so different from those of the people around them;
they would appear aloof and unaffected by the passions and turbulent emotions that
affected the general public. Epictetus encouraged his students to view life as an athletic
challenge, a festival, or a stint of military service, where success would come through a
combination of making correct choices and becoming skillful.

Quotes
"There are three areas of study, in which a person who is going to be good and noble
must be trained. That concerning desires and aversions, so that he may never fail to get
what he desires nor fall into what he would avoid. That concerning the impulse to act
and not to act, and, in general, appropriate behavior; so that he may act in an orderly
manner and after due consideration, and not carelessly. The third is concerned with
freedom from deception and hasty judgment, and, in general, whatever is connected
with assent." (Discourses 3.2.1–2, trans. Hard)

"When I see a man anxious, I say, What does this man want? If he did not want some
thing which is not in his power, how could he be anxious?" (Discourses 2.13.1, trans.
Long).

"This is the proper goal, to practise how to remove from one's life sorrows and laments,
and cries of "Alas" and "Poor me," and misfortune and disappointment." (Discourses
1.4.23, trans. Dobbin)

"No one is master of another's prohairesis [moral character], and in this alone lies good
and evil. No one, therefore, can secure the good for me, or involve me in evil, but I alone
have authority over myself in these matters." (Discourses 4.12.7–8, trans. Dobbin)

"Some things are up to us [eph' hêmin] and some things are not up to us. Our opinions
are up to us, and our impulses, desires, aversions–in short, whatever is our own doing.
Our bodies are not up to us, nor are our possessions, our reputations, or our public
offices, or, that is, whatever is not our own doing." (Handbook 1.1, trans. White)

"If the Stoic making progress (the prokoptôn) understands God, the universe, and
themselves in the right way, they 'will never blame the gods, nor find fault with them."
(Handbook 31.1, trans. Oldfather)

“But what is philosophy? Does it not mean making preparation to meet the things that
come upon us?” (Discourses 3.10.6, trans. Oldfather)

Marcus Aurelius
Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus (April 26, 121 – March 17,
180) was emperor of Rome from 161 C.E. until his death in 180 C.E. He was notable among
Roman emperors as devoted to the study and practice of philosophy and to the wise
administration of the empire. Marcus also served as a priest to the Roman state religion,
yet generally accommodated the diverse religious practices that existed throughout the
Roman world. The influence of the early Christian Church became widespread during his
reign, although Marcus uncharacteristically permitted severe persecutions in some
provinces.

While Marcus was young, Emperor Hadrian arranged his adoption by Antoninus Pius, so
that he would be in the direct line of succession. After becoming emperor, Marcus spent
most of his reign in a protracted military campaign against the Germanic tribes to the
north. Marcus was a temperate and just ruler who defended the Roman Empire against
numerous threats on its borders. He is considered the last of the Five Good Emperors;
the decline of the Roman Empire is thought to have begun during the reign of his son
Commodus.

Marcus' writings were exercises for his own improvement rather than philosophical
treatises. He was deeply influenced by the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, and
his Reflections and Meditations stress moral improvement, ethical citizenship,
philosophical detachment, and more generally the place of man in the cosmic order.
These works are valued as a literary expressions of virtuous public life and civic duty.

Historia Augusta identifies him in its heading as "Marcus Antoninus Philosophus"

("Marcus Antoninus the Philosopher"). Toward the end of the work, the following is
reported about him, "sententia Platonis semper in ore illius fuit, florere civitates si aut
philosophi imperarent aut imperantes philosopharentur" (27.7) ("Plato's judgment was
always on his lips, that states flourished if philosophers ruled or rulers were
philosophers").

Life
Early Life

He was born Marcus Annius Catilius Severus on April 26, 121 C.E., to an aristocratic family
of Spanish descent. His grandfather was elected consul three times, and served the
Roman Emperor Hadrian as a city prefect. As a youth, Marcus was a serious student and
received public honors at an early age. Emperor Hadrian took an interest in Marcus as a
possible future successor, and he required Antoninus Pius, who succeeded him as
emperor, to adopt young Marcus, along with the son of another candidate, L. Ceionius
Commodus, who predeceased Hadrian. Marcus was 17, and L. Aelius Aurelius
Commodus (Verus) was eight. From then on, Marcus was known as Marcus Aelius
Aurelius Verus.

The reign of Antoninus Pius was long and relatively peaceful; disturbances on the fringes
of the Roman Empire were quickly resolved by the provincial legates. Antoninus Pius
never left Italy and never exposed Marcus or Verus to military life. Marcus Aurelius rose
steadily through the Roman political ranks. He was a consul in 140 and 145, received the
tribunicia potestas in 147, and served as a magistrate and priest. He continued his
studies, and was well acquainted with Fronto (c. 95 – 160), the distinguished rhetorician
and orator, and with other thinkers such as the Athenian Herodes Atticus, and Aelius
Aristides. The writings of Epictetus impressed him deeply and he became a firm Stoic.

Marriage

Aurelius married Faustina the Younger, daughter of Emperor Hadrian, in the year 145.
During their 30-year marriage, Faustina bore 13 children, most notably, his son
Commodus (161-192), who would later become emperor, and his daughter Lucilla, who
was first wed to Lucius Verus to solidify his alliance with Marcus Aurelius, and after
Verus’s death, married to Claudius Pompeianus Quintianus of Antioch, an important
associate of her father. Faustina was often the subject of gossip, accused of employing
poison and of murdering people, as well as being free with her favors. Marcus defended
her vigorously. She accompanied him several times to the battlefield and was honored
with the title mater castrorum. In 175, she died in an accident while with him at a camp
at Halala in southern Cappadocia. Marcus dedicated a temple in her honor and renamed
the town Faustinopolis.

Emperor of Rome

In 161, Emperor Antoninus Pius died after indicating to the Roman senate that he wished
Marcus Aurelius to be his successor. Marcus accepted on the condition that he and
Commodus be made joint emperors, as Hadrian had planned. Almost immediately there
was a threat to the Roman Empire from Parthia, to the east. Taking advantage of the
uncertainty brought about by the death of Antoninus Pius, the Parthian monarch,
Vologaeses III, put one of his henchmen on the throne of Armenia, which acted as a
buffer state between Rome and Parthia, and rebuffed the Roman forces who tried to
obstruct him. As a symbol of Roman imperial prestige, Marcus decided to send his
adopted half-brother to the front, surrounded by some of the best Roman generals. The
campaign was very successful; a number of Parthian cities were destroyed, Parthia
capitulated, and Rome placed her own king on the Armenian throne. Lucius Commodus
Verus returned to Italy victorious and was awarded a triumph, unusual because the
parade included Verus, Marcus Aurelius, their sons and unmarried daughters. However,
the returning Roman troops brought with them a terrible plague, which had a
devastating effect on all the Roman provinces.

Germanic wars

Early in 169, Germanic tribes launched an invasion of Italy from the north. The
Marcomanni and Quadi crossed the Danube, penetrated the intervening provinces, and
entered Italy. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus quickly mobilized a large force and went
north to defend Italy. Verus soon died on campaign, and Marcus brought his body back
to Rome and gave him full honors. He then returned to the northern frontier, where he
was to spend most of his remaining years.

The Roman strategy was to drive the Germanic tribes out of Italy and back across the
Danube. This was to be accomplished by isolating each tribe and defeating each one
individually. The strategy was successful but required time and resources. Two new
legions were recruited and many new camps and fortresses had to be constructed. One
by one the tribes were defeated and brought under Rome’s dominion. In 175, the
distinguished general Avidius Cassius, governor of Syria, attempted to take over
the Roman Empire, and Marcus Aurelius traveled to the east. Avidius died before he
arrived. Marcus spent some time in Athens and was initiated into the Eleusinian
mysteries. He then returned to the northern front, taking his 16-year-old son and
intended successor Commodus.

Death

In 180, while on campaign with Commodus in the north, Marcus became ill. He refused
food or drink, and died a few days later, on March 17, in Vindobona, then a Celtic village,
near present-day Vienna. His ashes were brought back to Rome to rest in Hadrian's
mausoleum (modern Castel Sant'Angelo). The military campaigns against the Germanic
tribes were succeeding, and Marcus had advised Commodus that one more year of
warfare was necessary in order to attain complete victory and fully establish Roman
dominion. Instead, Commodus chose to withdraw from the campaign, a decision which
later proved disastrous to the Roman Empire. Marcus Aurelius' death is said by many
historians to have been the end of the Pax Romana.

Marcus Aurelius’s reputation as an exemplary ruler has survived until present times,
partly because of the Meditations, which testify to his integrity and personal devotion to
duty. The life he chose was one of self-sacrifice and public service, and much of his time
as emperor was spent in military camps, in an effort to establish the peace and security
of the Roman Empire.
Administration and Policy towards Religion
Marcus Aurelius was an able administrator, who selected capable men for important
posts and knew how to make the best use of their abilities. He continued the system of
social mobility established by his predecessors, which allowed men from the provinces
to advance into the Roman aristocracy. He centralized his government, and placed
judicial matters in the hands of iuridici, who spoke with the authority of the emperor.

Marcus was a thinker and a student of philosophy, but he also served as a priest and
gave full respect to the state religion. He acknowledged the validity of other people's
beliefs, and accommodated the variety of religions that existed throughout the Roman
Empire. Christianity was not restricted by any official policy and the influence of the early
church became widespread during his reign. However, he did not interfere when local
governments incited violence against Christians.

Meditations
Marcus Aurelius was the last great Stoic author. While on campaign between 170 and
180, Aurelius wrote his Meditations, comprising 12 books of private reflections, written in
Greek, on the meaning of life and death, the cosmos, duty, and public life. The books are
not organized in any particular order, and appear to be written for his own guidance and
self-improvement. The books illustrate how Stoic thought could be applied by someone
at the height of power. Marcus was deeply influenced by the teachings of Epictetus and
showed great interest in the psychology of moral improvement. He also remained firmly
committed to the Stoic concept of natural order and man’s place in it, and exhibited a
religious sensitivity and a sense of man’s insignificance in the cosmos. He reflected often
on the duties inherent in being part of the social order.

The book itself was first published in 1558 in Zurich, from a manuscript copy that is now
lost. The only other surviving complete copy of the manuscript is in the Vatican Library. It
is available in numerous translations and is still revered as a literary monument to a
government of service and duty. It has been praised for its "exquisite accent and its
infinite tenderness" and "saintliness," being called the "gospel of his life."

Monuments and Sculpture

Marcus Aurelius erected only a few monuments during his reign, possibly because so
many resources were needed for military campaigns. Marcus and Verus erected a
column in honor of the deceased Antoninus Pius, the base of which is now on display in
the Vatican Museum. Three arches were raised to commemorate their military successes,
one for Verus and two for Marcus Aurelius. Sections from one of these are now
preserved on the Arch of Constantine, and three refiefs from another are in the
Conservatori Museum on the Capitoline Hill. The most well-known monument is a
column in the Piazza Colonna that commemorates Marcus’s campaigns from 172 to 175.
A well-preserved bronze equestrian sculpture of Marcus Aurelius, which, during the
Middle Ages, had stood in the Lateran Palace in Rome, was relocated in 1538 to the
Piazza del Campidoglio (Capitoline Hill). Currently, the original is on display in an
exhibition room designed especially for this purpose in the Palazzo dei Conservatori of
the Musei Capitolini, while a copy has replaced it in the square. It escaped destruction,
following Rome's conversion to Christianity, because it was mistaken for a statue of
Emperor Constantine. According to medieval accounts, a small figure of a bound
barbarian chieftain once crouched underneath the horse's front right leg.

Quotations
 “How much time he gains who does not look to see what his neighbor says or
does or thinks, but only at what he does himself, to make it just and holy.”

 “By a tranquil mind I mean nothing else than a mind well ordered.”

 “If mind is common to us, then also the reason, whereby we are reasoning beings,
is common. If this be so, then also the reason which enjoins what is to be done or
left undone is common. If this be so, law also is common; if this be so, we are
citizens; if this be so, we are partakers in one constitution; if this be so, the
Universe is a kind of Commonwealth.”

 “Constantly regard the universe as one living being, having one substance and
one soul; and observe how all things have reference to one perception, the
perception of this one living being; and how all things act with one movement;
and how all things are the cooperating causes of all things which exist; observe
too the continuous spinning of the thread and the contexture of the web.”

 “Do not think that what is hard for you to master is humanly impossible; but if a
thing is humanly possible, consider it to be within your reach.”
  “To change your mind and to follow him who sets you right is to be nonetheless
the free agent that you were before.”

 “It is man's peculiar duty to love even those who wrong him.”

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – 215) (Titus Flavius Clemens) was an early
Christian philosopher and one of the most distinguished teachers of the Church of
Alexandria. He is known for his attempt to unite Greek philosophy with Christian
teachings and drew a large number of educated pagans to the Church. His passion for
philosophy, especially for the teachings of Plato, contributed to the "hellenization" of
Christianity.

Clement of Alexandria was, and still is, a highly unorthodox and controversial figure in
Church history.

Biography

Titus Flavius Clemens was born sometime during the middle of the second
century C.E. Many scholars have named Athens as his birthplace, and this is supported by
the classical quality of his Greek. His parents seem to have been wealthy pagans of some
social standing. Clement traveled in Greece, Italy, and Palestine before settling in Egypt.
While searching for a spiritual teacher, he came under the tutelage of Pantaenus, the
head of the catechetical school at Alexandria and eventually succeeded him as the
director of the school. Clement lectured candidates for baptism in the Gospels and
Christian doctrine, inviting pagans and new converts to come listen. One of his most
well-known pupils was Origen. In 202, the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus began
persecuting Christians more severely and closed the catechetical school at Alexandria,
forcing Clement to leave for Asia Minor. He is believed to have died sometime before
215.

Literary work

The trilogy of works which represent Clement's most important ideas is composed of
the Protreptikos (Exhortation to Conversion), the Paidagogos (Moral Tutor), and
the Stromateis (Miscellany). In his bold literary undertaking, Clement attempts to set
forth Christianity for the faithful in the traditional forms of secular literature. There is a
somewhat systematic progression among these three major works: The first is addressed
to the unconverted pagan, the second to the new Christian, and the third appeals to the
mature believer.
The Protreptikos forms an introduction inviting the reader to listen, not to the mythical
legends of the gods, but to the "new song" of the Logos, the beginning of all things and
creator of the world. He denounces what he claims to be the folly of idolatry and the
pagan mysteries, the shamefulness of the pederastic practices of the Greeks, and the
horrors of pagan sacrifice. He argues that the Greek philosophers and poets only
guessed at the truth, while the prophets set forth a direct way to salvation, and now the
divine Logos speaks in His own person to awaken all that is good in the soul of person
and to lead it to immortality.

Having thus laid a foundation in the knowledge of divine truth, Clement goes on, in
the Paidagogos, to develop a more systematic Christian ethic. He speaks of the
"paidagogos," or tutor, as the divine Logos which guides the Christian throughout even
the most mundane daily activities such as eating and sleeping. Like the Stoic Epictetus,
Clement believes that true virtue shows itself through external evidence in the natural,
simple, and moderate way of life of the believer.

The Stromateis goes further and aims at the perfection of the Christian life by initiation
into complete knowledge. It attempts, on the basis of Scripture and tradition, to give an
account of the Christian faith that can answer all the demands of learned men and
conduct the student into the innermost realities of his belief. Clement entitled the
work Stromateis because it deals with such a variety of matters. He intended to make but
one book of this, but at least seven grew out of it without his having treated all the
subjects proposed. The absence of certain things definitely promised has led scholars to
ask whether he wrote an eighth book, and various attempts have been made to identify
with it short or fragmentary treatises appearing among his remains. The excerpts and
selections which are designated as the eighth book in an eleventh century manuscript
of Stromata are not parts of the Hypotyposes which Clement is known to have written.

Besides the great trilogy, the only complete work preserved is the treatise entitled, Who
is the Rich Man that Shall Be Saved? It is based on Mark 10:17-31 and lays down the
principle that not the possession of riches but their misuse is to be condemned. There
are also a few fragments of a treatise on the Passover, against the Quartodecimanism
position of Melito of Sardis, and only a single passage from the "Ecclesiastical Canon"
against the Judaizers. Several other works are known only by their titles.

Contribution to Christian theology

Clement's main contribution to the development of Church doctrine was his attempt to
reconcile Christian teachings with the ancient Greek philosophers. He was a self-
proclaimed eclectic as can be seen in his tolerating and even embracing non-
Christian philosophy. It was a marked characteristic of his that he saw only superficial
and transient disagreement where others found a fundamental opposition. Clement was
able to reconcile, and even fuse, differing views to an extent which made it impossible to
attribute to him a definite individual system. He replaced the apologetic method with
the constructive or systematic method, turning the simple Church tradition into a
scientific dogmatic theology.

It was a commonly held view among Clement's contemporaries that philosophy was the
creation of the Devil. Others saw the philosophers as simply unoriginal, and Clement
himself stated that the philosophers owed a large part of their knowledge to the writings
of the Old Testament. However, he still argued, "that philosophy in a sense is the work of
Divine Providence" (Stromateis i, I). Clement saw Greek philosophy not as something
irrelevant or opposed to Christianity but as an early stage of the progressive revelation
of God's truth to human beings through the Logos. Just as the law of Moses was a
"paidagogos" to the Jewish people preparing them to receive the Messiah, Clement
believed that God also used philosophy to inform the Greeks and to eventually guide
them to the fullness of truth in Christ. The knowledge of the ancient Greeks was far
surpassed by the revelation given through the law and prophets of the Old Testament,
and that was further surpassed by the direct revelation of the incarnate Logos in Jesus
Christ.

Clement did not, however, embrace all schools of Greek philosophy; he denounced
the Sophists as well as the Hedonists of the school of Epicurus. Although he generally
expressed himself unfavorably in regard to Stoicism, he clearly paid deference to the
mixture of Stoicism and Platonism which characterized the religious and ethical thought
of the educated classes in his day. In his ethical expressions, he was influenced strongly
by Plato and the Stoics and borrowed much of their terminology. Clement praised Plato
for defining man's ultimate aim in life as likeness to God and saw Plato's description of a
transcendental and incorporeal God as accurate and aligned with Scripture. His
teachings also included the Stoicist ethics of moderation, suppression of the passions,
and the fulfillment of moral obligations, and his description of the perfect Gnostic closely
resembles the Stoicist definition of the wise man. Clement counseled his students to
shake off the chains of the flesh as far as possible, to live as if already out of the body,
and thus, to rise above earthly things. He was a true Greek in the value which he placed
on moderation, but his highest ideal of conduct was the mortification of all affections
which may in any way disturb the soul in its career. Clement embraced this lofty ethical-
religious ideal of the attainment of man's perfection in union with God, which Greek
philosophy from Plato down had worked out, and connected it to Christianity and the
ecclesiastical tradition. To him, it seemed only logical that the philosophical conclusions
of the Greeks were so similar to their Hebraic counterparts. All men, he believed, were
endowed by God with a "shared mind"—a natural intuition which seeks truth and
righteousness. God also reveals His truth to people of all ages through divine revelation.

Clement also emphasized the permanent importance of philosophy for the fullness of
Christian knowledge. He explained with special predilection the relation between
knowledge and faith, and he sharply criticized those who were unwilling to make any use
of philosophy. He spoke of the importance of higher spiritual understanding, or "gnosis,"
which he clearly distinguished from "gnosis" as defined by the Gnostics. He taught that
faith was the foundation of all knowledge and that both were given to people by Christ.
Like Plato, Clement saw the world as an organic whole that was ultimately knowable to
humans. Greater knowledge of God and the universe allows the believer to penetrate
deeply into the understanding of what he believes, and this is the perfection of faith. In
order to attain this "faith of knowledge," which is much higher than "faith of conjecture,"
philosophy is permanently necessary. In fact, Clement considered Christianity the true
philosophy and the perfect Christian the true "Gnostic." This true philosophy includes
within itself the freedom from sin and the attainment of virtue. As all sin has its root in
ignorance, so the knowledge of God and of goodness is followed by good actions. He
rejected the Gnostic concept of absolute predestination and the distinction between
"psychic" and "pneumatic" men. He believed in the freedom to do good—that all people
are destined to perfection if they will embrace it.

Clement understood this Christian gnosis as the work of the Logos, through which God's
relation to the world and his revelation is maintained. He considered God
transcendentally as an unqualified Being. Though His goodness operated in the creation
of the world, His divine essence is immutable, self-sufficient, and incapable of suffering.
The Logos is most closely one with the Father, whose powers He resumes in Himself, but
both the Son and the Spirit are "first-born powers and first created." They form the
highest stages in the scale of intelligent being, and Clement distinguishes the Son-Logos
from the Logos who is immutably immanent in God, and thus gives a foundation to the
charge of Photius that he "degraded the Son to the rank of a creature." The Logos is
separate from the world as the principle of creation, yet also in it as its guiding principle.
Thus, a natural life is a life according to the will of the Logos. Clement's description of
the Incarnation, in spite of Clement's rejection of the Gnostic Docetism, was somewhat
Docetic in nature. He said that the body of Christ was not subject to human needs. Christ
was the good Physician, and the medicine which he offered was the communication of
saving gnosis, leading men from paganism to faith and from faith to the higher state of
knowledge.

For Clement, the way to this union with God was only the Church's way. The
communication of the gnosis was bound up with holy orders, which gave the divine light
and life, and the simple faith of the baptized Christian contained all the essentials of the
highest knowledge. By the Eucharist, the believer was united with the Logos and the
Spirit and made partaker of incorruptibility. Though Clement initially presented a purely
spiritual conception of the Church, the exigencies of his controversy with
the Gnostics forced him to put more stress on the Church as an official institution.

An excerpt from the "Mar Saba letter," attributed to Clement of Alexandria, is the only
evidence for the existence of a possible "Secret Gospel of Mark."

Many later theologians and Church officials have opposed Clement's views. While his
feast day is traditionally celebrated on December 4, Pope Clement VIII had Clement
removed from the Roman martyrology due his unorthodox writings.

Sextus Empiricus
Sextus Empiricus (lived during the second or possibly the third century C.E.), was
a physician and philosopher whose philosophical writing is the most complete surviving
account of ancient Greek and Roman skepticism. He followed the tradition established
by Pyrrhon, and maintained that skepticism came about through sincere examination of
the various schools of philosophy, none of which offered a satisfactory and
comprehensive solution to the basic philosophical questions. Therefore all judgment
should be suspended, in order to achieve tranquility of the mind. Sensory evidence was
admissible only as a subjective claim, true according to one person’s perceptions but not
necessarily true for anyone else. Philosophical theories were not needed in order to
respond appropriately to the practical needs of everyday life.

In his medical work, tradition maintains that Sextus belonged to the "empiric" school
(see Asclepiades), as reflected by his name. However, at least twice in his writings, Sextus
seems to place himself closer to the "methodic" school.

Life and Works

Almost nothing is known of Sextus Empiricus’s personal life, including the dates when he
lived, which could have been during the second century or early third century C.E. He has
been variously reported to have lived in Alexandria, Rome, or Athens.

Sextus Empiricus's three known works are the Outlines of Pyrrhonism (Πυῤῥώνειοι
ὑποτύπωσεις), and two distinct works preserved under the same title, Against the
Mathematicians (Adversus Mathematikos), the second of which is probably incomplete.
Adversus Mathematikos can be translated as Against the Learned. The first six books
of Against the Mathematicians form a self-contained whole that is often referred to
as Against the Professors. Each book targets a different area of expertise; grammar,
rhetoric, mathematics, geometry, astrology and music (Against the Grammarians (book
I), Against the Rhetoricians (book II), Against the Geometricians (book III), Against the
Arithmeticians (book IV), Against the Astrologers (book V), Against the Musicians (book
VI)). It is widely believed that this is Sextus' latest and most mature work. Five additional
books under this title, sometimes called Against the Dogmatists, contain arguments
against Logicians, Physicists and Ethicists, and the set appears to be incomplete. Outlines
of Pyrrhonism consists of three books. The first is a summary of Pyrrhonian skepticism
and appears to correspond to the portion that is missing from the second part
of Against Mathematikos. The second two books are arguments against logicians,
physicists and ethicists, worded more concisely than the arguments of the second part
of Against Mathematikos; some of the views presented, however, differ considerably
from those of Against Mathematikos.

In addition to his philosophical works, Sextus also wrote some medical treatises (referred
to at M 7.202, 1.61) that are no longer extant.

Philosophy
Sextus Empiricus distinguishes three basic types of philosophers: dogmatists, who
believe they have discovered the truth; academic skeptics, who believe that truth cannot
be discovered; and skeptics, who continue to investigate with an open mind, not
believing that the truth has been discovered yet, but not discounting the possibility that
truth can be discovered. In his works he constantly attacks the academic skeptics' claim
that nothing is knowable, pointing out that such a statement is itself a belief.

Sextus Empiricus suggests that the ultimate goal of philosophical research is to achieve
tranquility, or a state of ataraxia (roughly, “peace of mind”). A philosopher does not start
out as a skeptic, but becomes one through close examination of different systems of
belief. For each argument that purports to establish a truth about the world, the
philosopher finds that there is an equally convincing argument establishing an opposing
and incompatible view of the same thing. Unable to accept that either view is correct or
incorrect, the philosopher suspends judgment. The philosopher then finds that by
suspending judgment altogether, and giving up the expectation that it is necessary to
acquire truth in order to achieve tranquility, he has unexpectedly arrived at the
tranquility that he sought.
Holding on to definite views is, according to Sextus Empiricus, the main source of
psychological disturbance. If certain things are held to be intrinsically good, a person will
feel disturbed when he lacks them, and go through suffering to protect these good
things once he acquires them. A skeptic does not judge anything as intrinsically good or
bad, and so avoids these psychological difficulties.

Sextus Empiricus allows that we may affirm claims about our own sensory or emotional
experiences. It could be true to say, "it seems to me now that X." However, he points out
that this does not imply any objective knowledge of external reality. While I might know
that the honey I eat tastes sweet to me, this is merely a subjective judgment, and as such
may not tell me anything true about the honey itself.

In his explanation of the skeptic attitude, Sextus Empiricus includes a discussion of the
Ten Modes of Aenesidemus, and a set of Five Modes apparently employed by Agrippa to
counter the positive statements of other philosophical systems: disagreement (among
philosophers there is always disagreement); regress ad infinitum (the skeptic asks for a
proof of a claim, a proof of the reliability of this proof, and so on ad infinitum); relativity
(all beliefs are relative to one's subjective nature and one’s previous experience);
hypothesis (the skeptic does not allow the use of a presupposition a starting point for an
argument); and circular reasoning (the skeptic rejects proofs that are circular, such as
saying that because we smell something, the sense of smell exists). He also reduces
these further to Two Modes. Sextus does not necessarily propose that these modes are
all-inclusive, but uses them as examples of the types of reasoning employed by the
skeptics and includes many other examples.

Pyrrhonic skepticism does not deny the possibility of knowledge, but advocates
suspending judgment about whether or not anything is knowable. Skepticism is not
simply a philosophical exercise; it is a way of life. Sextus Empiricus applies skeptic
methods to many aspects of everyday life. He does not think a general suspension of
judgment to be impractical, since we may live without any philosophical beliefs by using
our natural capacities for perception and thought, and acting according to natural
feelings, laws and customs, habit, and previously acquired expertise.

Legacy of Sextus
An influential edition of Sextus's Outlines with a Latin translation was published by
Henricus Stephanus in Geneva in 1562. Outlines were widely read in Europe during the
sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and had a profound impact on Michel
de Montaigne and David Hume, among many others. Another source for the circulation
of Sextus' ideas was Bayle's Dictionary. The legacy of Pyrrhonism is described in Richard
Popkin's The History of Skepticism from Erasmus to Descartes and High Road to
Pyrrhonism. Some of his skeptical arguments resemble those made by the 1st century
CE Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna.

Plotinus
Plotinus (Greek: Πλωτίνος)(ca. 205–270), the ancient philosopher, is widely considered
the father of Neoplatonism. Plotinus' philosophy drew upon a mystical element while
retaining a clear and logical analysis of the works of Plato. His exposition of Plato's works
have shaped the development of various Western philosophies and inspired centuries of
Christian, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers; his impact is evident in the theology of St.
Augustine and in the works of many others who draw upon the Neoplatonist tradition.
Furthermore, the universality of the works of Plotinus is attested by their effect on a wide
scope of religions and philosophies.

Biography
Much of our biographical information about Plotinus comes from Porphyry's preface to
his edition of Plotinus' Enneads. Porphyry believed Plotinus was sixty-six years old when
he died in 270 C.E., the second year of the reign of the emperor Claudius II, thus giving us
the year of his teacher's birth as around 205. Plotinus had an inherent distrust of
materiality (an attitude common to Platonism), holding to the view that phenomena and
forms were a poor image or mimicry (mimesis) of something "higher and intelligible"
[VI.I] which was the "truer part of genuine Being." This distrust extended to the body,
including his own; it is reported by Porphyry that at one point he refused to have his
portrait painted, presumably for much the same reasons of dislike. Likewise Plotinus
never discussed his ancestry, childhood, or his place or date of birth. Eunapius however
reports that he was born in the Deltaic Lycopolis (Latin: Lyco) in Egypt, as he may have
been a Hellenized Egyptian. From all accounts his personal and social life exhibited the
highest moral and spiritual standards.

Plotinus took up the study of philosophy at the age of twenty-seven, around the year
232, and travelled to Alexandria to study. There Plotinus was dissatisfied with every
teacher he encountered until an acquaintance suggested he listen to the ideas of
Ammonius Saccas. Upon hearing Ammonius lecture, he declared to his friend, "this was
the man I was looking for," and began to study intently under his new instructor. Besides
Ammonius, Plotinus was also influenced by the works of Alexander of Aphrodisias,
Numenius, and various Stoics.
Expedition to Persia and return to Rome

He spent the next eleven years in Alexandria when, by now 38, he decided to investigate
the philosophical teachings of the Persians and the Indians. In the pursuit of this
endeavour he left Alexandria and joined the army of Gordian III as it marched on Persia.
However, the campaign was a failure, and on Gordian's eventual death Plotinus found
himself abandoned in a hostile land, and only with difficulty found his way back to safety
in Antioch.

At the age of forty, during the reign of Philip the Arab, he came to Rome, where he
stayed for most of the remainder of his life. There he attracted a number of students. His
innermost circle included Porphyry, Gentilianus Amelius of Tuscany, the Senator
Castricius Firmus, and Eustochius of Alexandria, a doctor who devoted himself to
learning from Plotinus and attended to him until his death. Other students included:
Zethos, an Arab by ancestry who died before Plotinus, leaving him a legacy and some
land; Zoticus, a critic and poet; Paulinus, a doctor of Scythopolis; and Serapion from
Alexandria. He had students amongst the Roman Senate beside Castricius, such as
Marcellus Orontius, Sabinillus, and Rogantianus. Women were also numbered amongst
his students, including Gemina, in whose house he lived during his residence in Rome,
and her daughter, also Gemina; and Amphiclea, the wife of Ariston the son of Iamblichus.
Finally, Plotinus was a correspondent of the philosopher Cassius Longinus.

Later life

While in Rome Plotinus also gained the respect of the Emperor Gallienus and his wife
Salonica. At one point Plotinus attempted to interest Gallienus in rebuilding an
abandoned settlement in Campania, known as the 'City of Philosophers', where the
inhabitants would live under the constitution set out in Plato's Laws. An Imperial subsidy
was never granted, for reasons unknown to Porphyry, who reports the incident.

Porphyry subsequently went to live in Sicily, where word reached him that his former
teacher had died. The philosopher spent his final days in seclusion on an estate in
Campania which his friend Zethos had bequeathed him. According to the account of
Eustochius, who attended him at the end, Plotinus' final words were: "Strive to give back
the Divine in yourselves to the Divine in the All." Eustochius records that a snake crept
under the bed where Plotinus lay, and slipped away through a hole in the wall; at the
same moment the philosopher died.

Plotinus wrote the essays that became the Enneads over a period of several years from
ca. 253 until a few months before his death seventeen years later. Porphyry makes note
that the Enneads, before being compiled and arranged by himself, were merely the
enormous collection of notes and essays which Plotinus used in his lectures and debates,
rather than a formal book. Plotinus was unable to revise his own work due to his poor
eyesight, yet his writings required extensive editing, according to Porphyry: his master's
handwriting was atrocious, he did not properly separate his words, and he cared little for
niceties of spelling. Plotinus intensely disliked the editorial process, and turned the task
to Porphyry, who not only polished them but put them into the arrangement we now
have.

Philosophy
The One

Plotinus taught that there is a supreme, totally transcendent "One," containing no

division, multiplicity or distinction; likewise it is beyond all categories of being and non-
being. The concept of "being" is popularly perceived as being derived by us from the
objects of human experience, and is an attribute of such objects, but the infinite,
transcendent One is beyond all such objects, and therefore is beyond the concepts that
we derive from them. The One "cannot be any existing thing," and cannot be merely the
sum of all such things (compare the Stoic doctrine of disbelief in non-material existence),
but "is prior to all existents." Thus, no attributes can be assigned to the One.

The One, being beyond all attributes including being and non-being, is the source of the
world not through any act of creation, willful or otherwise, since activity cannot be
ascribed to the unchangeable, immutable One. Plotinus resorts to a logical principle that
the "less perfect" must, of necessity, "emanate," or issue forth, from the "perfect" or
"more perfect." Thus, all of "creation" emanates from the One in succeeding stages of
lesser and lesser perfection. These stages are not temporally isolated, but occur
throughout time as a constant process. Later Neoplatonic philosophers, especially
Iamblichus, added hundreds of intermediate beings as emanations between the One and
humanity; but Plotinus' system was much simpler in comparison.

Emanation by the One

Plotinus offers an alternative to the orthodox Christian notion of creation "ex nihilo" ('out
of nothing'), which would make God suffer the deliberations of a mind and actions of a
will, although Plotinus never mentions Christianity in any of his works. Emanation "ex
deo" ('out of God'), confirms the absolute transcendence of the One, making the
unfolding of the cosmos purely a consequence of its existence; the One is in no way
affected or diminished by these emanations. Plotinus uses the analogy of the Sun which
emanates light indiscriminately without thereby "lessening" itself, or reflection in a mirror
which in no way diminishes or otherwise alters the object being reflected.

The first emanation is "Nous" (Thought), identified with the "demiurge"

in Plato's Timaeus. Its function is to contemplate on the "One" and on all thoughts
derived from the divine "One." In other words, "Nous" relates with the realm of Platonic
forms. From "Nous" proceeds the "Soul," which Plotinus subdivides into "upper" and
"lower," identifying the upper aspect which is that which constantly relates to the
"Nous," and the lower aspect of Soul with Nature. From the Soul proceed individual
human souls, and finally, matter, at the lowest level of being and thus the least perfected
level of the cosmos. Despite this relatively negative assessment of the material world,
Plotinus asserted the ultimately divine nature of material creation since it ultimately
derives from the One, through the mediums of "Nous" and the "Soul."

The essentially devotional nature of Plotinus' philosophy may be further illustrated by his
concept of attaining "ecstatic" union with the One. Porphyry relates that Plotinus
attained such a union several times during the years he knew him. This may be related,
of course, with "enlightenment," "liberation," and other concepts of mystical union
common to many Eastern and Western traditions. Some scholars have compared
Plotinus' teachings to the Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta ("advaita" "not two," or "non-
dual"), and of presecular Buddhism: "Gotama is a teacher of Monism (advayavada)"-
Kathavatthu 204; also: "Gotama teaches the path to union with the One (Ekam)"-
Itivuttaka.

Neoplatonism was sometimes used as a philosophical foundation for paganism, and as a

means of defending the theoretic of paganism against Christianity. However, many
Christians were also influenced by Neoplatonism, most notably St. Augustine who,
though often referred to as a "Platonist," acquired his Platonist philosophy through the
mediation of Plotinus' teachings. Indeed, Plotinus' philosophy still exerts influence today
in the twenty first century, American philosopher Ken Wilber has drawn heavily upon
the Enneads in his cosmology, reaching some metaphysical conclusions comparable to
Plotinus' own.

Indian philosophers such as S. Radhakrishnan, Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy and others used
the writing of Plotinus in their own texts as a superlative elaboration upon Indian
Monism, specifically Upanishadic and Advaita Vedantic thought.

Porphyry (philosopher)
Porphyry (c. 232 – c. 304 C.E.) was a Neoplatonist philosopher, a student of Plotinus and
the editor of his works. He is considered one of the founders of Neo-Platonism. He was
given the name Porphyrius (clad in purple, an allusion to the color of imperial robes), a
play on his given name of “Malchus” (king), by his Athenian teacher, Cassius Longinus.
Born in Tyre, he went to Rome in 262 C.E. and studied under Plotinus for six years. He
later reorganized Plotinus’ writings, the Enneads, into their current form and added a
biography, Life of Plotinus. He attempted to reconcile Aristotelian logic with Platonism in
his Introduction to Categories. A Latin translation of the Introduction, Isagoge, became a
standard medieval textbook and a foundation for later discussions of logic and the
problem of universals. His Neoplatonist view greatly impacted the understanding of
Platonism until early modern times. His interpretation on the Arbor
porphyriana ("Porphyrian Tree"), a system for logical classification of substance, has
continued until today to influence the classification of living things. Among the sixty
works attributed to Porphyry were Aids to the Study of the Intelligibles, a basic summary
of Neoplatonism; a Life of Pythagoras; commentaries on Euclidean geometry
and Ptolemy’s Harmonics; Against the Christians; De Abstinentia (“On Abstinence”)
and De Non Necandis ad Epulandum Animantibus (roughly “On the Impropriety of Killing
Living Beings for Food”) in support of abstinence from animal flesh; and On the Cave of
the Nymphs, an interpretation of classical mythology.

Life
Most of the known details of the personal life of Porphyry are found in his own The Life
of Plotinus. He was born in Tyre in Phoenicia (now Lebanon) around 234 C.E. and named
Malchus, after his father. He studied in Athens under the Middle Platonist, Cassius
Longinus, who gave him the name Porphyrius, a play on his name (king; royalty often
wore purple robes) and an allusion to the manufacture of purple dye in Tyre. In
262 C.E. he came to Rome and studied under Plotinus. In 268 C.E., Plotinus advised him to
go to Sicily to recover his health after a bout of depression. He remained there until after
Plotinus’ death in 270 C.E., apparently returning to teach in Rome.

It is thought that he was the teacher of Iamblichus, who was strongly influenced by
Porphyry though he later turned against him. Around 301 C.E. he edited Plotinus’
writings, the Enneads, rearranging them into six books with nine chapters each, the
format in which they exist today. A Letter to Marcella, which is still in existence, indicates
that he married an older wife later in life, a widow named Marcella who had seven
children. The date of his death is uncertain.
Thought and Works
Porphyry is known for organizing and promulgating the concepts of Neo-Platonism. He
wrote at least sixty works on a variety of topics including philosophy, religion, grammar
and philology, geometry, astrology, music theory, natural science, and
classical mythology. Most of them are now lost, or exist only as fragments. Still extant
are Life of Plotinus, Life of Pythagoras, Letter to Marcella, On Abstinence from Eating Food
from Animals, Starting-points Leading to the Intelligibles (usually called the Sententiae; in
Latin, Sententiae ad intelligibilia ducentes), the Isagoge (Introduction), On the Cave of the
Nymphs, and commentaries on Aristotle's Categories and Ptolemy's Harmonics. There are
also fragments of a history of philosophy and of works on psychology. Against the
Christians, one of his most famous works, originally consisted of fifteen books, of which
only portions have survived.

Starting-points Leading to the Intelligibles (Sententiae) is a summary of the concepts of

Neoplatonism and follows the teachings of Plotinus closely. Porphyry's most influential
contribution to philosophy, the Introduction to Categories, incorporated Aristotle's logic
into Neoplatonism, in particular the doctrine of the categories interpreted in terms of
entities (in later philosophy, "universals"). The Introduction describes how qualities
attributed to things may be classified, breaking down the philosophical concept of
substance into relationships of genus and species. Written by Porphyry as a preface to
his commentaries on Aristotle’s Categories, it was translated into Latin
by Boethius as Isagoge, and became a standard medieval textbook of philosophy that
remained in use for centuries. It laid the foundation for later philosophical-theological
discussions of logic and the problem of universals. In medieval textbooks, the Arbor
porphyriana ("Porphyrian Tree") illustrated his logical classification of substance. To this
day, taxonomists use a system derived from Porphyry's Tree to classify all living
organisms.

Porphyry is also known as an opponent of Christianity and defender of Paganism, on the

grounds that Christianity was irrational and placed excessive emphasis on the mystical.
Only fragments remain of the fifteen books of his Adversus Christianos (“Against the
Christians”), in which he commented, "The Gods have proclaimed Christ to have been
most pious, but the Christians are a confused and vicious sect." Counter-treatises were
written by Eusebius of Caesarea, Apollinarius (or Apollinaris) of Laodicea, Methodius of
Olympus, and Macarius of Magnesia; all have been lost. Jerome reports Porphyry's
identification of the Book of Daniel as the work of a writer in the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes. There is no proof of the assertion of Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian,
and Augustine, that Porphyry was once a Christian.
Porphyry, believing that only reason, exercised by a pure mind, could lead to unity with
the One God, was opposed to the theurgy (the practice of ceremonies and mystic rituals
in order to experience oneness with the Ultimate Being) of his disciple Iamblichus. He
emphasized detaching oneself from the passions and confusion of the everyday world in
order to practice true contemplation. Iamblichus devoted much of his work to the
defense of mystic theurgic divine possession against the critiques of Porphyry.

Porphyry was an advocate of vegetarianism on spiritual and ethical grounds. He wrote

the De Abstinentia (On Abstinence) and also a De Non Necandis ad Epulandum
Animantibus (roughly “On the Impropriety of Killing Living Beings for Food”) urging
respect for all living species and abstinence from animal flesh, and promoting an
awareness of the destructive effects of human consumption on the natural world.

Porphyry also wrote widely on astrology, religion, philosophy, and musical theory; and
produced a biography of his teacher, Plotinus, and another on the life of Pythagoras,
named Vita Pythagorae (“Life of Pythagoras”; not to be confused with the book of the
same name by Iamblichus). His writings preserved portions of the works of several
mathematicians that have otherwise been lost.

Augustine of Hippo

Bishop and Doctor of the Church

November 13, 354 in

Born
Tagaste, Algeria

August 28, 430 in Hippo

Died
Regius

Venerated most Christian groups

in

Feast August 28 (W), June 15 (E)

Attributes child; dove; pen; shell, pierced

heart

Patronage brewers; printers; sore eyes;

theologians

Augustine of Hippo or Saint Augustine (November 13, 354 – August 28, 430), bishop
of Hippo, was one of the most important figures in the development of Christianity. His
writings such as The Confessions and The City of God display his depth of faith and the
theological skill of a trained rhetorician. His explanation of the doctrines of God, free
will, evil, original sin, grace, illumination, and predestination have become standard for
the majority of Christians. His Confessions is often called the first Western autobiography.
His City of God defended Christianity from pagan accusations blaming it for the fall of
the Roman Empire.

Born in what is present-day Algeria as the eldest son of Saint Monica, Augustine as a
young man pursued a secular career as a teacher of rhetoric and philosophy while living
a dissolute lifestyle. For nine years he was a follower of Manichaeism. In Milan he
studied Neoplatonism and his conversion to Christianity took place in 386. As a
theologian, he was called to write against the many heresies of the period—
Manichaeanism, Donatism, and Pelagianism, and in so doing he defined the shape of
orthodox doctrine.

In Roman Catholicism and the Anglican Communion, he is a saint and

preeminent Doctor of the Church, and the patron of the Augustinian religious order.
Many Protestants, especially Calvinists, consider him to be one of the theological fathers
of the Reformation teaching on divine grace. In the Eastern Orthodox Church he is a
saint, although a minority are of the opinion that he is a heretic, primarily because of his
position on the filioque clause regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. Among the
Orthodox he is called "Blessed Augustine" or "St. Augustine the Blessed," not so much
for his theological teachings as for his writings on spirituality.

Augustine's theology has received criticism especially for his teachings

on predestination, which appears to exclude the reprobate from salvation, and on the
use of force, through which to bring back heretics such as the Donatists, although that
criticism may be based on a misconstruction of the real intent of Augustine. Also,
sometimes his theology is critiqued for being tainted with Platonism and/or
Neoplatonism. Nevertheless, his reputation as the preeminent Christian theologian is
universally recognized.

Life
Augustine was of Berber descent and was born in 354 in Tagaste (present-day Souk
Ahras, Algeria), a provincial Roman city in North Africa. His revered mother, Monica, was
a Berber and a devout Catholic, and his father, Patricius, a pagan. At the age of 11 he
was sent to school at Madaurus, a small Numidian city about 19 miles south of Tagaste.
At the age of 17 he went to Carthage to continue his education in rhetoric. Although
raised as a Catholic, Augustine left the Church to follow the
controversial Manichaean religion, much to the despair of his mother. As a youth,
Augustine lived a hedonistic lifestyle for a time and, in Carthage, he developed a
relationship with a young woman who would be his concubine for over 15 years. During
this period he had a son, Adeodatus, with the young woman.

Augustine’s education and early career was in philosophy and rhetoric, the art of
persuasion and public speaking. In 383 he moved to Rome, where he believed the best
and brightest rhetoricians practiced. However, he was disappointed with the Roman
schools, which he found apathetic. Manichaean friends introduced him to the prefect of
the city of Rome, Symmachus, who had been asked to provide a professor of rhetoric for
the imperial court at Milan. The young provincial won the job and headed north to take
up his position in late 384. At age 30, Augustine had won the most visible academic chair
in the Latin world, at a time when such posts gave ready access to political careers.
However, he felt the tensions of life at an imperial court, lamenting one day as he rode in
his carriage to deliver a grand speech before the emperor, that a drunken beggar he
passed on the street had a less careworn existence than he did.

It was at Milan that Augustine's life changed. While still at Carthage, he had begun to
move away from Manichaeism, in part because of a disappointing meeting with a key
exponent of Manichaean theology. At Milan, this movement continued. His mother,
Monica, pressured him to become a Catholic, but it was the bishop of Milan, Ambrose,
who had most influence over Augustine. Ambrose was a master of rhetoric like
Augustine himself, but older and more experienced. Prompted in part by Ambrose's
sermons, and partly by his own studies, in which he steadfastly pursued a quest for
ultimate truth, Augustine renounced Manichaeism. After a flirtation with skepticism, he
then became an enthusiastic student of Neoplatonism, and for a time believed he was
making real progress in his quest.

Augustine's mother had followed him to Milan, and he allowed her to arrange a
society marriage, for which he abandoned his concubine. But he had to wait two years
until his fiancée came of age. So, he promptly took up in the meantime with another
woman. It was during this period that he uttered his famous prayer, "Grant me chastity
and continency, but not yet" (da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo).[1]

In the summer of 386, after having read an account of the life of Saint Anthony of the
Desert which greatly inspired him, Augustine underwent a profound personal crisis and
decided to convert to Christianity, abandon his career in rhetoric, quit his teaching
position in Milan, give up any ideas of marriage, and devote himself entirely to
serving God and the practices of priesthood, which included celibacy. Key to this
conversion was the voice of an unseen child he heard while in his garden in Milan telling
him in a sing-song voice to "tolle lege" ("take up and read") the Bible, at which point he
opened the Bible at random and fell upon Romans 13:13, which reads: "Let us walk
honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and
wantonness, not in strife and envying" (KJV). He would detail his spiritual journey in his
famous Confessions, which became a classic of both Christian theology and world
literature. Ambrose baptized Augustine, along with his son, Adeodatus, on Easter Vigil in
387 in Milan, and soon thereafter in 388 he returned to Africa. On his way back to Africa
his mother died, as did his son soon after, leaving him alone in the world without family.

Upon his return to North Africa Augustine created a monastic foundation at Tagaste for
himself and a group of friends. In 391 he was ordained a priest in Hippo Regius, (now
Annaba, in Algeria). He became a famous preacher (more than 350 preserved sermons
are believed to be authentic), and was noted for combating the Manichaean heresy, to
which he had formerly adhered. In 396 he was made coadjutor bishop of Hippo
(assistant with the right of succession on the death of the current bishop), and remained
as bishop in Hippo until his death in 430. During the period as bishop of Hippo, he
combated the Donatist and Pelagian heresies. Although he left his monastery, he
continued to lead a monastic life in the episcopal residence. He left a Rule (Latin, Regula)
for his monastery that has led him to be designated the "patron saint of regular clergy,"
that is, clergy who live by a monastic rule.

Augustine died on August 28, 430, at the age of 75, during the siege of Hippo by the
Vandals. He is said to have encouraged its citizens to resist the attacks, primarily on the
grounds that the Vandals adhered to the Arian heresy. It is also said that he died just as
the [Vandals were tearing down the city walls of Hippo.

Works
Augustine was one of the most prolific Latin authors, and the list of his works consists of
more than a hundred separate titles. [2] They include apologetic works against the heresies
of the Donatists, Manichaeans, and Pelagians as well as of the Arians, texts on Christian
doctrine, notably "On Christian Doctrine" (De doctrina Christiana), exegetical works such
as commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms and Paul's Epistle to the Romans, many
sermons and letters, and the "Retractions" (Retractationes), a review of his earlier works
which he wrote near the end of his life. Apart from those, Augustine is probably best
known for his Confessions, which is a personal account of his earlier life, and for "The City
of God" (De Civitate Dei), consisting of 22 books, which he wrote to restore the
confidence of his fellow Christians, which was badly shaken by the sack of Rome by the
Visigoths in 410.

Formulation of His Theology against Heresies

Part of a series of articles

on
 Christianity

As the Christian Church was seriously faced with the three heresies
of Manichaeism, Donatism, and Pelagianism chronologically around the life time of
Augustine, he proved to be a central and influential theological leader that clarified and
defended the Christian faith against these heresies. Augustine wrote many treatises and
letters against these heresies, and this was how his theology was developed and
formulated. Hence the polemical character of his theology. Nevertheless, his theology
turned out to be creative and insightful, influencing later Christian theology.

Against Manichaeanism

Manichaeism was founded by Mani, a Persian, in the third century. As a mixture

of Zoroastrianism, the old Babylonian religion of the Ophitic type, gnosticism, etc., it was
a dualistic religion of the two separate, co-eternal principles of light (God) and darkness
(Satan). It became widespread throughout the Roman Empire till the fifth century, even
influencing Christians. Augustine himself was drawn to Manichaeism for nine years
before his conversion for at least two reasons: firstly, because his question of why evil is
so virulent in the world seemed to be plausibly addressed by its dualistic view of the
world as a mixture of God and Satan; and secondly, because he felt exempted from any
responsibility for his own sin due to the Manichaean fatalism. But, as soon as he became
a Christian, Augustine felt the need for protecting the Church from the Manichaean
heresy.

Whereas Manichaeism believed that the power of God is limited in front of Satan,
Augustine affirmed that God is all-powerful, supreme, infinite, and immutable, and that
Satan did not exist from eternity. Whereas Manichaeism asserted that the world is a
mixture of good and evil, Augustine held that all creatures are good. For him, as
for Neoplatonism, all being is good. Against the Manichaean view of evil as substantial,
Augustine presented his view of evil as non-substantial. For him, as for Neoplatonism, if
all being is good, then evil is non-being (non esse) or non-substance (non substantia). To
be more precise, evil is the privation of good (privatio boni). It is the privation,
diminution, or falling away (defectus) of a good being from what it originally is in terms
of measure, form, and order, but it is still non-substantial as mere privation or
diminution: "Evil is that which falls away from essence and tends to non-
existence."[3] Against the pessimistic determinism of Manichaeism that deemed evil as
necessary, Augustine presented an indeterminism that regarded evil only as possible. Evil
is only possible because all being, which is originally created to be good, is still finite,
changeable, and corruptible as it only participates in God who is infinite, unchangeable,
and incorruptible as the supreme good. Whereas Manichaeism blamed God and Satan
for evil as its authors and did not blame humans for evil, Augustine attributed the
possibility of evil to the "free will" (liberum arbitrium) of rational creatures such
as angels and humans. According to Augustine, free will is originally created to be good,
but the privation or diminution of the moral rectitude which free will is originally
endowed with is possible, and when it happens as in the case of Adam's fall, it
constitutes moral evil, which is sin. When it comes to the question of how this moral evil
starts, however, Augustine seems to have had no real answer. For he admitted that there
is no efficient cause of an evil will, while God is the efficient cause of a good will: "as to
whence it [evil] is, nothing can be said." [4]

Augustine's refutation of Manichaeism, although it was quite Neoplatonic, issued in a

distinctive definition of God, a non-substantive theme of evil, and a free-will defense, all
of which became important elements of the Christian tradition.

Against Donatism

The Donatists were a heretical group of rigorist Christians. This heresy started in
311 C.E. when Caecilianus was consecrated as bishop of Carthage by Felix, who had been
a traditor (traitor) during the Diocletianic persecution (303-305). Questioning the efficacy
of that consecration, they set up Majorinus against Caecilianus in the same year, and in
315 Majorinus was succeeded by Donatus, after whom this heresy was named. The
Donatists claimed to be the only faithful and pure Christians, and asserted that no one
outside the Donatist Church is holy enough to be able to administer the sacraments, and
that if you want to be admitted to the Donatist Church, you must be rebaptized. After
being persecuted by Emperor Constantine, these schismatics became resentful, furious,
and even violent. The unity of the Church was severely threatened.

Augustine took pains to address this problem from around 396. His work "On Baptism,
Against the Donatists" was definitive. [5] He distinguished between the gift
of baptism itself and the efficacious use of it, by saying that the former exists
everywhere, whether inside or outside of the Catholic Church, but that the latter exists
only in the place where the unity of love is practiced, i.e., the Catholic Church. In other
words, baptism can be conferred even by heretics and schismatics as long as they give it
in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because the real source of baptism
is God and not any human being. But, it will be only after you come back to the Church
that your baptism received outside of the Church becomes efficacious. You don't have to
be rebaptized. The Catholic Church, of course, is far from perfect, containing bad
Christians as well as good ones, but if they love one another, baptism conferred will be
efficaciously and profitably used. In order to show the importance of the unity of love in
the Church for the efficacy of baptism, Augustine referred to St. Cyprian's praise of Saint
Peter who was so humble, patient, and loving as to be corrected even by St. Paul, his
junior. In Augustine's ecclesiology, love is an essential element of the Church.

Augustine also showed much love and sympathy for the Donatist heretics, urging them
to come back. Originally, therefore, he opposed the use of force for their coming back in
favor of gentle discussion and instruction. Later, however, he felt some need for a
practical way to cope with the violence of armed Donatist zealots, and referred to Luke
14:23 ("compel them to come in") to support the use of force, [6] which the Church
subsequently adopted to justify the Inquisition unfortunately. Augustine is, therefore,
often blamed for having started this notorious tradition. But, many believe that this
negative assessment of Augustine is not completely accurate. [7][8] For he apparently
understood the use of force to be only an act of love and not of hatred, like when God
out of love forced Paul into correction and faith through physical blindness, or when we
forcibly save people from a building about to collapse. [9]

Against Pelagianism

Pelagianism was named after Pelagius, a monk from Britain, who, as a contemporary of
Augustine, stressed the moral ability of Christians to stay sinless if they will even without
any supernatural assistance of grace from God. For Pelagius, divine grace merely consists
in the fact that we are endowed with free will, law, and gospel. He also rejected original
sin, saying that what we have in front of us is merely Adam's bad example, which we can
overcome through our moral efforts. The Pelagian controversy started soon after
Coelestius, a young capable lawyer, became the chief disciple of Pelagius and drew
much public attention. Again, the unity of the Church was at stake theologically.

Grace

Augustine was convinced of the ineffableness of God's grace and the absolute
dependence of humans on God. In 412 he was asked by the imperial official
of Carthage to address the problem of the Palegian heresy. Augustine affirmed the
reality of original sin, by saying that the entire human race partakes of Adam's sin both
in terms of "guilt" and "corruption." Given corruption, our free will is injured and
enslaved. So, God's grace is necessary in order to liberate free will from its injury and
enslavement to sin. After the liberation of free will, however, God's grace is also
necessary, so it may act through liberated free will. Augustine called these two
distinguishable stages of divine grace "operating grace" (gratia operans) and "co-
operating grace" (gratia cooperans), respectively.[10] "Operating grace" is prevenient in
that it precedes human free will that is "small and weak." It is also gratuitous and
unmerited in that it is unconditionally given only on the ground of God's infinite mercy
and undeserved favor. By contrast, "co-operating grace" is given subsequently to work
with liberated "great and robust" free will.

Marriage

The Pelagians apparently talked about the purity and holiness of marriage and sexual
appetite, blaming Augustine's view of original sin for making marriage evil. In response,
Augustine distinguished between marriage and concupiscence (lustful desire), saying
that marriage is good, while concupiscence is evil, and that concupiscence is not the
essence of marriage but an accident of it. [11] Marriage is good because it is
a sacrament that shows a bond of love centering on God and also because it involves
sexual union for procreation. The evil of concupiscence does not destroy the goodness
of marriage, although it conditions the character of the offspring through the
transmission of original sin which it allows for in sexual union. In this context, sexual
union for the gratification of lust in marriage is discouraged as venial sin. Furthermore,
virginity is preferred to marriage in spite of the goodness of marriage.

Original sin and its transmission

Augustine was not the first to talk about original sin. Before him, Church Fathers such as
Tertullian, Cyprian, and Ambrose discussed about it. But Augustine took the subject
more seriously. According to Augustine, original sin is the sin of disobedience
committed by Adam when he fell, and it affects all his descendants because the whole
essence of human nature was contained in him. This solidarity of all
individual humans through the fallen essense of human nature, according to Eugène
Portalié, reflects Augustine's Platonic realism. [12] Original sin thus explained contains both
"guilt" and "corruption." (Note that Eastern Orthodoxy, by contrast, refers to original sin
only in terms of "corruption," thus not taking original sin as seriously as Augustine.)
Thus, we are all both guilty of Adam's sin and corrupted in our human nature.
Augustine's further explanation of how original sin is transmitted from generation to
generation is noteworthy. According to him, it is transmitted through sexual intercourse,
although Adam's fall itself did not involve any sexual intercourse. After Adam's fall,
however, sexual intercourse even in lawful marriage can never avoid concupiscence,
which is a bad sexual desire. Concupiscence totally overwhelms parents engaged in
sexual intercourse for procreation, depriving them of self-control and rational thought,
although it is permissible for the purpose of procreation. This is how original sin is
transmitted from parents to their child: "Wherefore the devil holds infants guilty who are
born, not of the good by which marriage is good, but of the evil of concupiscence,
which, indeed, marriage uses aright, but at which even marriage has occasion to feel
shame."[13] Predestination
During and after the Pelagian controversy, Augustine developed a doctrine
of predestination in accordance with his doctrine of unmerited "operating grace." God
chooses the elect gratuitously, without any previous merit on their part, and even before
the foundation of the world God predestines who the elect are. The number of the elect
"is so certain that one can neither be added to them nor taken from them." [14]

One might wonder if Augustine's emphasis on grace and predestination was

contradictory to his earlier emphasis on free will during the Manichaean controversy. In
fact, the Pelagians themselves appealed to his earlier, anti-Manichaen work, "The Free
Choice of the Will," written in 395. But, it should be noted that throughout his entire
theological career Augustine himself never abandoned his doctrine of free will. So, there
seems to have been no contradiction in the mind of Augustine. According to him, divine
knowledge is the key to reconciling predestination and free will. For God predestines to
save those who he foreknows will choose to be saved through their free wills:

…they themselves also exhort to chastity, charity, piety, and other things which they
confess to be God's gifts, and cannot deny that they are also foreknown by Him, and
therefore predestinated; nor do they say that their exhortations are hindered by the
preaching of God's predestination, that is, by the preaching of God's foreknowledge of
those future gifts of His.[15]

According to Augustine, therefore, it is always correct to say that all can be saved if they
wish. This unique way of reconciling predestination and free will by Augustine, which was
further developed by the Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina in the sixteenth century, was
not recognized by Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin nor by
prominent historians of theology such as Adolf von Harnack and Friedrich Loofs.
According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, Augustine never taught the absolute type of
predestinarianism of Calvin and others, and its origin "must be traced back to the
misunderstanding and misinterpretation of St. Augustine's views relating to eternal
election and reprobation."[16]

Other Theological Developments

The Trinity

It took Augustine many years to finish writing his treatise On the Trinity (De Trinitate),
spanning a period from 400-416, because he was sometimes in bad health and he was
also busy in being involved with the Donatist controversy. But, the treatise was not
polemical (except sporadically when arguing against Arianism), as there was no
concerted attack upon the doctrine of the Trinity. His intention was to help strengthen
the faith of his fellow Catholics in the mystery of the Trinity through the Bible (books 1-
7) and also through his unique analogy of psychology (books 8-15). Apparently due to
his lack of knowledge of Greek, Augustine did not read the trinitarian writings
of Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers except translated excerpts from them, thus
not even referring to the Nicene word of homoousios ("of the same substance"). But, his
treatise turned out to be one of his most important accomplishments.

According to Augustine, although the Father sends the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Son
and the Holy Spirit are not inferior to the Father. Of course, in order to argue for the
unity of the three persons, the Greek Fathers had already talked about the "mutual
indwelling" (perichoresis) of the three persons, and Augustine did not disagree. But, the
theory of mutual indwelling apparently had the threeness of the Trinity as its
presupposition. Augustine now went the other way around, by saying that the oneness
of the divine nature is prior to the threeness of the Trinity because the divine nature is
held in common by the three persons. According to Augustine, the three persons are so
united and co-equal that they are just one person in a way: "since on account of their
ineffable union these three are together one God, why not also one person; so that we
could not say three persons, although we call each a person singly." [17] Hence his belief
also that creation, redemption, and sanctification, i.e., the external operations of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are indivisible (opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt).
Needless to say, he held that the Holy Spirit proceeds for the Father and the Son.

Augustine's psychological analogy of the Trinity is very original. According to this, as

human beings were created in the image of God, an image of the Trinity should be
found in them and especially in the psychology of the human mind. He pointed to many
vestiges of the Trinity in the human mind such as: 1) lover, loved, and their love; 2) being,
knowing, and willing; 3) memory, understanding, and will; and 4) object seen, attention
of mind, and external vision. From this started the Catholic doctrine of vestiges of the
Trinity in creation (vestigia trinitatis in creatura).

Divine illumination

When the human mind or soul, which is finite and mutable, perceives sense objects,
which are also finite and mutable, how certain is its perception of the objects? This is the
problem of certitude in perception. Can our perception acquire eternal and
immutable truths about the objects which are finite and mutable? Plato answered this in
the affirmative through his theory of recollection of eternal ideas. Augustine, too,
answered it in the affirmative, but his approach was different from Plato's because he as
a Christian did not believe in Plato's notion of the pre-existence of the soul.
Following Plotinus' crucial notion that the eternal ideas or forms subsist in the mind
of God, therefore, Augustine suggested that if divine illumination comes upon us and
the sense objects to be known by us, then the eternal ideas or forms which are subjoined
to these objects will be seen by us, with the result that we acquire eternal and immutable
truths about the objects: "the intellectual mind is so formed in its nature as to see those
things [i.e., eternal ideas or forms], which by the disposition of the Creator are subjoined
to things intelligible [i.e., sense objects to be known] in a natural order, by a sort of
incorporeal light of a unique kind." And it is just like the physical eye can see things if
there is corporeal light from the sun, i.e., "as the eye of the flesh sees things adjacent to
itself in this bodily light."[18] Thus, when the eternal ideas or forms subjoined to the
objects are illumined by God, they constitute our criteria of judging and evaluating the
objects.

Later, the Franciscans interpreted this to mean that God's illumination directly infuses
and impresses the eternal ideas or forms upon the human mind for its judgment and
evaluation of the objects. But this interpretation seems to regard human beings merely
as passive receivers of God's intellectual activity. Perhaps, our role should be more active,
given Augustine's admission that the eternal ideas or forms are already existent in the
human mind in some way: "unless something of our own [mind] were subjoined to them
[i.e., eternal ideas or forms], we should not be able to employ them as our measures by
which to judge of corporeal things."[19]

Creation of the world

Interpreting Genesis

Augustine took the view that the biblical text of Genesis should not be interpreted
literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. In an
important passage in his The Literal Meaning of Genesis, he wrote:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the
other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size
and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of
the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and
this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a
disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian presumably giving the
meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all
means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast
ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant
individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred
writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the
writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a
Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining
his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in
matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the
kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on the facts which
they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason? [20]

Thus, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created
simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis
would require. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of
Genesis represents a logical framework rather than the passage of time in a physical way
— it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. He also
didn't envisage original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even
suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall.

A more clear distinction between "metaphorical" and "literal" in literary texts arose with
the rise of the Scientific Revolution, although its source could be found in earlier writings
such as those of Herodotus (fifth century B.C.E.). It was even considered heretical to
interpret the Bible literally at times.

Time and eternity

The eleventh book of Augustine's Confessions consists of an extended meditation on the

nature of time. According to Augustine, God exists outside of time in the "eternal
present," and time only exists within the created universe because only in space is time
discernible through motion and change. His meditation on the nature of time is closely
linked to his consideration of the human soul's ability of memory. While time is
discernible through motion and change, eternity is not. So, eternity does not refer to an
indefinite extension of time, but to motionlessness and changelessness.

This distinction of time and eternity means that "the world was made, not in time, but
simultaneously with time."[21] In other words, the creation of the world is not in time. It
brings forth two interesting points. First, where there is no created world, there is no
time. This means that there was no time when there was no created world. Thus, the
created world existed at all times (i.e., always). Second, God's act of creating the world
did not take time; it had no temporal duration. God created all things at once. This is not
acceptable to today's "old-earth creationism," but it may be closer to "young-earth
creationism," although it is not exactly same as the latter that believes that all things
were created in six 24-hour days, taking the text of the first chapter of Genesis literally.

Augustine's contrast between time and eternity has been subscribed to by many
theologians. But sometimes scholars such as Etienne Gilson pointed out that this
contrast may contain a difficulty: Given the two rather heterogeneous modes of being,
i.e., the created realm of changing things and the divine realm of changelessness, how
can we who belong to the created realm present God to ourselves? To put it conversely,
how can God create, know, and administer the world? Augustine simply confessed that
the relationship of God and the world is a "mystery." [22]

Creation ex nihilo

Augustine realized that God in Manichaeism is violable, corruptible, and changeable, as

long as it believes that the world is a mixture of the substances of God and Satan. In
order to defend the inviolability, incorruptibility, and unchangeability of the omnipotent
God of Christianity, therefore, he asserted that God creates the world ex nihilo ("out of
nothing"): "He is so omnipotent, that even out of nothing, that is out of what is
absolutely non-existent, He is able to make good things." [23] Unlike the Manichaean view
of the world as inevitably evil, Augustine understood created beings to be good,
because they are only from God. Even hyle, formless matter, is good because it is created
by God. But, it should be noted that while Augustine regarded God as the highest good,
he believed that created beings are good only to lesser degrees. This difference is that
while God as the highest good is incorruptible and unchangeable, created beings, which
are good, are corruptible and changeable, thus still having the possibility of evil.
Augustine, of course, learned the fundamental goodness of the world from the
emanationist monism of Neoplatonism, but he distanced himself from Neoplatonism in
his assertion that created beings are not of the same substance with God as they are not
"of" (de) God, but merely "from" (ex) God.[24]

The two Cities

Detail of Saint Augustine in a stained glass window by Louis Comfort Tiffany in the Lightner Museum,
Saint Augustine, Florida

When Alaric and his Visigoths sacked the city of Rome in 410, some claimed that it
happened because the traditional gods of Rome were angry with people who accepted
the Christian religion to the neglect of worshipping them. In order to defend Christianity
from this accusation and also to explain how the end of the world will come, Augustine
wrote his monumental work The City of God (De Civitate Dei) from 413 to 430. According
to Augustine, the Cain-type earthly City and the Abel-type City of God were respectively
founded based on "love of self" to the point of a contempt of God, on the one hand, and
"love of God" to the point of self-contempt, on the other. [25] The two Cities are
intermingled in conflict and struggle with each other throughout history within God's
providential plan. There are seven successive periods in history based on the seven days
of creation: 1) Adam to Noah; 2) Noah to Abraham; 3) Abraham to David; 4) David to
the Babylonian captivity; 5) the Babylonian captivity to Christ; 6) Christ to the end of the
world; and 7) the Sabbath. The two Cities struggle with each other during the first six
periods, but are to be separated through the Judgment at the end of the sixth period,
i.e., the period of the Church. The earthly City will be permanently judged, while the City
of God will be in heaven forever. This Augustinian view of history continued to be
dominant until the eighteenth century.

It should be noted that Augustine as a Platonist meant that the City of God is in heaven
and not here on the earth. So, even the Christian Church on the earth is not the City of
God itself but merely its earthly representative, "symbolic presentation," or
"foreshadowing image."[26] But still, the Church and other, previous representatives of the
City of God in history such as Israel are vehicles by which to pursue internal, spiritual
transformation and eternal peace in the City of God, whereas secular states within the
earthly City only establish external order and temporal peace even by force. States wage
wars to gain peace, but this kind of peace is not eternal. For Augustine, state and religion
are separate, although they can cooperate to guide the lives of humans in this world.

Just war

Augustine believed that, given Jesus Christ's call for his followers to be "peacemakers"
(Matthew 5:9) using no violence (Matthew 5:38-42), war is a lamentable sin taking place
in the earthly world, and that it can never establish eternal peace. He, however, also
believed from a practical point of view that if it is necessary to defend the innocent
against evil, violence may be used. This constituted his theory of "just war." He
suggested at least two requirements for just war: proper cause and proper authority. The
first requirement means that wars be waged only for the purpose of establishing peace,
although that peace may be temporal here on the earth. The second requirement is that
wars be waged by governing authorities, because they are established by God in the
natural world for a providential reason. Thus,

A great deal depends on the causes for which men undertake wars, and on the
authority they have for doing so; for the natural order which seeks the peace of
mankind, ordains that the monarch should have the power of undertaking war if
he thinks it advisable, and that the soldiers should perform their military duties in
behalf of the peace and safety of the community. [27]

Thus, other motives such as "love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable
enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power" should be avoided. [28] In this context,
Augustine also mentioned about the just treatment of prisoners-of-war and conquered
peoples, making it clear that mercy should be shown to them, particularly if they are no
longer a threat to peace.
Over the centuries, more requirements for just war have been added, such as a
reasonable chance of success and the principle of proportionality of harm between
warring states. But, Augustine was perhaps the first major theologian to discuss about
just war.

On the Jews

Although the Jews was not a major theme in Augustine's voluminous writings, his view
of the status of the Jews was quite original and influential throughout the Middle Ages.
So, it deserves our attention. Augustine, of course, followed the patristic tradition that
preceded him, that in terms of the role of Israel as the chosen people the Jews were
superseded by the Christians at the time of Jesus' death and resurrection. He, therefore,
referred to the Christians as the new Israel. But, the question was: If the Christians are the
new Israel, why is it that the Jews still continue to exist after their dispersion. Augustine's
originality consisted in his assertion that the Jews continue to exist as witnesses to the
truth of Christianity, by witnessing the Old Testament prophesies about Jesus' death and
resurrection and their own dispersion, which were never forged by the Christians:

But the Jews who slew Him, and would not believe in Him, because it behooved
Him to die and rise again, were yet more miserably wasted by the Romans, and
utterly rooted out from their kingdom, where aliens had already ruled over them,
and were dispersed through the lands (so that indeed there is no place where
they are not), and are thus by their own Scriptures a testimony to us that we have
not forged the prophecies about Christ. [29]

Augustine used Psalm 59:11 ("But do not kill them, O Lord our shield, or my people will
forget") to argue that the Jews are to be allowed not to face slaughter in the Christian
world as witnesses for that purpose. He also referred to the Jews as Cains that are cursed
but are to be converted to Christianity eventually.

Many people regard this position of Augustine as antisemitic, although scholars such as
John Y.B. Hood and Paula Fredriksen believe that it was a Christian defense of the Jews,
saying that it served to protect their lives from the brutality of Cristendom's coercive
powers in the Middle Ages.[30]

Fusion of Platonism and Christianity

Augustine was the outstanding figure in philosophy between the time
of Plato and Thomas Aquinas, a period of 1,600 years that even covered the lives of well-
known thinkers such as Aristotle. Augustine introduced the fusion of Platonism and
Christianity, made possible through his readings of Apuleius, Plotinus, and Porphyry. One
thing that made it possible for him to fuse the Platonic tradition in philosophy with
Christianity is the fact that the latter is not a philosophy but rather a set of historical
beliefs. The basic idea of Christianity is that God made our world and then came to live
in it through Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus lived in a particular part of the world at a particular
time and lived a particular historical course. Being a Christian involves believing this, as
well as living the way that God told us to do, through Jesus, also known as the logos or
"the Word" especially in the Gospel of John. While the Parables of Jesus did provide us
with a good deal of moral instruction, Jesus or the Word gave little discussion of
philosophical questions.

In the Platonic tradition, ideas are more real than things. Plato developed a vision of two
worlds: a world of unchanging ideas and a world of changing physical objects (i.e., the
experience of the historical Jesus). It was not the case that there were two philosophies: a
Platonic philosophy, and on the other hand the Christian philosophy — thus giving
Augustine the problem of marrying the two. It is more accurate to say that Christianity
was not a philosophical religion like Buddhism, and that Augustine believed that the
Platonic philosophy embodied important truths about aspects of reality that the Bible
did not concern itself with. He wanted Platonism to be absorbed into the worldwide
Christian view.

Of course, Augustine realized it was important not to take on board any particular aspect
of Platonism that might have as one of its logical consequences something that
contradicts Christianity. For it was believed by Christians at that time that any idea in
contradiction to the Christian beliefs as the self revelation of God was heresy. He knew
that any new ideas were always dictated by prior Christian claim to the truth. He saw new
philosophical ideas as playing a secondary role to the religious revelation. Nonetheless,
Augustine was successful in his aim of getting Platonic ideas absorbed into the Church's
view of the nature of reality. In his philosophical reasoning, he was greatly influenced
by Stoicism, Platonism, and Neoplatonism, particularly by the work of Plotinus, author of
the Enneads, probably through the mediation of Porphyry and Victorinus. His generally
favorable view of Neoplatonic thought contributed to the "baptism" of Greek thought
and its entrance into the Christian and subsequently the European intellectual tradition.

Augustine remains a central figure both within Christianity and in the history of Western
thought, and is considered by modern historian Thomas Cahill to be "almost the last
great classical man — very nearly the first medieval man." [31] Thomas Aquinas took much
from Augustine's theology while creating his own unique synthesis of Greek and
Christian thought after the widespread rediscovery of the work of Aristotle. Augustine's
early and influential writing on the human will, a central topic in ethics, would become a
focus for later philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche.
Assessment
Augustine made many important, lasting contributions for Christian theology. He is
perhaps "the most influential Christian thinker of all time outside of the New
Testament."[32] The central role of Augustine in Western Christianity is perhaps
comparable to that of Moses in Judaism. Like Moses led the Israelites towards the land
of Canaan from their 400-year slavery in Egypt by encouraging them to stay away
from idol-worshipping, Augustine led the Christians towards the City of God from their
400-year persecution in the Roman Empire by encouraging them to stay away from
various heresies. It can be argued, of course, that Emperor Constantine the Great, who
publicly recognized Christianity in 313, or Emperor Theodosius I, who declared
Christianity as the state religion in 392, was more influential than Augustine. But,
Constantine and Theodosius may have used Christianity merely as a means for political
unity. By contrast, Augustine's theological teachings as bishop of Hippo were developed
after his spiritual conversion from his Hellenistic upbringing and education, and had a
more powerful and lasting influence. Especially his defense of Christianity from those
pagan accusations of it which were occasioned by Alaric's sack of Rome in 410, as seen
in The City of God, his major work, has been influential because it, showing a profound
view of providential history, has given Augustine an image of true defender and even
liberator of the Christians.

His theology, however, has received various criticisms. At least three of them are major
ones, and one can defend him from them in fairness to him:

 The first major criticism is that his theological thinking, when combining
Christianity with philosophical tools, is many times not as articulate and
systematic. This can be addressed by understanding that Augustine as a Platonist
was seeking "wisdom" (sapientia) from the subsisting ideas in God prior to any
"knowledge" (scientia) of temporal things in the world. He was thus presenting
broad theological and philosophical themes based on wisdom rather than exact
positions.
 The second one usually is that Augustine started, in an authoritarian way, the
tradition of using force to bring back heretics. But, a careful reading of all his anti-
Donatist writings would show that that criticism may not be as persuasive.
Augustine apparently understood the use of force to be based on love, although
it can be said that unfortunately the Church later ended up abusing it without a
sense of love.

 The third major one is that his doctrine of predestination in its distinction
between the elect and the reprobate would present a merciless God for the
 reprobate. But, this criticism usually stems from a misunderstanding of
Augustine's real position, which, as has been seen above, does reconcile
predestination and free will through divine foreknowledge, and which therefore
can theoretically secure the possibility of the salvation of the reprobate. It is quite
important to know that Augustine's doctrine of predestination is different from
the predestinarianism of Calvin.

Some of the other criticisms constitute points of debate even today:

 First of all, Augustine's view of evil as non-being, which much of the Christian
tradition has accepted, may not be able to explain the virulent reality of evil in
which evil is experienced as substantially so powerful as to injure and kill people
as in the Holocaust. Many people including the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung,
therefore, have disagreed with Augustine's non-being theme of evil. Common
sense tells us that when a knife, for example, is used to murder someone, it
actually exerts a substantial force of evil, but that when it is used to peel an apple,
it exerts a substantial force of goodness. So, while the knife itself as a being seems
to be neither good nor evil, its becoming substantially good or evil is determined
by a purpose or direction for which it is used. So, Augustine's thesis that the knife
itself as a being is good, and that evil is simply the privation of its being with
respect of measure, form, and order, which is non-substantial, seems not to be
able to explain our actual experiences properly.
 Second, his doctrine of free will, which attributes the possibility of moral evil only
to free will, may have ignored the role of temptation from outside of free will in
the act of sinning, thus not recognizing the collaboration of Satan, let alone
Satan's enticement of illicit love mentioned by some Church Fathers such
as Clement of Alexandria and Ambrose. Given his emphasis on the seriousness
of original sin, and given his later description of solidarity within the earthly City,
this neglect of any evil influence or temptation is simply inconsistent. The
American Social Gospel theologian Water Rauschenbusch criticized this aspect of
the Augustinian tradition for treating sin merely as a matter of an individual
person's "private transaction," and suggested that instead there are "super-
personal forces of evil," although he believed that whether Satan actually exists or
not may not be an important issue today. [33]

 Third, Augustine's doctrine of original sin may have come largely from his
background of Platonic realism, not being completely biblical. His Platonic realism
is evident in his assertion that when Adam fell, all his descendents also fell
because of their close ontological connection with him through the common
essence of human nature in which all humans participate. This view of the
solidarity of humankind as regards original sin does not have to bring in Satan as
 the center of original sin, much less what could be called Satan's lineage. Hence,
Augustine's explanation of the transmission of original sin has recourse only to
concupiscence at best, precluding Paul's biblical notion of the influential power of
Satan behind it: "Paul would have rejected Augustine’s idea of biological
transmission. Paul presents a scenario in which humanity is held captive by a spirit
being who enslaves them to sin (2 Corinthians 4:4–6; Ephesians 2:1–2). According
to Paul, the entire world is held captive to 'the prince of the power of the air,' or
Satan."[34]

 Fourth, Augustine's doctrine of marriage, which prefers virginity to marriage, may

not have appreciated the goodness of marriage enough perhaps because of his
Platonic dualism which does not appreciate matter or flesh as much. His emphasis
on the problem of concupiscence after Adam's fall is understandable. But, if male
and female humans were both created in the image of God, it may be argued that
marriage without concupiscence is a real possibility in a restored realm of
"original righteousness." Marriage is a popular subject of discussion in Christianity
today, presenting a more positive view bridging spirituality and sexuality. Married
priesthood is a controversial and more widespread topic of discussion in
Catholicism today. But, Augustine's doctrine of marriage seems not to be able to
provide any new answers.

 Fifth, Augustine's view of the City of God as in heaven and not on the earth has
often been questioned. Weren't many earlier Church Fathers such as St. Irenaeus,
who were combating the otherworldly heresy of gnosticism, expecting God's
kingdom to come on the earth, because God had promised the earth
to Abraham? So, it can be said that when King Charlemagne, who reportedly
loved to read Augustine's The City of God, mistakenly assumed that it was
referring to God's kingdom on the earth, his mistake made sense.

 Sixth, as was already discussed above, Augustine may have too sharply contrasted
between time and eternity, and therefore between the changeable realm of
creation and the unchangeable realm of God. It is not only the Neo-Thomist
philosopher Etienne Gilson but also Whiteheadian philosophers that have
criticized this point. One simple question: If God creates a world sharply separated
from himself, can it be his real partner of love to communicate with? Or, is the
purpose of creation simply for him to stay aloof from the world?

 In sum, it can be said that Augustine's Platonic and/or Neoplatonic bias gave rise
to elements of inadequacy in his views on various subjects such as evil, free will,
original sin, marriage, the City of God, and time and eternity, although there is no
doubt that this bias also constituted a positive contribution to the formation of
his profound theology.
Writings
Books

 On Christian Doctrine, 397-426 C.E.

 Confessions, 397-398

 The City of God, begun c. 413, finished 426

 On the Trinity, 400-416

 Enchiridion

 Retractions

At the end of his life (c. 426-428) Augustine revisited his previous works in
chronological order and suggested what he would have said differently in a work
titled the Retractions, giving the reader a rare picture of the development of a
writer and his final thoughts.

 The Literal Meaning of Genesis

 On Free Choice of the Will

Letters

Numerous.

See also
 Predestination
 Free will

 Pelagianism

 Constantinian shift

 Filioque

 Scholasticism

 Truth
Proclus Lycaeus (February 8, 412 - April 17, 485), surnamed "The Successor" or
"diadochos" (Greek Πρόκλος ὁ Διάδοχος Próklos ho Diádokhos), was the last
major Greek Neoplatonist philosopher. His systematized and refined the cosmologies
of Plotinus and Iamblichus, and produced one of the most elaborate, complex, and fully
developed Neoplatonic systems. His careful documentation of early Greek
mathematicians in his commentary on Euclid’s Elements of Geometry is a valuable
historical source.

Proclus’ greatest concern was the elevation of the human soul to unity with its divine
origins. Believing that reason could dominate the physical passions but was incapable of
grasping higher levels of spiritual knowledge, he promoted theurgy, the use of material
objects and mathematical symbols in religious rites intended to awaken the soul to its
own divinity. His works influenced later Christian (Greek and Latin), Islamic,
and Jewish thought. His ideas were adapted by Pseudo-Dionysius to add a new
dimension to Christian theology, and translations of his works were widely studied by
medieval and Renaissance scholars.

Life
Proclus was born 410 or 411 C.E. (his birth year is deduced from a horoscope cast by a
disciple, Marinus) in Constantinople to a high-ranking family from Lycia. His father,
Patricius, was a prominent legal official in the court system of the Byzantine Empire.
Proclus was raised in Xanthus, on the south coast of Lycia. He went to Alexandria, in
Egypt, and studied rhetoric, philosophy, and mathematics with the intention of pursuing
a judicial position like his father. During his studies, he returned to Constantinople with
his mentor Leonas, who had business there, and successfully practiced law for a short
time. From this experience he realized that he preferred philosophy to law. He returned
to Alexandria, and began a determined study of the works of Aristotle under
Olympiodorus the Elder, and of mathematics under a teacher named Heron (no relation
to Hero of Alexandria).

Eventually, dissatisfied with the level of philosophical instruction available in Alexandria,

Proclus went to Athens in 431 to study at the Academy founded eight hundred years
earlier (387 B.C.E.) by Plato. There he was taught by Plutarch of Athens and Syrianus; in
450 he succeeded Syrianus as head of the Academy and received the
title diadochus ("successor" to Plato). He lived in Athens for the remainder of his life,
except for one year of voluntary exile to escape political pressures. He spent his exile
traveling in Asia and being initiated into various mystery cults, before returning to his
post at the Academy in Athens. His biographers report that he was very active; every day
he gave five lectures or discussions, and wrote seven hundred lines. Proclus never
married; he was prosperous, gave generously to his friends, and was much sought after
as a scholar and adviser. He was a vegetarian and practiced theurgy and a number of
religious rites, including the annual observation of the birthdays of Plato and Socrates,
fasting in honor of the Egyptian gods, and monthly ceremonies for the Great Mother.
Simplicius, writing one hundred years later, reported that all of the philosophers who
associated with Proclus accepted his doctrine except for his student Asclepiodorus, who
remained a free thinker and skeptic.

Proclus died April 17, 485, and was buried in a tomb next to his teacher Syrianus, not far
from Mount Lycabettus. An epigram on the tomb reads: "I am Proclus, Lycian whom
Syrianus brought up to teach his doctrine after him. This tomb reunites both our bodies.
May an identical sejourn be reserved to our both souls!"

Works
Proclus was a systematic writer, able to sustain clarity through long and elaborate
explanations. His works provided a careful recapitulation of the views of his
predecessors, as well as his own astute analysis. Since many of his original sources were
later lost, his writings provide a valuable record of ancient thought.

Proclus believed the true philosopher should pay homage to the gods of all nations, and
become "a priest of the entire universe." He defended paganism and opposed
Christianity, with its doctrine that the world was finite. His open-minded approach gave
his philosophical system a richness and depth that provided inspiration for many future
thinkers.

The majority of Proclus' works are presented as commentaries on the dialogues

of Plato (Alcibiades, Cratylus, Parmenides, Republic, Timaeus). Like other Neoplatonists,
Proclus presented his own philosophical system, which was much more elaborate and
complex, as a faithful interpretation of Plato. He considered the Platonic texts to be
divinely inspired (ho theios Platon, “the divine Plato”), and believed that they contained a
deeper meaning which was hidden from the philosophically uninitiated.

Proclus also wrote a valuable commentary on the first book of Euclid's Elements of
Geometry. This commentary is one of the most complete surviving sources for the
history of ancient mathematics, presenting an overview of one thousand years of Greek
mathematics. Its Platonic account of the status of mathematical objects was very
influential.
In addition to his commentaries, Proclus wrote two major systematic works. The Elements
of Theology is a singular work in the history of ancient philosophy. It consists of
211 Neoplatonic propositions, each followed by a proof, beginning from the existence of
the One (the first principle of all things) and ending with the descent of individual souls
into the material world. The Platonic Theology is a systematization of material from
Platonic dialogues, illustrating the characteristics of the divine orders, the part of the
universe closest to the One.

Hypotyposis introduced the astronomical theories of Hipparchus and Ptolemy and

described the mathematical theory of the planets based on epicycles and on eccentrics.
Proclus gave a geometrical proof that the epicycle theory of planetary movement (in
which Earth is the center of a circle with smaller circles rotating around its circumference)
is equivalent to the eccentric theory (in which the planets move in circles which do not
have Earth as the center).

Three small works, Ten Doubts Concerning Providence, On Providence and Fate, and On
the Existence of Evils are extant only in Latin translation.

Proclus was a poet as well as philosopher and mathematician, and wrote a number of
religious hymns.

Philosophy
Cosmology

Proclus, like the other Neoplatonists, combined Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic elements
in his thought. He refined and systematized the elaborate metaphysical speculations
of Iamblichus. In contrast to the skeptic position that the material universe is outside the
human consciousness and can only be known through sensory impressions, the
Neoplatonists emphasized the underlying unity of all things and placed the human soul
and the material universe in a hierarchy of emanation from a universal being, in which
every level is a reflection of that being.

The One

In Neoplatonism, the first principle is the One (to Hen). Since the One produces all Being,
it cannot itself be a being. The One is also beyond thought, because thinking requires
the determinations which belong to being: The division between subject and object, and
the distinction of one thing from another. Even the appellation "the One" is derived from
his own inadequate conception of the simplicity of the first principle. The One confers
unity on all things through forms, the intangible essences (ideas) which give each being
its unique qualities. Neoplatonists thought of the One as the source of the good, or
perfection, of everything.

Proclus inserted a level of individual “ones,” called henads between the ultimate One and
the divine Intellect, which is the second principle. The henads are beyond being, like the
One itself, but they stand at the head of chains of causation (seirai or taxeis) and in some
manner give to these chains their particular character. They are also identified with the
traditional Greek gods, so one henad might be Apollo and be the cause of all things
apollonian, while another might be Helios and be the cause of all "sunny" things. The
henads serve both to protect the One itself from any hint of multiplicity, and to draw up
the rest of the universe towards the One, by being a connecting, intermediate stage
between absolute unity and determinate multiplicity.

The “One” of Proclus resembles a combination of the Platonic Form of the Good, which
confers being and intelligibility on all things, and Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, which is
the "final cause" of all things.

Between the One and the henads (some scholars place it after the henads) are the two
principles of First Limit (peras, oneness) and First Infinity (apeiron).

Intellect

According to Proclus, the One produces a divine mind, Intellect (nous), which exists
below the level of the henads. Intellect is both Thinking and Being. As Being, Intellect is
the product of the One. In Thinking, the Intellect attempts to grasp its cause, the One, as
its Good (perfection). The simplicity of the One does not allow the Intellect to grasp it, so
the Intellect generates a succession of different perspectives of the One, which are the
Platonic Forms, the first determinations into which all things fall.

Plotinus and Iamblichus spoke of the Intellect’s attempt to return to the One by Thinking
as a form of desiring. Proclus systematized this concept into a three-fold motion of
remaining (or abiding), procession, and return (mone, proodos, epistrophe). Intellect
remains in the One, as its origin. It proceeds from the One, coming into being as a
separate entity. Simultaneously it returns to the One, so that it does not separate from
its source, but receives its identity, its good (ideal state of being), from the One. Proclus
extended this three-fold motion of remaining, procession, and return to all the levels of
being between the One and matter.

Proclus elaborated his account of Intellect much farther than Plotinus had. Plotinus’
account of Intellect distinguished between Being and Thinking; Proclus added a third
distinction in keeping with the structure of remaining, procession, and return. Intellect
was distinguished into Intellectual (the thinking subject), Intelligible (the object of
thought), and Intelligible-Intellectual (the capacity of the object to be grasped by the
thinking subject). These three distinctions were further elaborated: The intelligible was a
triad of Being, Eternity, and the Living Being (or Paradigm, from Plato's Timaeus); the
intelligible-intellectual moment was also a triad; and the intellectual moment was a
hebdomad (seven elements) including the Demiurge from Plato's Timaeus and also the
monad of Time (which is before temporal things). Proclus attempted give a hierarchical
order to the various metaphysical elements and principles of earlier philosophers have
discussed.

Proclus' universe unfolded from unity to multiplicity in the smallest possible steps. With
Intellect emerged the multiplicity which allowed one being to be different from another
being. As a divine mind, Intellect had a complete grasp of all its moments in one act of
thought, and was therefore outside of Time. As the second principle, Intellect also gave
rise to individual intellects which occupied various positions within the cosmos. Each
level of the hierarchy “participated” in the level above it, and each level had a “universal”
aspect, its Unparticipated Monad, which which was the culmination and unity of all the
levels below it.

Soul

Soul (Psyche) was the third principle in the Neoplatonic system, produced by Intellect.
Like Intellect, it was a mind, but it did grasp all of its own content as once. Therefore
Time came into existence, as a measure of Soul's movement from one object of thought
to another. Intellect tried to grasp the One, and produced its own ideas as its content.
Soul attempted to grasp Intellect in its return, and ended up producing its own
secondary unfoldings of the Forms in Intellect. Soul, in turn, produced Body, the material
world.

In his commentary on Plato's Timaeus Proclus explained the role of the Soul as a
principle in mediating the Forms in Intellect to the body of the material world. The Soul
is constructed through certain portions, described mathematically in the Timaeus, which
allow it to make Body as a divided image of its own arithmetical and geometrical ideas.

Individual souls had the same basic structure as the principle of Soul, but they were
fascinated with the material world, overpowered by it, and united with a material body
through birth. In an embodied soul, passions had a tendency to overwhelm reason.
According to Proclus, philosophy was the activity which could liberate the soul from
being subject to bodily passions; remind it of its origin in Soul, Intellect, and the One;
and prepare it not only to ascend to the higher levels while still in this life, but to avoid
falling immediately back into a new body after death.

The highest goal, however, was not the elevation of reason, but unity of the individual
soul with the Intellect. The faculty of reason belonged to the level of the individual soul
and therefore could not elevate it beyond this level. Proclus believed that the practice of
theurgy directed the attention of an embodied soul towards its origin in the intelligible
world. The characteristics of the gods (the henads) were imprinted on each level of their
series of causation down to the material world. By contemplating certain objects and
symbols, and performing certain rites, the soul could rediscover these characteristics in
itself and gradually ascend the causal series to its origin. The rites of theurgy also
attracted the assistance, or elevating power, of the appropriate henads. Proclus himself
was a devotee of all of the pagan cults in Athens, considering that the power of the gods
was present in all these various ways.

Ethics

For Neoplatonists, an understanding of the cosmos was a necessary guide to achieving a

life of goodness, and therefore, happiness. Since the “One” was also the “Good,” the
goodness of anything could be determined by how well it reflected its origin and fulfilled
its purpose in nature. Proclus took an interest in diverse subjects, and also perceived
music and literary works such as Homer as sources of truth.

Influence
Proclus was the last major Greek philosopher, and was influential in spreading
Neoplatonic ideas throughout the post-pagan Byzantine, Islamic, and Roman worlds.

Proclus' works had a great influence on the history of western philosophy. Around
500 C.E., a Christian Neoplatonist presenting himself as Dionysius the Aeropagite, an
Athenian convert of St. Paul, wrote several treatises and letters adapting Proclus’
cosmology and his ideas regarding religious purification to a Christian world view. The
writings of Pseudo-Dionysius were regarded as having almost apostolic authority, and
made their way into the doctrine of the Christian church.

Boethius's (480–525) Consolation of Philosophy, written in prison while awaiting

execution, contains several principles and themes drawn from Proclus. The central poem
of Book III is a precis of Proclus' Commentary on the Timaeus, and Book V contains the
principle that things are known not according to their own nature, but according to the
character of the knowing subject. Consolation of Philosophy was popular at the court of
King Charlemagne during the ninth century and was later translated into English
by Chaucer. It was studied throughout Europe from the fifteenth century onwards.

A summary of Proclus' Elements of Theology circulated under the name Liber de

Causis (the Book of Causes) in the Arabic world as a work of Aristotle. When translated
into Latin it had great authority because of its supposed Aristotelian origin, and it was
only when Proclus' Elements were translated into Latin that Thomas Aquinas realized its
true source. In the thirteenth century, William of Moerbeke's Latin translation of
the Elements of Theology (as Institutio Theologica) became the principal sources for
medieval knowledge of Platonic philosophy, and helped to lay the foundation for
the Renaissance revival of Neoplatonism.

The German-Jewish scholar Leo Baeck (1873-1956) suggested that the Gnostic-Proto-
Kabbalistic text, the Sefer Yetzirah, "in its thought as well as in its terminology, is
dependent upon the teaching of Proclus, the last great Neoplatonist. Furthermore, the
decisive passages of the Sefer Yetzirah are none other than the transference of this
Greek scholastic's system into Jewish thought and biblical language."

Proclus' works also exercised an influence during the Renaissance through figures such
as George Gemistios Plethon and Marsilio Ficino. Before the contemporary period, the
most ardent promoter of Proclus in the English speaking world was Thomas Taylor, who
produced English translations of a number of his works.

The works of Proclus inspired the New England Transcendentalists, including Ralph
Waldo Emerson, who declared in 1843 that, in reading Proclus, "I am filled with hilarity &
spring, my heart dances, my sight is quickened, I behold shining relations between all
beings, and am impelled to write and almost to sing."

The Moon's Proclus Crater is named after him.

Simplicius of Cilicia

Simplicius (c. 470 – c. 560), a disciple of Ammonius Hermiae and of Damascius, was one
of the last of the Greek Neoplatonists and polymaths, and an important commentator
on Aristotle. A native of Cilicia, he was active in the Academy at Athens, under the
leadership of Damascius, when it was closed forever in 529 by the Christian
emperor Justinian.
Simplicius’ learned commentaries on Aristotle's De caelo (“On the Heavens”), Physics, De
anima (“On the Soul”), and Categories not only provided thoughtful insight into
Aristotelian teachings, but preserved valuable fragments of the works of older
philosophers as well as of his immediate predecessors. He attempted to demonstrate
that most Greek philosophers, including some of the Presocratics, could be found to be
in agreement with NeoPlatonism. A man of great learning, Simplicius made
conscientious efforts to obtain reliable documents and to verify the historical accuracy of
his information. His commentary on Aristotle’s Physics is a valuable source for the history
of mathematics, containing lengthy quotations from lost works such as Eudemus' History
of Geometry.

Life
Simplicius was born in the second half of the fifth century in Cilicia, in southern Anatolia,
which had been a Roman province from the first century B.C.E. He is known to have
studied philosophy at the school of Ammonius Hermiae in Alexandria. Ammonius had
been a pupil of Proclus, and Eutocius dedicated his commentary on Book I of
Archimedes' On the sphere and cylinder to him. Ammonius devoted most of his life to
writing commentaries on Aristotle; later Simplicius himself wrote extensive commentaries
on Aristotle. From Alexandria, Simplicius went to Athens and studied under Damascius,
who had developed the NeoPlatonist ideas of Proclus in Problems and Solutions about
the First Principles.

Around 520, Damascius had become head of Plato's Academy. In 529 the Christian
emperor Justinian closed the Academy, along with all the other pagan schools, forever.
In 531 or 532, Damascius, Simplicius, Priscianus and four other members of the
Academy, resolved to seek the protection of Khosrau I, king of Persia, whose armies were
engaged in battle with Justinian’s troops along the Euphrates River. Khosrow was a
patron of culture and gave the Greek philosophers a warm welcome. However, they
found it difficult to endure continued residence amongst the Persians, whom they
considered barbarians. In 532, when the Treaty of Eternal Peace between Khosrow and
Justinian was ratified, Khosrow expressly stipulated that the seven philosophers should
be allowed "to return to their own homes, and to live henceforward in the enjoyment of
liberty of conscience" (Agathias, 30, 31). Agathias, a Byzantine poet and contemporary
historian, writing after Justinian’s death, said that the treaty guaranteed that the
philosophers were not to be compelled to accept anything against their personal
conviction, and they were never to be prevented from living according to their own
philosophical doctrine. Life might not have been as easy for Simplicius after his return to
Athens as Agathias suggested, but there is evidence that he remained in Athens for the
rest of his life, writing but not lecturing. His works were written, not as spoken
discourses, but as careful reflections on the writings of Aristotle.

Thought and Works

Simplicius witnessed the closing of the Academy in Athens by the Christian emperor
Justinian, after almost nine hundred years of unbroken philosophical tradition. A
devout pagan, he tried to defend traditional Greek religion and philosophy against the
inroads of Christianity. He was not an original thinker, but his remarks were thoughtful
and intelligent and his learning was prodigious. His commentaries on Aristotle were
based on the accumulated scientific and philosophical developments of the ancient
Greek philosophers, and were full of quotations and references which preserved
fragments from the works of thinkers such as Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras,
Eudemus and the Stoics which were otherwise lost. He not only clarified the teachings of
Aristotle, but provided references and explanations that illustrate the ways in which
these doctrines were interpreted and criticized in antiquity. Simplicius attempted to
demonstrate that most Greek philosophers, including some of the Presocratics, could be
found to be in agreement with NeoPlatonism. His commentaries influenced the
interpretation of Aristotle’s philosophy during the Middle Ages, when it became
incorporated into the theologies of Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

His commentaries are invaluable to students of Greek philosophy, as they contain so

many fragments of the older philosophers as well as of his immediate predecessors.
Simplicius acknowledged his debt to other philosophers, especially to
Alexander, Iamblichus, and Porphyry, and always presented his commentaries as nothing
more than introductions to the works of greater masters. His conscientious efforts to
obtain reliable documents and to verify the historical accuracy of his information adds to
the value of his contributions.

The earliest of his surviving works is thought to be his commentary

on Epictetus's Enchiridion, which might have been written while Simplicius was still in
Alexandria, but was more probably written in Persia around 532. It preceded his first
commentary on Aristotle, which was on De Caelo. In addition to these and his
commentaries on Aristotle's Physics, De anima (“On the Soul”), and Categories, a treatise
on quadratures is extant.

Mathematics

Simplicius’ commentaries on Aristotle’s De Caelo and Physics are particularly valuable for
the history of mathematics. The commentary on De Caelo , quoting passages from
Eudemus's History of Astronomy which are taken second-hand from the writings of
Sosigenes (second century C.E.), gives a detailed account of the concentric spheres of
Eudoxus and relates the modifications to the theory made later by Callippus. The
commentary on Aristotle's Physics quotes at length from Eudemus's History of Geometry,
which has since been lost. Simplicius repeats Eudemus’ description of Antiphon's
attempts to square the circle, and also the way in which Hippocrates squared certain
lunes. Simplicius’ commentary on Physics, also preserves important fragments from
Geminus's summary of Posidonius's Meteorologica.

A surviving Arabic translation of Simplicius’ commentary on Euclid's Elements does not

contain an attempt at a proof of the parallel postulate by Simplicius himself, but there is
evidence that Simplicius did attempt such a proof. Apparently his attempted proof was
taken up by Arabic mathematicians, who criticized it and then included it in a new proof
of their own which has been preserved in Arabic manuscripts